Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/225B

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

9^th November 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Jersey Electricity Company

 

1 count of:

contravening Article 21(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989 by failing to ensure that persons not in its employment who might be affected thereby were not exposed to risks to their safety.

 

Plea:    Facts admitted.

 

Details of Offence:

Whilst scaffolding was being dismantled in a water treatment room at the Power Station, a valve on one of two tanks of hydrochloric acid fractured causing a substantial spillage of acid.  The tanks were situated in a protective bund which contained the spill and a scaffolder who was working in the bund was able to escape without injury.  The charge concerned the company's failure to take all reasonably practicable steps to avoid accidental damage to the valve, which it could have done by boxing it in.  

 

Details of Mitigation:

Prompt admission of responsibility and timely plea.  Good health and safety record.  Isolated incident, not a continuing breach of duty.  Only one person was put at risk of serious injury.  Company had taken steps to avoid a similar occurrence in the future.  Company had been let down by specialist contractors.  

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

£8,000 fine with £2,500 costs.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

Conclusions granted.  Full weight given to mitigating circumstances.

 

 

A.R. Binnington, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D.J. Benest for the accused.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        The Defendant company has admitted exposing a scaffolder to danger, as a result of an infraction of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989, by failing to take steps to avoid accidental damage to a discharge valve attached to a tank containing hydrochloric acid.  Hydrochloric acid, it need hardly be said, is a highly dangerous chemical which, if it comes into contact with human flesh, is capable of causing severe injury or even death.  Fortunately the scaffolder was able to climb out of the bund and to avoid any such injury.

2.        We accept that responsibility for the coming to pass of this dangerous state of affairs is shared with others.  We also accept the submission of defence counsel that we must focus on the particular failure of the defendant company -that is to say the failure to identify the possible risk caused by the valve and to do something about it.  We also accept the submissions of defence counsel that there is very substantial mitigation available to the defendant company.  There was an early admission of the infraction.  The defendant company has a good health and safety record and has no previous convictions for infractions of health and safety legislation.  It is a well established, local company which has completed many major contracts without ever coming into conflict with the authorities as a result of health and safety legislation.  This was, in short, an isolated, and not a continuing, breach of duty.  We also accept that following the event the company has shown a very responsible attitude and has taken a number of measures to ensure that no repetition will take place. 

3.        We think, however, that the Crown Advocate has taken proper account of all those mitigating factors in arriving at his conclusions.  The breach of obligations under the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989 is a serious matter which must be punished by appropriate fines by this Court.  The defendant company is, accordingly, fined the sum of £8,000 and we order it that it pay the costs of the prosecution, not exceeding the sum of £2,500.  

 

 

 

 

 

Authorities

R -v- F. Howe and Son (Engineers) Ltd [1999] 2 All ER 249.

AG -v- E. Farley and Sons Ltd. (14^th April 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/70].

AG -v- Regal Construction (Jersey) Ltd (10^th August 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/182].