Atherstone Update

[kurnal]

So there is vicarious liability in H&S Legislation?.

[Davo]

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.

[Tom Sutton]

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

[SamFIRT]

its about punishment for being negligent

So.... if someone is shown (proved) to be fatally negligent should they not be punished?

[tmprojects]

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.

[SamFIRT]

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.

[Tom Sutton]

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

[tmprojects]

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.

[SamFIRT]

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

[Tom Sutton]

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)

[kurnal]

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.

[SamFIRT]

...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 

[Clevelandfire 3]

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.

[wee brian]

I think you will find they were "investigated". For whatever reason the CPS has decided to prosecute the guys further down the line.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

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.