Prosecution of fire alarm contractor abandoned at Crown Court

[Toddy's best friend]

http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/prosecution-of-fire-alarm-contractor-abandoned-at-crown-court

This should be of interest to maintenance contractors.

[kurnal]

Indeed. But can someone please explain on what basis the proposed charges were brought or the basis for the defence?
We know the detail of the Manachester case recently and some might argue that the engineer  involved in that case was unfortunate to have been found guilty  and perhaps had he employed an expert witness the outcome may have been different. It would help us to know the technical issues over which the fire and rescue service had initially considered bringing charges and the reasons for their withdrawal in this case. Please.

[CivvyFSO]

I think that simply knowing on what basis Lancs were trying to hold the contractor responsible would be helpful.

[Allen Higginson]

Would that be a ducking stool that I'm starting to see??

[colin todd]

I dont get that Buzzy?

[Allen Higginson]

I dont get that Buzzy?

Oh,that age old past time of ducking the witch - by that I mean prosecutions brought under the guise that it's open season on the maintenance companies and their personnel.

[colin todd]

Indeed. But can someone please explain on what basis the proposed charges were brought or the basis for the defence?
 Please.

No, Kurnal they cannot.  It never does to "Daily Mirrorise" issues such as these on these boards, as it inevitably leads to shoot from the hip rants by various people about lawyers, fire and rescue authorities or contractors, all based on inadequate or incorrect information that "I read in the Sun......"

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  Best just to be happy, Kurnal, that, as a taxpayer, you paid for all of the contractor's costs, including expert witness fees.

[Wiz]

Prof., we are all mushrooms.

Kept in the dark and fed bullsh*t!

I, as a taxpayer who unwillingly funded the case, feel that I have some small right to know precise details of the accusation and the precise details of the defence that resulted in the accused being found 'not guilty'.

Does anybody know where can I find this information?

[David Rooney]

Is it just me ?

What is the point of printing half the story ?

The Brigade brought the prosecution.... but we don't know why.

The prosecution got dropped presumably because it was pointed out there were too many holes in the case - but we can't be sure.

The contractor claims total vindication - so was he doing things right or get off on a technicality?

Someone somewhere along the line didn't know what they were talking about and cost all of us a lot of money.

Have they been sacked / re-trained / reprimanded / put out to pasture ?

What has actually been learned by anyone involved, and from my point of view, what can I learn as a system maintainer as to how to cover my back so as not to face a similar court appearance should I ever be unfortunate to be in a similar situation unless the information surrounding the case is made available?

I thought prevention was better than prosecution?

[AnthonyB]

Does anybody know where can I find this information?

Because it never got tried I would very much doubt it beyond what was said at the Magistrates Court and it looks like this was just entering a plea against the charge and as triable either way & going to Crown no evidence would have been heard.
From an information point of view it would have been nice for it to go all the way and get a not guilty as all the details would be in the public domain, but the cost to the Crown as a result far greater, so if they realised they had made a total FUBAR before the actual full trial it's understandable they wouldn't throw even more public money away just to have that reconfirmed in open court. Plus as the defendant I'd be displeased if they had put me through the expense and stress of a full trial when they knew it was doomed to fail.

If you are really desperate you could try an FOI request to the Brigade, but it's unlikely due to the nature of the information it would be released.

[Wiz]

......Someone somewhere along the line didn't know what they were talking about and cost all of us a lot of money.

Have they been sacked / re-trained / reprimanded / put out to pasture ?............

Well, with UK employment laws, you can't really sack people for just making mistakes.

'Lack of training' is often the excuse offered by employees when making a mistake. It's an easy excuse to make and automatically puts the onus on the employer.

A 'reprimand' seems fair, but management know that the person being reprimanded is only likely to sulk and work even less well in the future.

Putting out to pasture might be a the best option. Early retirement on a good pension will keep everyone but the taxpayer happy.

Then the whole sorry saga can be brushed under the carpet and forgotten.

[Wiz]

Does anybody know where can I find this information?

......If you are really desperate you could try an FOI request to the Brigade, but it's unlikely due to the nature of the information it would be released.

What is the use of the Freedom Of Information Act when there is no freedom to the information!

[Davo]

Dr Wiz

1- it ain't free

2- no doubt the FRS will try it on some other sucker

davo

[Clevelandfire 3]

no doubt the FRS will try it on some other sucker
davo

Thats rich coming from the Police

[kurnal]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  Best just to be happy, Kurnal, that, as a taxpayer, you paid for all of the contractor's costs, including expert witness fees.

Precisely. And clearly thats all we are going to get in this case. A little knowledge.