Ethentic Ethentic Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data Ethentic Ethentic

    SENTENCING DILEMMA IN OVERHEAD CABLE DEATH CASE

    Grab lorry operator electrocuted during deliver of roofing materials

    Blackford (Newbury) Ltd, of Newbury, formerly Harris Roofing Supplies Ltd has been prosecuted after a new employee was electrocuted whilst operating a lorry mounted crane. Anthony Milani, aged 26, died when the crane came into contact with an overhead power cable on a Hampshire farm on 14 August 2007.

    Mr Milani joined the company as an HGV driver and warehouseman in April 2007 and was shown how to use the Hiab crane by the senior warehouseman who was not a competent trainer.

    He was delivering roofing materials and parked beneath the three overhead 11Kv cables. He deployed the nearside stabiliser (both should have been used) and when he moved the jib it struck one of the cables. He died instantly.

    The senior warehouseman was aware of the overhead electric cables at the site but did not “consider them to be a hazard”. He was unaware of safety guidance concerning overhead power lines or the necessary training of crane drivers.

    Signs warning of overhead cables had been removed several weeks earlier by the site owners.

    Proper training was scheduled before death

    Blackford (Newbury) Ltd, of Hambridge Road, Newbury, formerly Harris Roofing Supplies Ltd, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act etc 1974 at Southampton Crown Court. The company was fined £50,000 and ordered to pay £20,000 in prosecution costs. After the hearing, HSE Inspector Dennis MacWilliam, said:

    “Proper training, simple checks and procedures could have prevented this horrific incident. Tragically, Mr Milani had been booked-in to do a professional course in handling lorry mounted cranes in the month he died.

    The company failed to provide suitable and sufficient training and supervision for Mr Milani in the used of Hiab cranes and especially the risk from overhead power lines. They also failed to ensure lifting operations were properly planned and hazards identified.

    Delivery arrangements at clients’ premises should also have been checked from time to time.”

    Judge placed in difficult position on appropriate sentence

    At the sentencing hearing at Southampton Crown Court on Friday 11th March 2011, the Recorder expressed grave concerns about having to fix a fine, where the defendant company was apparently insolvent with no material assets.

    He was expected to impose a fine on a shell, in the knowledge that the fine is unlikely ever to be paid, and any fine will be against public policy. He made the following remarks:

    “the core failure was the lack of adequate training to operate the crane safely and in particular a failure to recognise this site as a potential danger given the overhead cables. Plainly the cables were low enough to touch. On this particular day he was only using one stabilizer which shows the lack of training. Those failures are significantly aggravating features of this breach.

    I have to impose a financial penalty on the company. I have had regard to [Sentencing] guidelines at para 16. I also looked at para 19 (viii) – bad cases should be put out of business. Para 25 – level of fines. R v Howe 1999 – any fine should reflect the gravity of the offence and the means of the offender. The penalty should reflect public disquiet at unnecessary loss of life.

    Unhappily the authorities give me no guidance on the situation I am faced with. The assets have been sold. The sale took place after the incident and when the enquiries were still current. There is plainly a suspicion that the sale had a motive to remove assets but leave liability for this death with the company that then employed the deceased. This has been confirmed by the letter 3rd Feb 2011 – purchaser was advised that the transaction would be restructured given the fatality.

    The conclusion of forensic accountant is that the defendant company is currently insolvent and has no material assets. The reality that I am faced with today is that the defendant is not trading, has no material assets and is currently insolvent.

    I have a dilemma:- do I fine the defendant company the appropriate level of fine in the knowledge that it has no assets to meet it or do I fine it a very low amount which is an affront to public concern. Even if fine was at low end there is nothing for me to believe it would be paid.

    In the circumstances, I think I should impose a fine at the level I think is appropriate for the offence. It is the lesser of the 2 evils. The merit of this approach is that if this case receives publicity, the level of the fine will alert others of the seriousness with which courts reflects Health & Safety.

    Given this, there will be a fine of £50000 and an order for costs of £20000.

