Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - contravention of Article 21 of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989, as amended.

[2012]JRC225

Royal Court

(Samedi)

30 November 2012

The Attorney General

-v-

Peter Green (Builders) Limited

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

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant is a medium-sized construction company which, at the time of a question and answer interview, employed 22 persons and had an annual turnover of £2.6 million.  The defendant was contracted to carry out construction work at Beaulieu School which included redevelopment of the main school building and construction of a new 4-storey lift and fire escape.  An employee, Mr McClelland, was undertaking snagging work.  Water ingress had been found in the pit of the new lift shaft and Mr McClelland was required to carry out a "dye test" to ascertain provenance of water penetration.  This required him to access a box gutter, located at a significant height and running along the join of the new lift shaft building and existing pitched roof.  Mr McClelland placed a triple extension ladder on the landing of the lift stairwell to access the skylight.  Having emerged through the skylight and standing on the new flat roof of the lift shaft, a second employee passed him up a single length of ladder, a hose, a sand bag and dye.  Mr McClelland then lowered the single length of ladder onto the existing pitched roof beside the new lift shaft and attempted to climb down whilst the second employee held the top of the ladder.  The ladder slipped and Mr McClelland fell, suffering serious spinal injury which ultimately required surgical treatment in London to the fuse the vertebrae in his spine. 

The defendant said Mr McClelland should not have been on the roof.  Mr McClelland had 30 years' experience in the construction industry and said he had been told to carry out the dye test.  He said the defendant knew that the only access was via the skylight. 

The method used was inherently unsafe and exposed both the employees to significant risk.  The defendant failed to ensure the employees were provided with safe systems of work and adequate information/supervision to ensure they did not place themselves at risk.  The defendant failed to envisage what could go wrong when the employees, in good faith, tried to assist their employer and proceed with work which had not been properly planned. 

Details of Mitigation:

Admitted infraction on Indictment.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total: £20,000 plus costs of £2,500 and 3 months in which to pay.

Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate L. A. Ingram for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        It is clear from what we have been told that the company in this case left Mr McClelland to get on with the contract and he was given insufficient support, guidance and supervision.  As a result, when attending to a snagging problem, Mr McClelland and his colleague adopted an unsafe practice in using an unfixed ladder to gain access to a gutter; the unfortunate consequence was that he fell 11 feet and suffered a fracture to the vertebrae in his back.  He remains in considerable pain and has clearly suffered a serious injury. 

2.        We accept that the company was lulled into a false sense of security because of Mr McClelland's very considerable experience and expertise.  But the fact is that it was the company's duty to provide a safe system of work and they failed in that duty to Mr McClelland and their other employees.  However, we accept that this is a company which takes its obligations seriously, we have been shown the training programme and that has been accentuated since this accident; it does not have a previous record, it has been cooperative and it entered an early guilty plea.  We accept from what we have been told that this was not a case of a company seeking to save money by not taking its obligations seriously.  We think the facts of this case are not dissimilar to those of the case of AG-v-Hamel Brothers Limited and the Jersey Royal Company Limited [2012] JRC 080.  The company failed in its obligation, it in effect left the employees to look after themselves, and it must therefore be fined.  But we agree with Advocate Ingram that in the circumstances we can properly reduce the level of fine.

3.        The company is fined the sum of £20,000 together with costs of £2,500 and we give you three months in which to pay. 

Authorities

Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 19989, as amended.

AG-v-Hamel Brothers Limited and the Jersey Royal Company Limited [2010] JRC 080.

AG-v-R&M Sprinkler Installations Limited and SFS Fire Services Limited t/a Hall and Kay Fire Engineering [2011] JRC 139.

R-v-F Howe & Son (Engineers) Ltd [1999] 2 Cr App R (S) 37.