Health and Safety Update – Recent Prosecutions

The team at Olliers represent individuals and businesses across a variety of sectors, so it is both interesting and important to keep up to date with the work of the Health and Safety Executive, including their approach to enforcement and, in particular, the outcomes when they decide to prosecute.

Below we take a look at some of the most notable prosecutions that have concluded since our last round-up.

April 2024

Agricultural prosecution

A farming business in Faversham, Kent was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4,830 at Maidstone Magistrates’ Court on 24 April 2024. Seymour Stevens Limited had pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. An HSE investigation found that barns at the site were in a poor structural state with electrical faults throughout and in one instance the roof was insecurely fixed and was being weighed down with a straw bale. Despite the obvious risks which the company were aware of through reports from their own staff, the barns were still in use thereby putting the employees and members of the public at risk.

The agricultural sector is inherently dangerous and accounts for approximately 20% of workplace fatalities, therefore it is important that employers maintain the workplace environment and equipment to minimise the risk of injury, or worse still death, for employees and non-employees alike.

Amputation following failure to properly guard against access to dangerous parts of machinery

An employee at a drinks company in Leicestershire had to have his finger amputated between the first and second knuckle following an incident at a site run by Sourcing International Limited t/a Drinks Chef. The employee had gone to assist a colleague with a bottle capping machine which had become jammed. Having cleared the blockage, the employee’s finger was still in the way when the capper head descended, amputating the tip which, despite attempts at Leicester Royal Infirmary, could not be re-attached.

The HSE investigation which followed found that the company had failed to properly guard against access to dangerous parts of machinery. The company pleaded guilty to contravening a requirement of Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and was fined £14,000 at Loughborough Magistrates’ Court; they were also ordered to pay costs of more than £4,000.

May 2024

Fatality following removal of safety equipment on machinery

The site manager for a waste and recycling company was handed a ten-month custodial sentence, suspended for 18 months, following the death of a man at a site in Dewsbury on 21 September 2018. The man who died was drawn into a conveyor causing multiple injuries which led to him passing away in hospital two days later.

An investigation found that on the day of the incident, the deceased had been working with a machine known as the Frag which the site manager was responsible for, including its conception, construction, employee training and maintenance. A large number of guards had been removed, leaving the machine in a dangerous condition and putting employees at risk of serious personal injury. The company, Arthur Brook Limited of Queens Mill pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The site manager, who was also a director of the company, pleaded guilty to breaching s37(1) given that the company’s breach occurred with his consent, connivance or neglect. The company was fined £200,000 and ordered to pay costs of £43,000. In addition to the suspended sentence, the site manager was ordered to complete 200 hours of unpaid work and pay costs of £10,000.

Exposure to wood dust

Esken Renewables Limited were fined £160,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,310 at Teesside Magistrates’ Court on 23 May 2024. The company had pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 7(1) of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 2002. An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive had found that the measures in place to protect employees against the well-recognised long-term effects of exposure to wood dust were inadequate. Following the case, an HSE inspector reminded businesses that “The expected standard is to control exposure to as low a level as is reasonably practicable.”

June 2024

Fatality following collapse of canal wall

Wilts and Berks Canal Trust (“the Trust”) was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay more than £10,000 in costs at Swindon Magistrates’ Court on 24 June 2024. The Trust had pleaded guilty to a breach of s3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 following the death of a volunteer on 24 August 2016.

The volunteer had been helping with the Trust’s restoration of the Wilts and Berks Canal when a section of wall collapsed on him. An investigation by the HSE and Wiltshire Police found that the Trust, which had become increasingly reliant on volunteers for projects involving light construction work, had failed to ensure their safety whilst working on the excavation. It was found that temporary propping was inadequate and there was a lack of any clear method for the safe installation and removal of the same.

Drowning fatality

A company was fined £2.345 million and ordered to pay almost £26,000 in costs at Leeds Magistrates’ Court on 12 June 2024. The company, BAM Nuttall Limited, had pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 after a worker died two days after drowning in the River Aire in October 2017. The worker and a colleague had been on a boat removing debris from the bottom of the weir gates when their boat capsized. Whilst his colleague was able to swim to safety, unfortunately Mr W was repeatedly pulled under water and although recovered by a diver some 14 minutes later, he was pronounced dead at Leeds General Infirmary. An investigation found that although the company had several operatives who were trained and authorised to control the weir gates and thereby slow the flow of the water to allow debris to float away or be reached safely by boat, this had not been done.

