This is a problem with the way the RRO is worded in that a breach of the Order only becomes an offense if there is a risk of serious injury or death which is a difficult concept to prove if nothing has happened. It is simple to prove if there has been a fire and people were injured or possibly died or had difficulty exiting the building but without such an incident it is a major issue.
I have been involved in two issues, one where a prosecution was in progress and the charges just stated that there was a risk of serous injury or death with no attempt to justify such a statement. In the other there had been a small fire in a hotel, the fire had been extinguished by the sprinkler system, the hotel had been safely evacuated with no injuries to anyone and a fire officer was getting very excited.
In the first issue the usual bargaining took place and the defendant pleaded guilty to one of the charges and the rest were dropped. In the second issue we had long discussions with the fire officer and wrote reams into the FRA for an incident where everything worked. Go figure!
This is going to be a difficult problem to solve particularly due to the way the legislation works and how it is worded. ADB, BS9999 etc. are only guides not actual legislation so the usual arguements can arise i.e. travel distance: if 18 m is ok why is 18.1 m not? The other issue is the skill, knowledge and experience of the enforcing officers whether or not they have the credibility to prove the issue in court.
To solve these issues it would probably require a revision of the Order and more and a consistant high quality of Enforcing Officer. Unfortunately I can't see either of these happening.
