Right to convict?

As any health and safety professional worth their salt would know, the Metropolitan Police were recently convicted of health and safety breaches following the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.

Earlier this month, an Old Bailey jury found that the failings of Met officers breached an obligation on public bodies under the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974 in that it failed to reduce risks to the safety of employees and the public. It was fined £175,000 with £385,000 costs.

The trial highlighted a catalogue of errors by police:

• surveillance officers incorrectly identified de Menezes as the failed bomber who lived in the same block of flats;
  
• senior officers deviated from the agreed plan on how to deal with the incident; and
  
• firearms teams were poorly briefed and in the wrong locations.

After the verdict, presiding judge Mr Justice Henriques commented that this was very much an isolated breach brought about by quite extraordinary circumstances. The CPS used health and safety legislation after deciding there was insufficient evidence to charge officers with corporate manslaughter. Had this happened in 2008, do you think there would have been enough evidence to charge officers under the forthcoming Corporate Manslaughter Act? Post you views and tell the community. Meanwhile, lots of IIRSM Members got in touch with their opinions.

IIRSM Member John Hill MIIRSM has worked in the health and safety industry for over 20 years, and has been somewhat taken aback at the “alacrity” with which the CPS decided that the de Menezes killing was a health and safety offence.

“It seems clear that there has been a terrible hash made, the result of which was the death of an innocent man.

“This, in my opinion, was the result of Prime Ministerial involvement when the last PM announced that he was to authorise "summary powers" for the police, which in some circumstances would justify a "shoot to kill" policy.

“I am outraged that the health and safety law which I have been working to enforce for a long period of years should have been used as a political tool in order to avoid the uproar which would no doubt have erupted during the trial of police officers (and their superiors), for murder in a public place. It is clear that the decision to use H&S law was taken as a political way out to save political embarrassment.

“Any law, including H&S law was not designed to prevent embarrassment to authority, but to ensure justice! The fact that EU law was also ignored makes the event even worse. For how can anyone have trust in the judicial system when (in my opinion), it was so blatantly misused in this case?”

Many IIRSM members agreed with John, including Brian Cowan MIIRSM. He spent 25 years in the armed forces and has been a safety professional of 14 years. Brian admits he has mixed feelings on the case.

“I know that the only way to stop a suicide bomber is to shoot him (or her) in the head and keep doing it until they lay down and become still. This may seem harsh but I assure you it is true. If the Met had failed to take this action and de Menezes had indeed been a bomber the resultant loss of life was potentially enormous.”

Brian told me that he does recognise that the use of health and safety law and the subsequent successful prosecution proves beyond doubt that the letter of law was considered and the offence proven.

“My end feeling is one of sadness,” continues Brian. “I wish that I could believe that the people who brought this prosecution remembered that policing and soldiering are not the same as working in a warehouse or on a construction site. Unfortunately I don't believe that.”

Another member who wrote to me expressing their feelings on the case was Gordon Hartley FIIRSM. He finds it quite unacceptable that the Met can shoot a person seven times in the head. “What's the matter with shooting to disable?” he asks. “He should be paid off like the England Manager for doing a rubbish job!”

So, should the officers have simply shot to disable, or were they right in their actions? We want to hear from you. Please post your comments and get your voice heard.

To return to HealthandSafetyProfessional.co.uk, click here.

A lucky escape

Yesterday’s dramatic rescue of 159 people from a blazing oil platform in the North Sea has prompted an investigation into its safety procedures.

The fire on Thistle Alpha, which has been operating since the 1970s, started in the turbine section and comes less than a week after an HSE inspection of the offshore industry’s oil and gas installations found the overall state of more than half the platforms to be poor.

It has since emerged that the platform has been the subject of numerous enforcement notices served by the HSE, one of which highlighted safety problems with the rig’s turbine.

Thankfully, there were no casualties, probably thanks to the heroic efforts of rescue workers. But why has it taken a disaster such as yesterday’s, for the safety problems to be investigated? It seems that to get something done, they have waited until a major incident happens before we all stand up and take note and start to do something about it. That simply isn’t acceptable and I am sure many health and safety professionals will agree.

Apparently the evacuation procedures worked like clockwork but surely they didn’t adhere to their risk assessment if the problem had been previously noted but not fixed? The HSE has launched an investigation so we’ll have to wait and see if anyone is prosecuted for the failures.

Do you work in the North Sea’s offshore industry? Post a comment and give your opinion.

To return to HealthandSafetyProfessional.co.uk click here.

The buck stops here

I attended a conference yesterday on Corporate Manslaughter, Director’s Duties and Safety Enforcement and it was a real eye opener. For so long we have watched the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act go backwards and forwards between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, it was most definitely a relief to learn the facts – and discuss the impact.

The event, held at the Hamilton House Hotel in London by the Centre for Corporate Accountability, was attended by leading figures in industry, and looked at the likely impact on private and public sector organisations and the way the new offence will be investigated and prosecuted. Also in attendance were representatives of bereaved families – giving delegates an insight into the devastating impact that health and safety failures can have.

Speakers included Lord McKenzie of Luton and the TUC’s outspoken general secretary, Brendan Barber. Mr Barber’s speech was certainly one that made my ears prick up. He mentioned last year’s 241 workplace fatalities, and also invited the audience to remember the 5,000 people killed last year because of asbestos exposure, the 1,000 killed in work-related road accidents, the many thousands killed by workplace cancers every year, as well as those who suffer heart attacks as a result of overwork or stress. He questioned why these deaths are not on the front of every national newspaper, why there aren’t more calls for action – and simply answered his own question: “I suppose it’s because we have become immune to it”.

Suspicious sounds from the audience seemed to agree. But we shouldn’t accept it ... and that is why the majority of the health and safety profession are in favour of the forthcoming Act, as I witnessed yesterday.

The enormous impact that the new legislation will have on business was discussed and the message of the day seemed to be: The prospect of limitless fines and the potential for huge damage to reputations mean that those responsible for health and safety need to get their houses in order before the Act comes into force. Something we will all be working hard in order to achieve in preparation for the 2008 legislation.

To return to Health and Safety Professional, please click here.