FireNet Community
THE REGULATORY REFORM (FIRE SAFETY) ORDER 2005 => Press Releases => Topic started by: Davo on February 28, 2011, 01:31:53 PM
-
for info
http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/atherstone-warehouse-blaze-fire-service-managers-face-manslaughter-charges
davo
-
I could not say if they're right to prosecute or not beacause i don't have all the facts.
But, can you imagine the repercutions of this throughout the fire service! particularly in the retained areas. for them its a part time vocation, who in that position would want the prospect of this hanging over them! i for one would have second thoughts about doing it.
And for the full time guys. I wouldn't be surprised if we never see another fireman committed into a fire again because every fire officer doing there Dynamic RA would surely now be adding this into the equation. And every single one would come out as 'wash it down the road'
I will say this though. it is the absence of information that will be the roots of everyone's concern. not knowing what it is they did wrong means you have no way of making sure you don't make the same mistake. At the earliest possible point the circumstances of the incident and the grounds for the prosecution should be made available. (unlikely till after any trial).
It could show they where seriously neglectfull of their duty. Or, it could show that they made a judgement call (the kind that most ops guys would consider)
that went against procedures. and are in the dock because they didn't follow procedures. Either way at least ops guys will know where they stand.
I heard one of the guys who is being prosecuted is also the father of one of the guys who died. if true, i couldn't imagine anything worse. the guilt would be the real sentence there.
-
It wil mean that the fire service wont commit into any building even if there is saveable life. And the HSE says it understands fire service operations. And the giovernment says it will take elf and safety away from emergency services. Our survey says nup nerrrrr.
-
It wil mean that the fire service wont commit into any building even if there is saveable life. And the HSE says it understands fire service operations. And the giovernment says it will take elf and safety away from emergency services
Rubbish. !!!
Fire service staff will always do their job and save life. What complete and utter nonsense is being spoken about regarding this case!
What we need is the truth to come out ..................and the Court of the land is the place to do it. There are too many vested interests for it to happen otherwise.
I really cannot understand why Fire practitioners who regularly use Fire legislation based on H&S legislation are worried about the rule of law taking its course. Just like it does in an FSO prosecution?
Can someone please explain what you are all afraid of? And please no more rubbish about British Justice being flawed. It is better …. Much better than very many other places in the world and the dead firefighters deserve justice!
-
It wil mean that the fire service wont commit into any building even if there is saveable life. And the HSE says it understands fire service operations. And the giovernment says it will take elf and safety away from emergency services
Rubbish. !!!
Fire service staff will always do their job and save life. What complete and utter nonsense is being spoken about regarding this case!
What we need is the truth to come out ..................and the Court of the land is the place to do it. There are too many vested interests for it to happen otherwise.
justice!
I would sincerely hope your view 'samFIRT' is right and it doesn't prevent officers doing their job. and i would like to think that in the right circumstances i would make the right decision without fear of retribution. but you must appreciate the concerns! As you said, the truth needs to come out. And i do have the faith and belief that it will in our justice system. but my point was.. in absence of that information people will fear their postion and will be afraid the consequences their decision may result in.
i am really interested in what you mean by peoples 'vested interests' preventing the truth from coming out. do you mind expanding on this? I hope you do.
-
Dont get me wrong Samfrit I hope you are right
But I too would like to know what you mean by vested interests
-
Is that where you have an interest in vests? Doesnt sound very nice to me.
Anyway, we are all accountable for what we do and that should always be on your mind when making a decision. Especially where peoples lives are at risk.
A very duff fire risk assessment could result in a consultant finding himself in court for manslaughter - so what's the difference?
-
A very duff fire risk assessment could result in a consultant finding himself in court for manslaughter - so what's the difference?
As a risk assessor you have as much time as you require to make the decisions, as an Oic of an incident you don't. I don't think I have ever been to an incident were on reflection or in hind sight I would have not have dealt with it differently.The proverb "There but for the grace of god go I" springs to mind.
-
I expect the court will take that into account. The alternative is that an officer IC can be a wreckless as he likes with his crews lives with impunity. I doubt anybody would be up for that.
-
1. I expect the court will take that into account.
2. The alternative is that an officer IC can be a wreckless as he likes with his crews lives with impunity. I doubt anybody would be up for that.
1.I very much hope so.
2. I do not believe any Oic would consider her/himself to be reckless and put his crews lives in danger. However when you commit your crew you lose control of them as soon as they pass through the entry point and their safety depends on what has been done before the fire, training for example.
-
But I too would like to know what you mean by vested interests
Ok well here we go.
