Atherstone Update

[tmprojects]

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?

[tmprojects]

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.

[Tom Sutton]

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?

[Midland Retty]

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.

[Tom Sutton]

Thanks MF good point and 26(3) was something I missed completely.

[tmprojects]

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?

[Tom Sutton]

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.

[Tom Sutton]

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

[tmprojects]

Thanks TW