Jersey Unreported Judgments

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

[2014]JRC142

Royal Court

(Samedi)

11 July 2014

The Attorney General

-v-

Sandpiper CI Limited

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

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The employee accessed dangerous parts of a moving conveyor belt through a gap in the guarding and tried to push the bread along.  His arm became caught and he sustained a 4-5 inch laceration to his left forearm which required surgical repair under general anaesthesia.  The wound healed well and, fortunately, the employee maintained motor and sensory function.  The employer had failed to carry out adequate risk assessment of the moving conveyor belt; failed to maintain safe plant by providing adequate guarding and failed to provide adequate information, instruction and supervision.  The employer's failure also placed it in breach of prescriptive requirements of 1967 Regulations because the moving parts of the machinery were not adequately or securely fenced. 

Details of Mitigation:

Admitted infractions on Indictment.  Good safety record.  Had been starting to introduce new health and safety measures when incident occurred.  Extremely co-operative with investigation.  Lulled into a false sense of security by relying on experienced employees to keep themselves safe in the bakery. The employee had recovered sufficiently to return to work within 3 weeks. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Contribution to the cost of the Prosecution: £3,500.

Total: £38,500.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Contribution to the cost of the Prosecution: £3,500.

Total: £33.500 with 14 days to pay.

Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate S. E. Fitz for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        It is clear that health and safety matters at the bakery were left largely to the management and employees of that division, many of whom had been there a long time, and had therefore perhaps grown careless of the risk of injury.  The upshot was that the interlocked gate had been removed in 2012 and not replaced, and the other guards were removed on a daily basis as and when there were production issues, and that allowed access to dangerous parts of the machinery.  That is what happened on this occasion; in order to move some of the bread the employee in question gained access and as a result his arm came into contact with a dangerous part and he suffered a 4-5 inch laceration of his left arm.  Fortunately there was no long-term serious injury apart from some scarring but it could so easily have been worse.  

2.        Advocate Fitz has argued that there is much to be said in mitigation.  She has pointed out that the company was extremely cooperative immediately afterwards, and we fully accept that; it took the matter seriously and endeavoured to rectify it.  It is a company which has a good record, it is a very large company but it has no previous convictions for health and safety infractions.  Thirdly she emphasised that senior management had perhaps been lulled into a false sense of security because this was slightly different from the mainstream business and had been run perfectly satisfactorily by the senior management for so long and they were the ones who knew all about it.  That was not an excuse but it was an explanation of how it came about.  She pointed also to the steps which the company took immediately afterwards to try and rectify the position and she also referred to the community projects which this company sponsors.  All in all, she submits, and we accept, that it is a company which takes a responsible attitude to health and safety matters and endeavours to do its best; it simply failed on this occasion. 

3.        For those reasons we think we can reduce the fine slightly but not perhaps as much as Advocate Fitz urged.  The fact is that this is a large company and fines have to be proportionate to the size of the company.  Something which is appropriate for a three-man band is clearly not appropriate for a company of this size, because a fine impacts on such companies in a completely different manner, which would be disproportionate if we did not recognise it.  So we think the fine has to be of sufficient size to bring the failure home to a company of this size.

4.        The decision therefore is a fine of £30,000 with £3,500 costs.  So on Count 1 the fine is £20,000 and on Count 2 the fine is £10,000 with combined costs of £3,500 making a total of £33,500 and we give 14 days in which to pay. 

Authorities

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

AG-v-R&M Sprinkler and another [2011] JRC 139.

AG-v-Peter Green (Builders) Limited [2012] JRC 225.

AG-v-Alfonso Catering Meats Limited [2010] JRC 133.

Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989.

Safeguarding of Workers (Machinery and Woodworking Machines)(Jersey) Regulations 1967.