I don’t want anyone to get upset about this post because this is a discussion forum and not intended to be in any way insulting.
Vested interests; it all depends on what happened at the incident. And … we don’t know. That is why I say it should go to Court and the truth will out. Or if people commit perjury they will be themselves prosecuted.
But hypothetically speaking.
If the FRS has a poor training or knowledge gathering and exchange policy then they probably have a vested interest in keeping an Enquiry in house.
If the WM’s / SM are poorly trained, or disobeyed SOP’s or are in any way culpable they probably have a vested interest in there being no enquiry at all.
If the local stations are possibly due to close then the local population/ Union / Workforce probably has a vested interest in showing the current system works well.
If some of the fire fighters are retained and have worked, or worked at the time of the incident, for the company that was alight, then there is probably a vested interest in hushing that up.
If the fire fighters who died freelanced, or were poorly trained, or if the training policy and recording system in the FRS was inappropriately managed, or if it is considered in that FRS that retained and whole time firefighters are equally competent, even given the disparity in available training time, then there is a multiplicity of vested interests to keep it all in house and not let the wider people know the truth.
That’s why I believe it was judged in the public interest to take this action; to find out who or what exactly was at fault. The Fire-fighters. The Managers. The Principal Managers. The FRS . The British fire service ethos of IPDS? What?
Because something went badly wrong!
Therefore I say let justice take its course. Let’s know the truth and then the British Fire Service can move into the future learning the lessons.
-
Sam these three guys are charged with gross negligence manslaughter and are facing a possible seven years in gaol. Its not about finding out who or what was exactly at fault. The Fire-fighters, Managers,Principal Managers or the FRS, it will only come to light if the defence lawyers think it is likely to help their case.
The employer are not being charged with corporate manslaughter are they and it will be unlikely we will get a full transcript on the case so will we ever know the full storey.
-
Sam these three guys are charged with gross negligence manslaughter and are facing a possible seven years in gaol. Its not about finding out who or what was exactly at fault.
Really?
What is it about then?
Don’t forget there is no vicarious liability in H&S legislation.
-
Don’t forget there is no vicarious liability in H&S legislation.
Sam
Are you overlooking Section 37 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 which states that:
“where an offence committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate… he, as well as the body corporate, shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
-
No
Please see my second post in this thread
-
So there is vicarious liability in H&S Legislation?.
-
Vicarious liability is Common Law, not H & S Legislation.
However, Prof is right to state 37(1) would apply also
davo
ps the trial will be open and judgement transcript available some time after. Lessons need to be learned, we do not know by who until afterwards.
-
What is it about then?
Don’t forget there is no vicarious liability in H&S legislation.
Sam its about punishment for being negligent.
I don't think gross negligence manslaughter has anything to do with the HSWA its more likely to be common law or negligence law. The employers situation is a different matter they are being done under HSWA.
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Gross-negligence-manslaughter.php
-
its about punishment for being negligent
So.... if someone is shown (proved) to be fatally negligent should they not be punished?
-
But I too would like to know what you mean by vested interests
Ok well here we go.
I don’t want anyone to get upset about this post because this is a discussion forum and not intended to be in any way insulting.
Vested interests; it all depends on what happened at the incident. And … we don’t know. That is why I say it should go to Court and the truth will out. Or if people commit perjury they will be themselves prosecuted.
But hypothetically speaking.
If the FRS has a poor training or knowledge gathering and exchange policy then they probably have a vested interest in keeping an Enquiry in house.
If the WM’s / SM are poorly trained, or disobeyed SOP’s or are in any way culpable they probably have a vested interest in there being no enquiry at all.
If the local stations are possibly due to close then the local population/ Union / Workforce probably has a vested interest in showing the current system works well.
If some of the fire fighters are retained and have worked, or worked at the time of the incident, for the company that was alight, then there is probably a vested interest in hushing that up.
If the fire fighters who died freelanced, or were poorly trained, or if the training policy and recording system in the FRS was inappropriately managed, or if it is considered in that FRS that retained and whole time firefighters are equally competent, even given the disparity in available training time, then there is a multiplicity of vested interests to keep it all in house and not let the wider people know the truth.
That’s why I believe it was judged in the public interest to take this action; to find out who or what exactly was at fault. The Fire-fighters. The Managers. The Principal Managers. The FRS . The British fire service ethos of IPDS? What?
Because something went badly wrong!
Therefore I say let justice take its course. Let’s know the truth and then the British Fire Service can move into the future learning the lessons.
I don't agree. this is not a hearing or coroners court. this is a criminal charge being brought against the people they believe to be responsible.