    If this decision is to be reviewed then a full transcript of this hearing should be made available so the higher court can see the dilemma. It may be that a higher court could give some guidance”.

    Latest Construction Health and Safety News

    TRADING STANDARDS AND HSE ACT IN CONCERT

    Director given prison term over fraud and health and safety breaches

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 15th October 2018

    BUILDER ERROR CAUSED RESIDENT FALL FROM BALCONY

    Director prosecuted over refurb project danger to others

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 12th October 2018

    FORMER HSE BOSS CONDEMNS VALUE ENGINEERING

    Resident and public safety must match workforce safety progress

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 12th October 2018

    RETAILER FINED AFTER FAN AMPUTATES FINGERS

    Maintenance engineer injured during roof fan repair works

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 12th October 2018

    POOR PLANT ISOLATION CAUSED CONVEYOR DANGER

    Arm of fitter trapped between conveyor drum and belt

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th October 2018

    BUILDING OWNER FAILED TO CHECK FOR ASBESTOS

    Prison sentence for businessman after previous HSE enforcement

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th October 2018

    YOUNG WORKER LOSES FINGERS IN SAWING INCIDENT

    Provision of training and information could not be proved

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th October 2018

    HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 10th OCT 2018

    hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices register latest version

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 10th October 2018

    MD PROSECUTED ALONGSIDE ERRANT COMPANY

    Director held personally responsible for poor site conditions

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 1st October 2018

    ASBESTOS REMOVAL STARTED BEFORE R & D SURVEY

    Asbestos insulation board found outside building being refurbished

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 27th September 2018

    INEFFECTIVELY BRAKED SAW CAUSED AMPUTATIONS

    Retro-fitting of precautions may be required on older machines

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 27th September 2018

    FALL THROUGH FRAGILE CEILING TILES

    Failure to implemented control measures for working near fragile surfaces

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 27th September 2018

    HSE SEEKS CONSTRUCTION ‘DUST BUSTER’ PARTNERS

    Regulator uses social media to raise dust dangers and using right controls

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 24th September 2018

    MAJOR HOMES BUSINESS EXPOSED PUBLIC TO RISK

    Residential property refurb project created carbon monoxide danger

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 24th September 2018

    HSE CONSTRUCTION DUST CONTROL ‘BLITZ’ STARTS

    Regulator inspections will check health taken as seriously as safety

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 20th September 2018

    FLOOR CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM OF WORK UNSAFE

    Welder fell 3m from mezzanine area through purlin openings

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 20th September 2018

    WORKER SUFFERS FATAL BURNS IN OXYGEN RICH AREA

    Sparks from angle grinder ignited clothing of workman in confined space

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 19th September 2018

    RIBA PUBLISH DRAFT POST GRENFELL FIRE SAFETY PLAN

    Architects institute consults on ‘golden thread of fire safety information’

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 19th September 2018

    MAJOR UK CONTRACTORS HIT BY MAJOR FINES

    Firms ordered to pay over £3m after foot trapped in rotating ‘screw’

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 19th September 2018

    DRIVER DIED TRAPPED BETWEEN TRAILER AND VEHICLE

    Firm fined £1.5 million over failure to assess coupling operations

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th September 2018

    ACTUAL SYSTEM OF WORK WAS OPPOSITE OF RAMS

    Workman fell 4m through fragile asbestos roof sheet

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 13th September 2018

    CDM PRINCIPAL DESIGNER FUNCTION MISUNDERSTOOD?

    Consultants claim CDM 2015 design risk management has ‘gone backwards’

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th September 2018

    RISK ASSESSED PRECAUTIONS NOT IMPLEMENTED

    Action not paperwork essential to prevent fall during lifting operation

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 7th September 2018

    CROSSRAIL PUBLISH BEST PRACTICE H&S GUIDES

    Sharing major project best practice can leave a lasting legacy

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th September 2018

    SCHOOL STAFF LACKED ASBESTOS AWARENESS TRAINING

    Council fined £200k over asbestos flue and gasket rope failures

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th September 2018
    Ethentic Ethentic Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data Ethentic Ethentic