Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC032A

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

4^th February 2011

The Attorney General

-v-

W. M. Staite Limited

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The company was carrying out repair and refurbishment work on an industrial shed, replacing 75 roof lights in a fragile roof.  Three employees were working on the roof when the Director of the company visited the site and came onto the roof.  As he stepped onto the board which was placed on top of the roof sheet, the roof sheet fractured and he fell a distance of 4.15 metres to the ground below and suffered serious injury.  Fortunately he made a good recovery.  The three other employees had been exposed to significant risk.  The system of work was inherently unsafe and not in accordance with the 1970 Regulations or industry guidance which prescribe adequate crawling boards, edge protection and fall arrest/prevention systems.  The company had been warned by Health and Safety Inspectorate on two previous occasions in 2006 and 2007 that their system of work was unacceptable. The visit in September 2006 had necessitated a Prohibition Notice. 

Details of Mitigation:

Prompt admission of liability and early plea; good character; good safety record; good references.  Two charges very similar; arose out of same facts.  Had taken active steps to ensure compliance with Health and Safety legislation and guidelines by employing a UK Health and Safety consultant.  Director himself had suffered injury and the need to comply with Health and Safety legislation had been dramatically brought home to him. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Costs £2,500

Total: £27,500 with 6 months in which to pay. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Costs: £2,500.

Total:  £22,500 with 6 months in which to pay. 

Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. J. Dorey for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        It is clear that the company in this case had used the system which was used on this particular occasion many times previously.  The company had a small, regular team of employees who were very experienced and who were happy with that system and applied it carefully.  Nevertheless, it is clear that the system did not comply with the requirements of both paragraphs 1 and 2 of Regulation 82 of the Construction Safety Provisions (Jersey) Regulations 1970 because when Mr Staite, the beneficial owner and principal director of the company, came to visit the site, and stepped or jumped rather heavily from the hoist onto one of the boards, the entire roof, which was being repaired, gave way and Mr Staite fell to the ground thereby injuring himself.  It is clear that there should have been netting underneath the roof to prevent this occurring.  In some ways it was fortuitous that it was Mr Staite as director and beneficial owner who fell and suffered injury rather than one of his employees. 

2.        The Attorney General says that there was an aggravating feature in this case, in that back in 2006 there had been a warning to the company of the need for complete netting; it was using netting on that occasion but apparently it was not complete.  For whatever reason no netting was used on this occasion and no netting had been used regularly by the company on its repair work. 

3.        Miss Dorey points out that the two charges in this appear to be very similar and we are inclined to agree.  She says that there should be a nominal fine on one.  However we cannot agree with that.  The fact is that there were breaches of the Regulation in two respects and therefore there must be a fine in both respects; but we agree that the right way to look at this is to fix upon the overall fine for the overall failings of the company and then divide it between the two charges. 

4.        Miss Dorey has put forward a number of matters in mitigation.  She refers first of all to the company's good record with no previous convictions and its full acceptance of guilt and cooperation with the Health and Safety Department in this case.  Secondly, she points out that repair work forms only a small part of the work carried out by this company; most of its work relates to new builds.  In relation to new builds the company has been very proactive in the Health and Safety field as she described.  Only about 5% of its work was repairs and for some reason it appears to have concentrated rather less on health and safety matters in relation to that work than in relation to the bulk of its work.  Thirdly, she pointed out the steps the company has taken, since the accident, to rectify the position and we are satisfied that it has indeed taken such steps.  A consultant has been appointed who has advised them on a number of matters, the Health and Safety manual has been completely rewritten and updated with the help of the consultant and there are new risk assessment procedures for different jobs, the employees have been sent on a course relating to some of the relevant matters and the company has also purchased new netting even though that was not essential. 

5.        She next points out that in the leading case of R-v-Howe & Sons (Engineers) Limited [1999] 2 Cr App R (S) 37 one of the important features mentioned in relation to fines was the need to bring the breach home to the company and its shareholders.  She pointed out that this had been brought home extremely clearly to the shareholder and company in this case, because Mr Staite is the sole beneficial owner and he was the one who suffered injury.  We have seen a medical report and it is clear that there is a risk of ongoing symptoms particularly in relation to the ankle injury.  All in all she submitted that we should reduce the level of the fine and we were also referred to the case of AG-v-Hamel Bros Ltd and Jersey Royal Company Ltd [2010] JRC 080. 

6.        We agree that the fines can be reduced slightly to take into account the circumstances of the offence and the mitigation described.  However, as the Court has said on previous occasions, it remains important that fines for breaches of this Law are sufficient to bring the matter home not only to the particular company, but also to other companies, so that attention is given to the health and safety of employees and others before an accident occurs rather than only afterwards.  So the fine must remain at an appropriate level. 

7.        In all the circumstances the Court's fine is as follows:- on Count 1; £10,000, on Count 2; £10,000, that makes a total of £20,000 with costs of £2,500 and we give the company six months to pay. 

Authorities

Construction Safety Provisions (Jersey) Regulations 1970.

R-v-Howe & Sons (Engineers) Limited [1999] 2 Cr App R (S) 37.

AG-v-Hamel Bros Ltd and Jersey Royal Company Ltd [2010] JRC 080.

R-v-Board of Trustees of the Science Museum [1993] 3 All ER 853.

Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1969.