My understanding of the legal system is that the police do their investigation, and on the basis of that evidence establish if they believe an offence has been committed and who they believe has committed that offence. this is then passes to the CPS who decide if charges should be brought against any person and thus taken to trial.
If i'm right. the police have already done their investigation and believe they have found the cause. the CPS believe there is sufficient evidence. its now just up to the jury to decide if they agree.
Having said that. it is quite possible persons, Departments and agencies have been less than forthright in their statements. and maybe that has led to them being charged.
-
If i'm right. the police have already done their investigation and believe they have found the cause. the CPS belive their is sufficient evidence. its now just up to the jury to decide if they agree.
Agreed!
And depending on the jury's verdict we will find out just what happened at that incident. Guilty because they did or didn’t do something or not guilty due to other factors or someone else being responsible....... corporately or otherwise.
-
So.... if someone is shown (proved) to be fatally negligent should they not be punished?
Sam I have no problems with the due process of law but this case is a departure from the norm. From 1978 to 2006 44 firefighters have lost their lives fighting fires and to my knowledge nobody has ever been charged with gross negligence manslaughter it has usually been dealt with under the HSAWA. My main concern is how this will affect the decisions made by incident commanders conducting their DRA knowing if they get it wrong they could be putting their liberty at risk.
Why have they departed from the norm could the fact be that at least 22 firefighters had died while on duty since 2003,(The Fire Brigades Union)? Are they hoping this will focus the minds of firefighters because in my opinion a lot more than that needs to be done.
http://www.firerescue1.com/firefighter-safety/articles/438149-UK-firefighter-deaths-on-rise/
http://www.firerescue1.com/data/pdfs/UKfbu_fatalities_report.pdf
-
Until we know the grounds for the prosecution we cannot know if what they did was grossely negligent or a bad judgement call. So we cannot truely know the impact it will have on future operational DRA's by IC's.
So for now every IC is probably going to be ultra cautious.
Once the details come out we will know the impact it will have. It could be that when we read the circumstances of the case all the serving officers will say 'they did what'!!! well no wonder they're in the dock. And no longer be concerned.
BUT it could transpire that most officers, when they read the case, would go a bit grey and think sh*t! i've made or would of made that call! I've gone against procedure with the best intentions using my experience. That could of happened to me!
I will reserve my judgement till i hear the facts.
-
From 1978 to 2006 44 firefighters have lost their lives fighting fires and to my knowledge nobody has ever been charged with gross negligence manslaughter
hoping this will focus the minds of firefighters
Tom
It seems to me we have much more in common in our points of view on this subject than is at first apparent. :)
Take the first quote I have lifted form your post above. Well perhaps it is time there was a prosecution in order to focus the mind and bring people to realise this is not a game.
When I first started ( and you I believe) the discipline in the fire service was strong. This, in my opinion kept staff safe. However, those times have gone. And arguable rightly so. A modern knowledge based fire fighter, able to work on their own initiative with modern equipment but still fitting in with the team, will be much more effective than a totally controlled one relying on the most senior officer present to have all the answers and order them what to do all the time.
However, to be effective the modern fire fighter and manager has to have knowledge. They have to understand inter-dependency and symbiotic working. (One of my pet phrases I’m afraid). There can be no room for incompetent staff or unconsciously competent ones either. Staff have to be aware of their knowledge, their limitations and apply their training. In order to do this they have to be trained to the same standards and buy in to the ICS structure, whilst still completing their main tasks; to save life and prevent damage to property by fire. There can be no place for heroic freelancing and disregarding the tactical plan. Did this happen at this incident? If it did what was the reason? If it did not why did those fire fighters go to work, or answer their pager, and not come home again?
Did the same thing happen in Sussex and Hertfordshire and no one learnt the lesson? If so perhaps it is time to bring the big guns out? Then perhaps someone will listen and no one else will have to die?
All rhetorical questions
-
I do not think it matters on the outcome of this case, every potential incident commander now knows if s/he gets it wrong they could be on a gross negligence manslaughter charge consequently I would be surprised if every IC was not ultra cautious, which will not be to the benefit of the job or the general public.
I haven't a clue how it will be resolved for the future, we relied on training the mings in self preservation that's why we had so many sayings related to it, "one hand for you one for the job" "secure your retreat before advancing" and many others. Discipline may have been stronger in my day, but the old hands on the watch didn't think so, and anyway once the crews are out of your sight you have lost control and its up to their training in my opinion. Old fart, Prescot (Nothing to do with 2 jags)
-
There can be no place for heroic freelancing and disregarding the tactical plan.
