Re: UK PROSECUTIONS discussion

[Tom Sutton]

Well actually quite a few and many threw their hands up before entering court others were fined but then it was a different age when most considered court a frightening place but that is not the situation now.

[John Webb]

....Taken to St Albans Magistrates? Court by Welwyn Hatfield borough council, Odus Ltd of Bishops Square in Hatfield admitted 41 offences on four properties managed for private landlords, while XS Property Management Maintenance Ltd of Hatfield Road in St Albans owned up to a further five offences for one property.

The failures for Odus Ltd included locked and faulty fire doors, missing smoke seals, an empty fire extinguisher, a missing fire blanket and a broken alarm.

It was fined ?17,600 and ordered to pay council costs of ?17,424 in respect of multiple occupancy properties.

XS Property Management, which was prosecuted over another property in Hatfield, was fined ?4,300 and ordered to pay costs of ?3,210 for problems such as a faulty fire door and a missing smoke seal.

Following prosecution, director Shain Hutchings said: ?I feel aggrieved at the fine. These were very minor faults, and we were not given time to correct them. If I could have afforded to, I would have fought it.?

Shaji Odushoti, a director of Odus Ltd, said the council had inspected the homes only two weeks after it had taken them over, and issued a summons while it was waiting for landlords? approval for the necessary work.......

(From http://www.hertsad.co.uk/news/st_albans_and_hatfield_companies_fined_over_fire_safety_breaches_1_4126807)

Seems some people look on legal requirements as a nuisance?

[Golden]

To be fair if the agents are correct and the council inspected two weeks after occupation could I ask who would prioritise a missing smoke seal to be fixed within that time frame on a FRA? Some assessors would be lucky to issue the written report within two weeks so I reckon there must be more to this than reported.

[kurnal]

Exactly, Tam.  When you rolled up at premises, parked the horses and then did an F P Act inspection, how many people did you prosecute, while your transport ate his oats?

In many of these cases it appears that the defendants have breached the terms of a prohibition notice. Whilst I am all for education support and persuasion anyone breaching the terms of a prohibition notice or locking / blocking exits deserves and should have the book thrown at them. In my opinion.

[colin todd]

Big Al,  Are you sure your assertion that , in many cases, a prohibition order has been breached.  Most of my working life is taken up with expert witness work on prosecutions and I dont think I have ever had an offence of breaching a PN.

[kurnal]

3 such cases reported in the prosecutions thread this last couple of weeks.

 http://www.manchesterfire.gov.uk/updates/news/23june2015_oasis_lounge_management_sent_to_jail/#.VYu-qkdDbJI.linkedin


http://t.co/X8p9EaRX6q

And  the Kashmir Tandoori in Portishead

[colin todd]

I think, nevertheless, "many" should read "some", Big Al, as the majority of cases do not involve PNs.

[K Lard]

This will be interesting to follow - Lakanal House from 2009.

Council facing prosecution over fire
Southwark Council is facing prosecution for breaching fire safety regulations following the deaths of six people in a tower block fire.

London Fire Brigade (LFB) has brought a prosecution against the council under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 after the fire tore through Lakanal House in 2009, leading to the deaths of three women and three children.

The council will enter its plea at Southwark Crown Court on Wednesday (11 January).

The fire brigade has brought 22 charges against the council relating to fire safety matters in the tower block.

Southwark Council tried to launch a judicial review after arguing the fire brigade had a conflict of interest because it had been investigated by the Health and Safety Executive following the fire but is also the body responsible for enforcing fire safety regulations.

The council said the Health and Safety Executive should take over any possible court proceedings instead. However, this argument was thrown out by the High Court in July.

The fire brigade decided to prosecute the council after inspecting the block following the fire.

Lewisham Homes faced a similar prosecution by the fire brigade last year following a tower block fire in 2011, which killed two women. The arm?s-length management organisation was fined ?40,000.

A spokesperson for the LFB confirmed it had brought a prosecution against Southwark Council following an inspection of the block after the fire. He added: ?While the court case is ongoing it would be inappropriate to make any further comment.?

Stephanie Cryan, cabinet member for housing at Southwark Council, said: ?I can confirm that a summons has been issued to Southwark Council for breach of fire safety regulations; the council will be fully co-operating throughout the legal process.?

[colin todd]

We all dance around the gallows in relation to successful prosecutions, but nowhere is there a record of acquittals, where courts found defendants not guilty or the FRS decided to drop all charges because they were a crock of crap in the first place. 

May I suggest that the new mod agree and facilitate a new thread specifically for failed prosecutions.  We could go back over a period of time or run it from now, starting with a recent one where a jury in the Crown Court found a defendant prosecuted by WEST SUSSEX FRS under A23 of the FSO not guilty.  We name and shame defendants, so its time we did the same for enforcing authorities, all of whom  gloat on their websites about successful prosecutions but dont seem to put their failures up. 

Like when LANCASHIRE FRS  prosecuted a fire alarm contractor following a fatal fire but then dropped the prosecution when it came to court, following a defence expert witness report.  His name was mentioned in the Manchester Evening News when he was prosecuted but there was no report of the dropped prosecution or the payment of all his costs from public funds (which means all of us). And I waited and waited for it to appear on the FRS website but it never did.

We could even include an arson prosecution in South Wales in which a large part of the prosecution evidence relied on evidence from the FRS, but the case was dropped following a defence expert witness report.

Wot do you geezers fink? (I must spend less time talking to LFB, I think I may be losing my Scottish accent.)

[AnthonyB]

I'd agree that failed and flawed prosecutions and importantly why they failed are of relevance and possible education as the effective ones, especially where there are shades of grey in interpretation and implementation of the regulations.

Wouldn't mind a section here for those.

[colin todd]

Good idea Tony, wish I had thought of it.

[Bruce89]

Whilst prosecutions and indeed acquitals may be of interest and provide some education, let us not forget that FRS's should be working with businesses and any fire safety issue that results in a court appearance is disappointing. In the vast majority of cases I'm sure meaningful and timely discussion with all parties would likely remove the need to go to court. Of course expert witness work would be vastly reduced, not sure all would approve of that hey Colski

[Bruce89]

Colski, they are not called prohibition orders, they are called prohibition notices.

[Mike Buckley]

Nice idea, however I see 2 major problems:

1. How are we going to find out about prosecutions that fail? Either the ones that are withdrawn before they reach court or the ones that are thrown out. I cannot see the brigades holding up their hands and saying 'we really c*****d that one up'

2. The prosecutions that may have failed except that plea bargaining took place so that the defendant pleaded guilty to a smaller number of offenses and the others were dropped. The main outcome of this is that the prosecution is never really tested in court.

Whilst some brigades may do a good job in bringing cases to court, I have seen some where a good barrister could demolish the case not because of the actual offense but purely on the manner in which it was presented.

[Bruce89]

What is it they say, justice isn't about finding the truth, it's about finding what can be proved.