Re: UK PROSECUTIONS discussion

[kurnal]

Yes I agree but the content of the report was probably not the issue.

Its what people do that matters when theres a fire and according to the link above they never considered the possibility that there was a fire, just kept trying to silence that B******y alarm again.  The fact that you have a fire in the first place and then when you do if people are not sufficiently well trained or drilled to respond properly  resulting in relevant persons having to dodge bits of the building that were falling around them - well thats evidence enough that the risk assessment  was neither suitable or sufficient.

[jokar]

I keep seeing and hearing people state that there have been contraventions of the Fire Safety Order or breaches of the same.  Now from my initial training by those nice CFOA types and attending presentations by David Stotesbury and Rosemary Everton, their learned words and phrases are areas of non compliance or challengable deficiencies.  Anyone have any thoughts or are we not bothered by terminology?

[CivvyFSO]

It has to be proven to be an offence, not just a non-compliance/breach.

In the case of New-Look the offence is quite clear as people were put in harms way. However, I do suspect an inspection the day before the fire would have been unlikely to result in a prosecution.

CFO: "What is the alleged offence?"
Me: "Staff didn't really know what to do if the alarm went off."
CFO: "Get out of my office."

Sometimes the proof is quite simply in the pudding.

[Davo]

Seen this on onfofor fire

http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/businessman-pays-out-six-figure-sum-for-fire-safety-breaches



The fine seems substantial, anybody got any thoughts?



davo

[John Webb]

The current edition of "Fire Risk Management" which came through my door yesterday contains editorial and other's comments on the size of recent fines for breaches of the RR(FS)O. A number of the comments point out these fines seem much higher than those imposed for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Legislation, which has been with us for a lot longer, of course.

My immediate reaction was not that the fines under the RR(FS)O were excessive, but that perhaps fines under the H&SatW Act were inadequate.......

[Meerkat]

John - most H&S professionals would agree with you about the low level of fines under H&S legislation.  However a quick look at the News section of the HSE website shows that this is starting to change, with some significant 6 figure fines in the last few months for incidents involving fatalities.

It does seem however that relatively trivial fines still result from incidents which could have had very serious consequences but did not simply through "luck".  Take this one for example where a company had failed to maintain pressure vessels to the point where one of them literally became a bomb and exploded - £10,000 fine seems awfully low to me considering the comments about the general state of machinery on the premises.  I don't understand why the case wasn't sent to the Crown Court so a higher fine could be imposed.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-nw-054moseleyrubber.htm

[colin todd]

It all reinforces the Court of Appeal view that sentencing guidelines are required in elation to offences under fire safety legislation.

[wee brian]

If I drive my car too fast and use my mobile, I get fined. If I kill somebody whilst doing this (An RTC not some random shooting whilst driving you understand..) then the punishment is greater....

Discuss.

[nearlythere]

If you kill someone whilst speeding and or using the phone then you could get prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving.
Is using a phone or speeding dangerous in the eyes of ther law? Not really unless you kill, injure or, because of your driving, are very likely to.

[kurnal]

So from what Wee Brian is suggesting two elements that are used to determine the penalty (having proved that a  person is guilty of an offence)are potential and actual consequence.

Which has the greater influence? And what other factors are involved? Politics? Societal influnces? Setting an example?

[AnthonyB]

I've always, rightly or wrongly, believed that fire safety offences should have a higher penalty than H&S because in the majority of cases a H&S breach will only end up in one individual being killed or injured should an incident occur in connection with it, but with fire safety it's often multiple numbers of people being killed and/or injured should an incident occur in connection with the breach.

More people are at risk from the hazard, ergo, a greater penalty should be applied

[CivvyFSO]

I share the same view as you AnthonyB.

The opposite view is that with more than 200 deaths happening at work each year without fail, isn't this more of an issue than any 'potential' fire catastrophe, or does the 'drip fed' nature of these deaths make it more tolerable?

I think that public opinion is also a driving factor. For example, BLEVE dying in a freak custard explosion at work, because due to the employer not giving him a suitable spreadsheet package he did a hand calc and forgot to carry-the-one, does not affect me or my family. Due to this, I (As Joe Public) would not be interested in the severity of any fine imposed. However, if Morrisons are found to be breaching safety laws meaning that public are put at risk, THAT is of concern to me (As Joe Public) as I take my family in Morrisons, surely we should be entitled to be safe while shopping? We clearly have an actual death vs a potential death, but with H&S laws predominantly protecting employees, and since it is usually employees who get injured/killed, it seems that this is easier for us/them/you/people to stomach.

[Tom Sutton]

Also if one innocent person dies or could die as the result of an accident its unlikely to reach the national press but if it happens in unusual circumstances or as a group then the press is more likely go to town on it. (dog bite man, no news, man bite dog, news) Consequently the courts are more likely to be conscious of it and live up to the maxim, not only has justice to be done but seen to be done.

[BLEVE]

Civvy
Was that a custard powder fuelled explosion or have you discovered how to initiate the combustion of a non newtonian liquid?

[nearlythere]

Devon is the yummiest.