July 2024

Amputation following unsecured pallets falling form forklift truck

William Stobart & Son Limited of Runcorn, Cheshire, was fined £160,000 and ordered to pay £4,478 in costs at Warrington Magistrates’ Court. The company had pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 following an incident in June 2022 which led to an employee having both legs amputated below the knee. The employee had been working at the company’s warehouse in Appleton Thorn when a forklift truck, carrying two unsecured pallets of slate tiles, turned which dislodged both pallets causing them both to fall on the employee, crushing his legs. The HSE investigation which followed found that the company had failed to ensure that the area was organised so that vehicles and pedestrians were segregated and operated in a safer manner where loads were also secured so far as was reasonably practicable.

Failures in planning, risk assessments and supervision at decommissioning of North Sea gas rig

A company was fined £3 million and ordered to pay costs of £60,000 at Ipswich Crown Court on 22 July 2024. Veolia ES (UK) Limited, London, had previously pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The case followed the death of an operative involved in decommissioning a North Sea gas rig at a facility in Great Yarmouth in October 2019. A second operative was also seriously injured when a piece of metal pipework weighing more than 27 tonnes struck the mobile elevating work platform the men were using, throwing them 12 metres to the ground below. An investigation highlighted serious failings in the planning of the work including with regards to the risk assessments and supervision of the planned works.

August 2024

Tree felling incident

The Conservators of Ashdown Forest (“the Trust”) was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3, 589 at Brighton Magistrates’ Court on 12 August 2024. The trust had pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 following a tree felling incident in January 2023. The trust had identified a silver birch tree as rotting and instructed forest rangers to cut it down. The tree was located in the corner of a car park, surrounded by public footpaths, including the main pathway to the visitor centre. A ranger made a sink cut in the tree which began to fall and although the ranger saw and tried to warn two dog walkers on the nearby deer track, it was too late and both were struck. The female walker suffered a traumatic brain injury and numerous fractures which led to a long stay in hospital and extensive physical and cognitive therapy thereafter. Her husband suffered cuts and bruises. The HSE investigation found that the Trust had failed to identify the risks to members of the public which meant that even basic precautions such as warning signs and barriers were not in place.

Fatality following inadequate control measures preventing pedestrian access

A company was fined £22,500 and agreed to pay costs in the sum of £44,227.28 at Nottingham Crown Court on 20 August 2024. The company had pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 17(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and s33(1) (c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. An investigation into the death of an employee on 29 April 2019, found that the company did not have adequate control measures in place to prevent pedestrians accessing areas where loading shovels, lorries and forklift trucks operated. It also failed to properly assess the risks from operating machinery with reduced visibility and did not properly train, instruct and monitor employees. This story is perhaps all the more tragic as the employee who died was part of the family which owned the business.

Expert Commentary

As well as highlighting the significant and far-reaching consequences of poor health and safety procedures, the above summary also reminds us that such issues are prevalent across many sectors whether it be the small family farm, the mid-sized builders’ merchant or the multi-national engineering plant, they must all adhere to and effectively implement suitable and sufficient health and safety procedures to protect everyone concerned.

Of course, it is not a one size fits all situation and businesses and organisations should tailor their approach to what works for their sector and their people. Equally, different people and different organisations will have their own views on the HSE and what they represent but, put simply, nobody can afford to ignore their responsibilities because as can be seen above it may not just be the difference between a fine and a term of imprisonment, it could be the difference between life and death.

How can Olliers help?

If the HSE decides to investigate or worse still prosecute you or your business, it is important that you seek immediate legal advice and assistance. The specialist Health & Safety team at Olliers have a wealth of experience when it comes to defending employers, employees and companies facing investigation and prosecution.

Please contact our new enquiry team on 020 3883 6790 (London) or 01618341515 (Manchester), by email to info@olliers.com or complete the form below if you would like to arrange a confidential discussion as to how Olliers can assist you in relation to a Health & Safety investigation or prosecution.