Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - health and safety

[2022]JRC019

Royal Court

(Samedi)

28 January 2022

The Attorney General

-v-

CNR Construction

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following an admitted plea to the following charges:

Plea: Admitted. 

Details of Offence:

On 2^nd February 2021, the Company did not implement the appropriate systems to address the risk of working from platforms at a height.  The management on site was not present and changes were made to the design of the installation of a working platform without requesting a redesigned drawing from the appropriate team and for the Equipment Team to install it accordingly.  The changes were extending the platform, resulting in a significant overhang to which two acro props were installed to support the platform.  The anti-tilt bar was not checked to see if it had locked in place under the brackets.

As a result of these failures, the platform failed, and an employee fell twelves metres to the road below.  He sustained multiple life changing injuries, including amputation to his left leg.  The employee will continue to have significant disability.

The Company, during interview under caution, acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic had created practical difficulties particularly in respect of COVID-19 travel restrictions and isolation requirements.  As a result, one member of the site management team was typically missing at any one time, and the frequency of site visits by the French-based company representatives and health and safety team dropped significantly.  The Equipment Team returned to France before completing the assembly of the working platforms agreeing that the untrained site manager could do this instead.  This meant the site-based team was left without either effective supervision or direct monitoring of their work, and an unacceptable reliance was placed on them to plan for and manage the health and safety risks posed by their work.  The foreseeable and high risk of poor practice became 'custom and practice' and remained unnoticed by the Company for a protracted period.

Details of Mitigation:

The Company cooperated with the HSI investigation and admitted the infraction at the first appearance before the Royal Court.  In mitigation it attempted to attribute blame to individual employees, rather than taking full responsibility, but as the learned Deputy Bailiff noted, the Company is responsible for the acts of its employees.

Previous Convictions:

The Company had not appeared before the Court for Health and Safety infractions previously. 

Conclusions:

Total:  £135,000 fine.

The Crown sought a contribution to prosecution costs in the sum of £5,000.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total:  £100,000 fine.  £50,000 to be paid within 7 days with the remainder to be paid by the end of March 2022.

Costs ordered in the sum of £5,000 to be paid by the end of March 2022. 

C. R. Baglin Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. Hall for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        We will give the reasons for our decision in writing in due course.  In our view this was a serious breach of the health and safety legislation leading directly to catastrophic injuries suffered by the victim which will have a lifelong effect upon him.

2.        The total fine that we impose on the Defendant Company is £100,000; £50,000 on each charge.  We order the Company to pay the £5,000 contribution towards the prosecution costs.  £50,000 to be paid within 7 days of today and the balance and the costs by the end of March. 

Authorities

Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989. 

AG v Bidmead [2021] JRC 239. 

States Employment Board v AG [2020] JRC 259. 

AG v Sonnic Ltd and Mendonca [2019] JRC 120. 

AG v Petroleum Distribution (Jersey) Ltd [2018] JRC 190. 

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

English Sentencing Guidelines