[2008]JRC183

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

24^th October 2008

The Attorney General

-v-

Jose Antonio Perestrelo Jardim trading as Buildrite Builders Property Maintenance and Stonemasons

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

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

During the course of refurbishment of a private dwelling, Mr Jardim and his employee stripped out the ceiling of a utility room.  Mr Jardim thought the ceiling was asbestos cement (found in corrugated roofs) and took appropriate safety measures for such a material.  However, the ceiling comprised asbestos insulation board.  Mr Jardim unnecessarily exposed his employee and himself to risk of injury by inhalation of asbestos fibres (Count 1).  He did not have a licence to carry out such work (Count 2).  The AIB was removed by claw hammer and hand, swept up and placed in bins covered with tarpaulin before being taken to La Collette dump.

Details of Mitigation:

The breach was unintentional and committed through ignorance.  Mr Jardim was extremely co-operative with the investigation and admitted the infraction immediately he was informed of the facts.  Impressive references.  Hard working man with small but solid business: accounts and bank statements produced to demonstrate extent of ability to pay fine.

Previous Convictions:

Historic motoring offence: treated as first offender.

Conclusions:

Costs:  £2,500

Total:  £10,500 fine.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Costs:  £2,000 with 14 days to pay.

Total:  £8,000 fine or 2 months’ imprisonment in default.

S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. J. Hopwood for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        As has been said on a number of occasions it is the duty of employers to take care of their employees and to ensure that they are not exposed to asbestos fibres because of the highly carcinogenic nature of such fibres.  Now on this occasion Mr Jardim you did expose your employee to asbestos whilst demolishing asbestos insulation board.  We accept that this was a failure caused by ignorance rather than any form of recklessness.  You thought that the material carried the same risk as asbestos cement which is to be found in corrugated roofing material and where the risk is very much less.  You took precautions based on that, which were reasonable precautions but they were inadequate for what the material actually was, namely the insulation board.

2.        In mitigation we accept that you pleaded guilty immediately without waiting for advice from a lawyer, you have no previous convictions, we have read the references and it is clear from this that you are a hard-working man who has successfully built up a business and that you are in fact a caring employer.  Furthermore, as the Crown Advocate has accepted, you have been exceptionally co-operative in this case.  Your business, whilst you can be proud of it, is nevertheless of a comparatively modest size and we take that into account as well.  We also note you are going to get training in order to recognise asbestos in future. 

3.        We think that in all the circumstances we can reduce the conclusions slightly.  We are going to impose a fine of £3,000 on each Count, that is a total of £6,000 and because of your exceptional co-operation, we think costs incurred must have been less so we are going to reduce that to £2,000, so that the total which you face is £8,000 and we give you 14 days to pay.  We impose a prison sentence of 1 month imprisonment on each Count consecutive, should there be a failure to pay.

Authorities

R-v-Board of Trustees of the Science Museum [1993] 3 All ER 853.

AG-v-Apex Contracts Limited [2008] JRC 095.

AG-v-Amplus Limited [2007] JRC 134.

AG-v-Grand Hotel and Another [2006] JRC 146.

AG-v-Smith [2005] JRC 076.

AG-v-Dempsey [2005] JRC 085.

Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989.

Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos-Licensing)(Jersey) Regulations 2008.