1998/178

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

21^st August 1998

 

Before:  Sir Peter Crill, K.B.E, Commissioner

and Jurats Le Ruez and de Veulle.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Regal Construction (Jersey) Limited

 

 

2 counts of:  contravening Article 21(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989, by failing as an employer, to discharge its duty to conduct its undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, that persons not in its employment, who might be affected by the undertaking were not thereby exposed to risks to their safety ( counts 1 & 2 ).

 

1 count of:   contravening Article 21(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989, by failing to discharge its duty to provide instruction and training to its employees for their health and safety at work ( count 3 ).

 

Plea:  Facts admitted.

 

Details of Offence:

 

Count 1 - failed to provide a suitable safe means of access and egress to a flat roof situated above the third floor of offices undergoing modification.

 

Count 2 - failed to provide any edge protection to prevent person working on the flat roof above third floor level of the said premises from falling from the edge of that roof.

 

Count 3 - failed to send site agent (whose duties included responsibilities for health and safety matters) on any formal training course.

 

In the case of count 1 suitable means of access could have been simply provided by means of a ladder or alternatively extending existing scaffold at third floor level of the building.  Total distance that person was likely to fall from the flat roof or from the top of the access to the flat roof was 2.7 metres (8’10”).

 

On 24^th April, 1998, two roofers were taken to the flat roof by the site agent by clambering over a blockwork gable under construction and then on to the flat roof.  Later that day one of the roofers tripped over his own foot and landed near the edge of the flat roof and because no edge protection had been provided he then fell from the flat roof down to the balcony wall at third floor level below and ended up on the inside floor of the balcony.  Total distance that the sub-contractor fell was 2.7 metres (8’10”).  No serious injuries but was detained in hospital for treatment.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Infraction admitted.  Company had no previous convictions and was treated by the Crown as a first offender (despite infraction in 1971 under Construction and Safety Regulations).  Large local firm which took its obligations under the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law seriously.  The Court was satisfied that the incident arose as a result of an oversight.  Significant resources allocated by company to health and safety measures.  Although the site agent had not attended a formal training course, he had previous building experience and was in turn supervised by two employees of Regal who had formal safety training.  In addition, an independent consulting company paid visits to the site on a monthly basis and sent reports to Regal’s head office.

 

Previous Convictions:   None.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:   £3,000 fine

Count 2:   £3,000 fine

Count 3:   £3,000 fine

£1,000 costs.

 

Sentence & Observations of the Court:

 

Count 1:  £2,000

Count 2:  £2,000

Count 3:  £2,000

£1,000 costs.

 

Company takes a very serious and responsible view of its responsibilities under the legislation.  The Court took into account the good record of the company and was satisfied that infraction arose as a result of an oversight.  The Court took the view that the company adopted a very serious and responsible view of responsibilities under the Law.  The conclusions were reduced but on the proviso that this was because of the facts of the present case and status of the company before the Court.  The Court is not deliberately reducing the conclusions as an act of general policy.

 

 

P. Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate S.J. Young for the Defendant Company.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE COMMISSIONER:  If it were not for the fact that the Crown accepts, and has moved accordingly, that the company is to be treated on this occasion as a first offender we might have granted the full conclusions of the Crown.  However, we have taken into account the history of the company, its long association with the building trade in Jersey, but far more importantly, its general structure, the number of people it employs to observe safety at work, and its general record on building which counsel has set out for us.  The long history of its activities in Jersey and the fact which we cannot overlook that throughout that long history, except for today, it has only had one relatively minor infraction, are matters which we can properly take into account in arriving at our decision.

 

Nonetheless, the Crown is right in saying that it is not the actual injury to an employee which is the test, but the potential danger to which workers are subjected if the regulations are not stringently carried out.  Unfortunately, there is always a chance of an oversight and we think that that oversight occurred on the building project in Grenville Street.

 

We are satisfied that the company, through its Managing Director, takes a very serious and responsible view of its responsibilities.  We would not like it to be thought, however, that in reaching our conclusions we are in any way watering down what the Royal Court has said in earlier cases, namely, AG -v- Jersey New Waterworks Co (28^th November, 1997) Jersey Unreported, AG -v- New Lyn Apartments, Ltd (12^th December, 1997) Jersey Unreported, AG -v- Ashfield Builders, Ltd (20^th February, 1998) Jersey Unreported and AG -v- Hacquoil & Cook, Ltd (1^st May, 1998) Jersey Unreported, but we accept what Mr. Young has said and because of the special facts which I have mentioned briefly, we are able to apply a particular penalty.  With the proviso that other building contractors should not necessarily think that the Court is deliberately reducing the conclusions as an act of general policy, we are going to reduce them in respect of this company, having regard to its general record and its level of responsibility, to a lower figure.  Accordingly the company is fined £2,000 on each of the infractions and will pay £1,000 costs.

Authorities

 

 

AG -v- Leaders Health Foods (14^th October, 1994) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Jersey New Waterworks Co Ltd (28^th November, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- New Lyn Apartments, Ltd (12^th December, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Ashfield Builders, Ltd (20^th February, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Hacquoil & Cook, Ltd (1^st May, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Cowley Farm, Ltd (7^th August, 1998) Jersey Unreported.