Author Topic: Nobody was blamed because the coroner wasn't sure who the responsible person was  (Read 12023 times)

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
As far as I can see from the reports, the alleged problem related to the fire detection - I think the unfortunate lady was well aware of the fire so this isnt really an issue. have I got that wrong?

Offline Mike Buckley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1045
Another issue is the difficultly of prosecution under the Order, where there is a two part test, there must be a breach and that breach must result in a threat of serious injury or death. The first part is normally easy it is the second part that can cause the problem. Looking at reports none of the people who in the building when the fire started were injured or died. The only person who did, as wee brian says, was aware of the fire and entered the building therefore imperiling themselves.

The easy way is via enforcement or prohibition orders, either the RP complies, in which case job done or he doesn't, in which case he is done for not complying with the orders.

If you take the other case such as Penhallow then someone did die as a result of a breach, then direct prosecution is easier.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it.

Offline Golden

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
Wee B my only thoughts about the 'detection' in this case is that the newspaper report stated they weren't connected to an alarm; my initial reaction was that the detection was there to operate AOVs or the like and not to give general alarm.

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
I was thinking the same - not sure there was anything wrong with it, but we're working from press reports so the're probably rubbish.