Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC134

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

6^th July 2007

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats de Veulle and Newcombe.

The Attorney General

-v-

Amplus Limited

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to:

1 count of:	Contravention of Article 21 (1) (a) of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989 - safe system of work; information instruction training and supervision.  (Count 1).
1 count of:	Contravention of Article 21 (1) (b) of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989 - contravention of Regulation 2 Asbestos (Licensing) Jersey Regulations 1997.  (Count 2).

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Construction works being undertaken at the premises owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  Defendant Company contracted to carry out exterior work: however, it was subsequently asked to carry out interior soft strip works, including removal of ceilings.  It was thought that an asbestos survey had been obtained.  Two of the company's employees carried out the soft strip, including removal of ceilings over a period of 72 hours.  The removal was carried out manually with the use of a sledge hammer following which the employees swept up debris and dumped it via a window to a skip below.  The ceilings contained asbestos.  Presence of asbestos was only detected when the skip carrying the waste arrived at Bellozanne.  Employees would have been exposed to significant level of asbestos fibres amongst dust released from the broken ceiling panels.  Company had engineering skills and was working in an area in which they had no expertise.

Details of Mitigation:

Infractions immediately admitted; full co-operation with investigating Health and Safety Officer; no previous convictions.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	£10,000 fine.
Count 2:	£10,000 fine.
Costs:	£2,500.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	£5,000.
Count 2:	£5,000.
Costs:	£2,500

Mrs S. Sharp, Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. L. Preston for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        We have been informed by the Crown that asbestos is classified as a Class 1 carcinogen, that asbestos related diseases kill more people than any other single work related cause and are reported to be currently responsible for 4,000 deaths a year in the United Kingdom.  To cause harm it must be airborne and thus be inhaled.  Rough handling will increase the likelihood of dust generation and any dust released during handling will contain asbestos fibres.

2.        There is no known cure for asbestos related disease and there are no safe limits of exposure.  Two employees of the defendant removed the plaster board ceiling of a property which it transpired contained asbestos.  Over a period of 72 hours they used a sledge hammer and their hands.  The material was then thrown through a first floor window to a skip and the debris swept up.

3.        They were given personal protective equipment to wear but because of the amount of dust did not always wear the dust masks.  This manner of removal would have resulted in high levels of dust containing a significant level of asbestos fibres which even with the dust masks being worn would not have achieved the level of protection that would have resulted in minimal exposure. 

4.        The defendant company is a geotechnical and structural engineering firm and its expertise does not extend to the internal soft stripping of a building and it was therefore engaged in work for which it lacked experience; work which we understand, from defence counsel, it did very much as a favour to the owner who had been let down by the intended contractor.

5.        It is also the case that there were errors and assumptions on the part of the owner's representative and the contract administrators which contributed very much to the situation.  In particular at a site meeting held on 14^th July, 2006 the owner's representative stated that he was organising an asbestos survey which was in fact never carried out.

6.        The defendant Company therefore thought that there had been an asbestos survey completed and that asbestos was limited to a very small and different area of the building.  Furthermore, the tiles that had been removed had been the subject of a recent refurbishment and asbestos has not been used in recent times.  It is therefore the submission of defence counsel that this is not a case of reckless disregard for the interests of the employees but one of inadvertent misfortune.

7.        We agree with counsel for the defence that the conclusions sought by the Crown are therefore too high and we impose the following fines.  On Count 1 a fine of £5,000; on Count 2 a fine of £5,000; and costs which are agreed in a sum of £2,500, with one month to pay.

No Authorities