1998/90 - AG v Hacquoil and Cook [1998] UR 90 (1 May 1998)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

1 count of: Contravening Article 21(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989, by failing to discharge the duty to provide a system of work, as far as reasonably practicable, that was safe and without risks to health. (Count 1)

1 count of: Contravening Article 2(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989, by failing to discharge the duty to provide information, instructions, training and supervision to employees for their health and safety at work (Count 2)

Company failed to provide any work platform or roof edge protection at a site where an employee was working on a sloping roof whose eaves were 9 foot 2inches from the ground. Employee slipped and fell to the ground thereby injuring himself. On investigation it further transpired that none of the key employees, site foreman or contract manager had received instruction from the company about the precautions required in such circumstances.

The relevant employee had 17 years experience as a roofer, including 5 when he was self-employed and himself employed people. A trestle had been delivered to the site but, for whatever reason, was not used by those on site. Company took training seriously in an industry where there was a high turnover. Prior to the accident it had arranged training courses. Although it was open to the prosecution to bring both charges, this would result in the total penalty, particularly when aggregated with the costs, being more than had been levied on previous similar occasions. Costs were traditionally asked for in the sum of approximately £250 and the level of costs requested on this occasion was too high.

One in 1982 for an infraction of the Safeguarding of Workers ( Machinery and Woodwork Machines ) (Jersey) Regulations.

(Prosecution made it clear that, had the offence occurred after the warning in AG-v- Jersey New Waterworks Company

Limited (28/11/97) the fines would have been higher as indicated by the Court in that case).

Conclusions granted. The two charges were quite separate. It was only because the offences occurred before 28 November 1997, that the Court would not increase the fines.

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: Scaffolding or roof edge protection never seems to necessary until an accident, such as the one that we are dealing with, occurs.

We have seen so many over the years, where workers and their employers have either blindly ignored the regulations, or not bothered to find out about them. Mr Slater has said everything that he can, but this is a serious case, particularly where the Company is long established, and has been warned in writing by the Department.

It does seem surprising to us that on the 18 July 1995, one of the principles of the Company was writing to enquire as to how it could put in place safety management systems, because that seems to us to be paying lip-service and little more to these very necessary regulations by a long established Company.

Clearly no instruction was given to anybody between then and the time this accident occurred, and it is only because these offences occurred before the 28 November, and our first warning in the Jersey New Waterworks case, that we will not increase the fine.

The two charges, despite everything that Mr Slater has so cogently urged upon us, are separate offences, and it is encouraging that the Company has - albeit too late - put into place training courses. Mr Bree was a knowledgeable roofer and the accident occurred on the same day that work started. That is unfortunate, but the fact is there was no roof edge protection and a firm employing some ninety people should have proper safety provisions in place at all times.

We have some sympathy with the Company. Builders often deal with a nomadic work-force and training courses may not be the be-all and the end-all, because neither Mr Bree, nor the foreman, Mr Newman, knew that these particular regulations dealing with what has to happen at heights over 6ft, applied. Mr Slater, we are going to impose the fines as requested by the learned Attorney.

On Charge 1, the Company is fined £2,000. Charge 2, £2,000, and we impose the costs of £1,500, and we would just say in passing that it is really not for us to ascertain whether those costs are reasonable or not. The learned Attorney has said that they will not even now amount to the work that has been done, and we accept that as a statement of fact.

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1998/90 - AG v Hacquoil and Cook [1998] UR 90 (1 May 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1998/90.html Cite as: [1998] UR 90

Jersey Unreported Judgments