I found an article by Chris Green on the Means of Escape site which looked at the defense of due diligence. Here is an extract.:-
"A prosecuting fire authority must, in particular, consider a defence of due diligence. In order to do so, the starting point is to look at what is meant by the word 'all' when considering 'all reasonable precautions' and 'all due diligence?' This question was addressed by the recent case of London Borough Council v Argos Ltd, involving the appeal of the local prosecuting authority against the decision of a Magistrates' Court to acquit this family name retailer.
The offence related to the sale of a six-piece knife set to a 15 year old as part of a test purchase operation by trading standards. The Council prosecuted Argos alleging that the retailer had illegally sold a knife to someone under the age of 16. The Justices found that the retailer had a clear system in place to avoid unlawful sales of knives to under-age persons as they utilised till bulletins highlighting to the shop assistant the need to check on such sales and gave staff training. For this reason, the retailer was able to rely on showing the defence, under s. 141A(4) which states that "It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence."
On the date of selling the knives however Argos had lacked a documented policy of refusing sales to persons under a specified age without ID. Although it introduced such a policy after the incident, a new extra measure, it was still found to satisfy the defence. The retailer had still shown that it had taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the offence being committed.
Clearly, the defence available under the RRO utilises the same wording as the defence in respect of knife sales. It is therefore important that defendant could have taken more and additional steps prior to an incident does not in itself mean that a defence of due diligence will fail. Information from dutyholders about improvements they made after an incident might be evidence to show that by definition a duty holder had not taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence beforehand but even this may still permit a dutyholder to rely on the defence if on the whole its systems and procedures were generally quite reasonable. To do the job thoroughly Fire Safety Officers will need to understand the nature and scope of the duty they say was owed and to be able to explain as witnesses in court why they believe the overall package of measures was not enough to comply.
The decision is also relevant to the prosecution of various other offences (e.g. trading standards and food hygiene) which contain a defence of taking all reasonable precautions and exercising all due diligence worded in similar or identical ways. It may also have more far reaching implications as its underlying principles may be relevant in respect of Health and Safety legislation in general. The implementation of additional measures post incident may not necessarily of itself be fatal to a successful defence and much will turn on expert opinions on reasonableness."
Whilst this decision may not affect the real bad boys who won't do anything. It could have an effect on the RP who has done something but maybe not enough or has programmed a course of action which has not been completed when things went pearshaped.
