Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - contravention of Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989.

[2014]JRC139

Royal Court

(Samedi)

27 June 2014

The Attorney General

-v-

States Employment Board

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

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

A 16-year old pupil fell 15 feet from a rocky outcrop onto tarmac path below during a CCF activity being undertaken on school grounds, during school hours, under the supervision of a school teacher.  The pupil suffered nasty fracture to wrist and head injuries.  Prognosis re head injuries unclear at time of sentencing but the pupil had been unable to return to Victoria College after the accident or pursue his chosen career.  SEB delegated some of its functions to the Chief Officer for Education, Sport and Culture, who in turn delegated day-to-day responsibility for health and safety on the school premises to the Headmaster.  At interview, SEB claimed that the responsibility for health and safety of pupils whilst participating in CCF activities rested with the Ministry of Defence.  SEB had failed to recognise that CCF is part of the school; that all CCF activities took place under the authority of the Headmaster and thus the overall statutory duty rested with SEB.  No risk assessment had ever been undertaken of the area from where the pupil fell during the CCF activity.  This failure was despite the risk being obvious and foreseeable, the area having been identified on the school cartography map as "high rock" and the school's orienteering course being designed to ensure participants avoided the "high rock" area. 

Details of Mitigation:

Admitted infraction on indictment. 

Previous Convictions:

Two previous convictions for breach of Health & Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989. 

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Mrs S. Sharpe., Crown Advocate.

Advocate L. A. Ingram for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        The States Employment Board is charged and has pleaded guilty to one offence under Article 5(1) of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989 in that it did not conduct its undertaking in such a way so as to ensure as far as reasonably practicable that a person who was there on the premises at Victoria College, Fabian Amy, a pupil, was not exposed to a risk to his health or  safety and the circumstances were that he had fallen a distance of approximately 15 feet from a rocky outcrop above a tarmacked middle woodland path in the grounds of the premises.  This was an area which the college knew to be a dangerous area because it was marked as high rock on the school cartography map and a school orientation course which took place in the school grounds, was specifically designed to avoid this high rocky area so it was clearly recognised to be a dangerous area. 

2.        The accident occurred in the course of a CCF activity which was designed somewhat at the last moment because the intended CCF activities could not take place in the areas where first planned and, as was said by the Crown Advocate, the key point in this prosecution is that no risk assessment was conducted in respect of the CCF activity which was then adopted at short notice in the circumstances. 

3.        We think the Crown is right to say that the CCF is part of the school and all CCF activities take place under the authority of the Headmaster and the overall duty therefor ultimately rests with States Employment Board as the Headmaster's employer.  At the time of the accident the pupil was taking part in a activity under the direct instruction and supervision of a school teacher within school time on school grounds and he suffered serious injuries when he fell; a nasty fracture of his wrist and some head injuries, albeit we have noted from the medical report that the extent of the connection between the accident and the head injuries may not yet have been fully ascertained. 

4.        There was initially some thought that perhaps the College had not fully appreciated that it was the College's responsibility to maintain appropriate health and safety standards and not a question for the Ministry of Defence because of its CCF responsibilities but it is clear from what Advocate Ingram has said to us that the College absolutely accepted that it was responsible for health and safety albeit that it has certainly anticipated that the poor training and the documents available through the CCF might have guided the teachers responsible at the relevant times.  Certainly we approach it on the basis that this was a College responsibility. 

5.        It is said to us by Crown Advocate Sharpe that this is the third offence in five years for the States Employment Board and we should therefore take that into account in our sentencing decision.  We have given careful consideration to this but we do not think that the States Employment Board should be treated as having a bad record in this case.  It carries a legal responsibility but the health and safety record of the underlined department, the Department of Education, Sport and Culture, and of Victoria College, is good and in this case the problems arose not from some high level problems which one would therefore attribute to the health and safety shortcomings in the States Employment Board or in the Department of Education, Sport and Culture but mostly from what turned out to be a poor decision in difficult circumstances or perhaps an acceptable decision but one which was inadequately implemented.  Nonetheless, as we have said earlier, this was a dangerous area and the danger of it should have been made apparent across the school teaching fraternity and therefor the teacher in charge of the CCF activity should have been aware of it and should have ensured that the danger was drawn to the attention of the pupils or the students who were undertaking that activity. 

6.        The fact is that regardless of the connection between the present injuries which this student very unfortunately sustained and the accident, the consequences could have been fatal and therefore that emphasises that health and safety considerations must be taken extremely seriously.  The Court is impressed by what the College has put in place since the accident and indeed that demonstrates that health and safety matters are taken seriously both by the College and, we have no doubt, by the Education, Sport and Culture Department as well.  So it is against that background that we have to assess what is the right fine to impose, on the one hand noting the very serious potential for injury in the arrangements that were put in place here, and on the other noting a good safety record, the fact that it has been well addressed after the accident and the difficulties which the teacher in question found himself in at the time. 

7.        We think the right fine to impose is £20,000 and £5,000 prosecution costs and we so order. 

Authorities

Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989.

AG v Coastline PVCu Products Limited and States Employment Board [2009] JRC 152.

AG v States Employment Board [2010] JLR N 47.

AG v States Employment Board [2010] JRC 205.

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

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