Health and safety prosecutions – some recent cases

Tim Ridyard in our Regulatory & Crime team reviews some recent prosecutions brought by the Health and Safety Executive that concluded in 2024.

A constant theme in health and safety prosecutions is that of accidents occurring involving vehicles or plant. There may not have been proper segregation of vehicles and pedestrians where there is a lorry visiting a site or operating centre, or where vehicles or plant of the business are being used and an own employee is injured or even killed. This issue has been present in various cases prosecuted by HSE concluding in 2024, though most of the accidents to which they relate took place some years ago, as far back as 2019.

Recent cases

In HSE v John Brooke (Timber Treatments Limited), a shovel moving forward, with its bucket raised, struck an employee walking across a yard. In this August 2024 case, the HSE stated that the operator “Did not properly organise its workplace to keep pedestrians safe. There were no control measures, such as physical barriers to prevent pedestrians from accessing areas where loading shuffles, lorries, forklift trucks and 360 grabs operated. It failed to properly assess the risk from operating machinery with reduced visibility and did not properly train, instruct and monitor employees”. This matter was a breach of workplace regulations with a fine of £22,500 and costs of £44,227.

On 2 August 2024, a logistics company, Southampton Container Terminals Limited, were fined £1M at Southampton Magistrates Court for a breach of Section 2 Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This demonstrates the unlimited powers to fine. Here, an employee suffered significant injuries after falling 10 metres, leading to multiple fractures. He had fallen through an open floor in a straddle carrier driver cab to a concrete floor below. Contractors had been replacing a glass floor, creating a risk. The injured employee had been unaware of the open hole.

In HSE v BBM Contracts Limited, a court looked at a fatal accident where a driver was delivering crushed concrete at a construction site. The business ordering the delivery directed the driver to an area at the delivery site under an overhead power line. The company failed to consider how this was to be avoided and also did not put in place any signing or warnings. An alternative delivery route was created only after the incident. This was prosecuted under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015.

Failure to comply with HSE Improvement Notices can lead to prosecution – in May 2024, the director of BSP (Knockholt) Limited was disqualified from being a director for five years and received community sentences where the company had not complied with notices. This demonstrates how directors can also be prosecuted. The company was fined £150,000. The director was found guilty after a trial – the failure to comply with the appropriate notices was charged as having been committed with “consent, connivance or were attributable to his neglect”. Matters were probably not helped by the director suggesting to HSE that a prosecution was the only way of resolving matters between them.

A further large fine was imposed at Sheffield Magistrates Court in April 2024 in the case of HSE v C F Booth Limited, who pleaded guilty to a Section 2 Health & Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 offence. Again, the fine was substantial: £1.2M plus costs. Here, the worker had been injured after being struck by a 32-tonne skip wagon. The employee had not been wearing a hi-vis jacket and had not seen the wagon approaching, and nor had the wagon driver seen the employee during a manoeuvre round some skips. The employee suffered a fractured skull and collar bone. The HSE found that the site had not been organised so pedestrians and vehicles could circulate safely. There was no adequate risk assessment for vehicle/pedestrian segregation. HSE’s position was that this could have been avoided through proper risk assessments and measures such as barriers and crossing points.

In April 2024, Chorlton Express Transport Limited was fined for a November 2020 incident. Again, this demonstrates just how long it takes for matters to be concluded. The employee had been killed whilst loading a HGV – he was a forklift truck driver. The HGV had moved forward when he was loading pallets, and this caused the forklift truck to overturn. The FLT driver had not been wearing a seat belt and was trapped under the vehicle, resulting in his death.

Remember the basics

The above gives a flavour of the huge consequences for businesses that do not have proper risk assessments and safe systems of work. However, what should not be overlooked is the huge impact on employees and third parties suffering the physical and sometimes fatal consequences of inadequate management.

It should be remembered that businesses may also face enforcement action if they do not address the risk of harm – they may be in breach even though no accident or event involving death or injury occurs.

The basics of a sound regime, not only for health and safety but any compliance, are these:

• Have you identified the risk in this area of operation/process?
• Have you done a risk assessment?
• Have you created a safe system of work?
• What is the clear process/procedure, and is this documented?
• Does everyone involved in it know the system and have they been properly trained? Can you prove this?
• How is the system being monitored and audited? Is this being documented so that you can prove this?
• What systems are in place to generally review and amend the systems and consider what changes may be necessary?
• In all this, does every staff member have the right knowledge and training, wherever they sit in the business structure?

Assessment. System. Train. Implement. Audit. Document. And repeat…..

Contact our regulatory and crime solicitors today

If you have any questions regarding any of the issues raised in this article, please do not hesitate to contact our specialist Regulatory & Crime team by using our online enquiry form or by calling 0330 191 5713.