I know you are right Sam but if I think back to a number of successful rescues by fire fighters in the past it has generally been down to bravery and initiative by the fire fighter right at the sharp end of the job, working under the umbrella of the operational plan but often having to make judgement calls on the spur of the moment. If they stopped to ask the boss, the moment would pass.
I bet theres a fair bit of this going on in Japan at the moment with those guys trying to control that reactor, making decisions and putting the needs of the task and the lives of others before their own safety. And its going on all time in the armed forces.
-
...down to bravery and initiative by the fire fighter right at the sharp end of the job, working under the umbrella of the operational plan but often having to make judgement calls on the spur of the moment. If they stopped to ask the boss, the moment would pass
Agreed
please see my previous post
A modern knowledge based fire fighter, able to work on their own initiative with modern equipment but still fitting in with the team...
and
In order to do this they have to be trained to the same standards and buy in to the ICS structure, whilst still completing their main tasks; to save life and prevent damage to property by fire.
I do not subscribe to throwing the baby out with the bathwater ;)
-
The point is being missed here. We all agree that if lessons can be learnt from the firefighters deaths then lets have them. But what worries me deeply is the fact that no principal officers or the body corporate is being investigated, that ladies gentlemen and colin todd stinks! I wonder why that is! note the lack of a question mark.
-
I think you will find they were "investigated". For whatever reason the CPS has decided to prosecute the guys further down the line.
-
Cleveland ... isn't Warwickshire County Council being prosecuted as the employer?
I've read the posts here with interest ... particularly as I'm one of the people who makes the decisions at incidents. The safety of all under my command is paramount and risk assessment determines whether they are committed or not.
I am guided by SOP's .... the safe systems of work and procedures they provide, but we do have to work outside of these on occasion. This has to be justified and decision logs are a great tool for the purpose.
I don't know the facts of the case or the circumstances that lead to the deaths of our colleagues but there will be huge implications for the F & RS nationally, particularly as this may well set a precedence for future losses.
-
Baldyman i think you are kind of right.
the info4fire website says;
I have also decided that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction against Warwickshire County Council for failing to protect the health and safety of its employees and that it is in the public interest to prosecute.
But thats a different offence, i wonder why (if they thought there were grounds for the above) they haven't persued Corporate manslaughter?
-
Just out of curiosity. Relating to this statement;
The CPS added that the decision about whether any prosecutions should be brought under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 is one for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). For its part, the HSE told Info4fire that no formal decision has yet been made on whether such prosecutions will be brought and that it could not comment at this stage.
Does anyone know why they are looking to the HSE?
Am i right in guessing they have been appointed because Warwickshire FRS could not conduct the investigation or prosecute because of their involvement.
-
As the result of an investigation by the Police and HSE the CPS decided that under common/other laws that, of all the persons that were investigated, only three, was there sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, so those three take the blame. However the HSE considered that there was also a case to prosecute the council under section 2 of the HSAWA.
As for the RR(FS)O any prosecutions would be against the RP or PHC of the warehouse so the FRS would not have a vested interest so I cannot understand how the HSE is involved?
-
As for the RR(FS)O any prosecutions would be against the RP or PHC of the warehouse so the FRS would not have a vested interest so I cannot understand how the HSE is involved?
Hi Tom
If you think about it there are vested interests - it might be argued that the fire authority would come down harder on the RP because of emotions surrounding the loss of firefighters on their premises. That may not be the case in reality but you can imagine a defence barrister making the argument.
Article 26(3) of the RR(FS)O allows provision for a fire and rescue authority to arrange for its duties to be discharged by the HSE.
-
Thanks MF good point and 26(3) was something I missed completely.
-
As for the RR(FS)O any prosecutions would be against the RP or PHC of the warehouse so the FRS would not have a vested interest so I cannot understand how the HSE is involved?
Hi Tom
If you think about it there are vested interests - it might be argued that the fire authority would come down harder on the RP because of emotions surrounding the loss of firefighters on their premises. That may not be the case in reality but you can imagine a defence barrister making the argument.
Article 26(3) of the RR(FS)O allows provision for a fire and rescue authority to arrange for its duties to be discharged by the HSE.
so my guess was right, it was to maintain independence?
-
TM in light of MF,s input, I would agree with you, but I do have reservations because of the source.
The defendants will appear at Leamington Spa magistrates’ court on 1 April maybe will will get to know some more soon.
-
The first hearing of the case against Warwickshire firefighters, and against Warwickshire County Council has been postponed, it was announced today. (1st April)
http://www.ukwirednews.com/news.php/142719-Firefighters-Hearing-Postponed
-
Thanks TW