Author Topic: Corporate Manslaughter  (Read 10221 times)

Offline Fireguy1230

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
Corporate Manslaughter
« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2008, 11:53:06 AM »
Hi BHCC

 If you don't mind me asking, what is your industry or line of work?

 Is it possible to utilise CCTV throughout the building to monitor/search area's, as opposed to sending in employees? Have the camera monitor in a remote location, even next to your fire alarm panel.

 I am in no way Fire Safety qualified, but it would negate the need to expose people to a risk.

Offline afterburner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
Corporate Manslaughter
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2008, 12:00:37 PM »
Part of the acid test for the Corporate Homicide Act is a gross breach of the duty of care. Therefore the question seems to rely on whether asking Staff to do this is a gross breach. The published guidance on the offence states " the organisation's conduct must have fallen far below what could have been reasonably expected".
The task of investigating an alarm of fire would not be a gross breach, being required to investigate without any training, guidnace and instruction could well approach the breach of duty of care, but a gross breach? Now we're getting into how individual judges interpret the meaning of 'gross'

Offline CivvyFSO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Corporate Manslaughter
« Reply #17 on: January 11, 2008, 12:22:25 PM »
Quote from: BHCC
But that is the point, until you get to the fire you don't know if it is a small bin fire or a large fire that is out of control.

Hopefully we will never have a test case but it would be interesting to see the outcome.
One option is to identify this issue in your risk assessment and use it as the reason why you are not going to include investigation as part of your procedures. It at least shows you have given it thought, and it is what risk assessments are for. Then, for me to challenge your decision, I must be willing to enforce it. If I enforce it then you have a nice letter from the fire service ordering you to do it. THAT may be a good defence since the blame would lie purely with us. (Which is why we would probably nopt enforce it)

But, if you have a fire that could have easiliy been extinguished by a trained member of staff, I do NOT want to hear about the mess, the financial implications, the smell lingering after 3 months, or how long it has taken to clear all the black off the walls, or that your business has lost too much custom to continue trading, etc etc etc. :)

Offline CivvyFSO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Corporate Manslaughter
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2008, 12:34:13 PM »
Quote from: Fireguy1230
Is it possible to utilise CCTV throughout the building to monitor/search area's, as opposed to sending in employees? Have the camera monitor in a remote location, even next to your fire alarm panel.
The investigation is usually linked in with the possiblity of actually extinguishing the fire in it's early stages. There is "a duty to mitigate the effects of fire" written in to the RRO. In my opinion this can be acheived by ensuring fire doors are closed and combustibles are managed well, but other officers have different opinions.

Offline Mike Buckley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1045
Corporate Manslaughter
« Reply #19 on: January 11, 2008, 03:05:13 PM »
BHCC yes I was in a Brigade that used to send out a man in a car to automatic fire alarms particularly if the premises had a history of false alarms. In those days we had to make attendance times and could report that the Brigade had attended.

I cannot see any problem in sending someone to investigate if there is a fire, provided the correct training has been given. ie if you see any sign of a fire get out and let us know where it is.

If we take the proposed line to the extreme, then all works fire brigades should be disbanded, fire wardens eliminated etc. don't even mention nursing homes.

It must all depend on the training given to the person sent to investigate and to a proper instruction on what should be done.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it.

Offline BHCC

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Corporate Manslaughter
« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2008, 04:22:25 PM »
All interesting comments. (i knew this would be an interesting thread)

What do you think would be appropriate training then?

Offline kurnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
    • http://www.peakland-fire-safety.co.uk
Corporate Manslaughter
« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2008, 06:21:26 PM »
To enable them to investigate safely I would teach them

1- the basics of fire behaviour and its hazards,
2- elements of backdraft and flashover- the simple bits ,
3- the fire action plan for the premises
4- the safety arrangements and equpment within the building- fire doors, alarm systems  
5- give them clear instructions on when not to open a door to investigate.
6- first aid firefighting - how the equipment provided can be safely used bearing in mind they may be working alone.

Offline Redone

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
Corporate Manslaughter
« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2008, 06:48:29 PM »
My investigative training involves... Kurnals points confirmed by actuating smoke detector with smoke gene and filming staff attending and dealing, all timed, played back, works, staff confident and happy to carry out, minor tweaks are required occasionally... door keys for access to residents who lock themselves in, and Oscar nominations for best acted resident.

It's all down to good management practises.