AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Solicitor Martin Jones of Pinsent and Co, Birmingham takes a look at how hauliers breach health and safety regulations.

8th November 1990
Page 22
Page 22, 8th November 1990 — Solicitor Martin Jones of Pinsent and Co, Birmingham takes a look at how hauliers breach health and safety regulations.
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• How safe is your business from the consequences of breach of health and safety legislation? Delegates at a seminar were asked how many had more than five workers. Answer: all of them. How many had arranged for a properly prepared and distributed health and safety policy document? Answer: only 10 of the 60 delegates.

If this is a fair indicator, then a high percentage of firms are breaking the law.

The annual report of the Health and Safety Executive for 1988/89 tells us that the average fine imposed by the courts is i:547 (compared with .k:792 for the previous year). This figure tends to suggest that magistrates (the cases are mostly brought before magistrates) are not made fully aware of the gravity of the matter.

However, it would be unwise to think that the situation will not change.

An explosives company was fined £250,000 by the Crown Court after a serious accident and thre is a trend towards greater accountability of Anyone with a duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 is open to prosecution. Even where a limited company is prosecuted, if negligence, consent or connivance can be shown of any officer (manager or director), he too can be prosecuted.

Health and safety at work law is far reaching and sometimes complicated; it consists of more than just the 1974 Act.

General code

That Act provides the general code of health and safety principles and enforcement procedure.

It does not matter whether you are a limited company, partnership or a self-employed individual: the act applies and offers criminal sanctions where offences are committed.

The hierarchy starts with the Health and Safety Commission at the top which sets broad policy to comply with the 1974 Act. Then there is the Health and Safety Executive, which is charged with the dayto-day achievement of the commission's objectives.

Finally, HSE inspectors and local authorities handle investigation and prosecution.

There is also a hierarchy of sanctions for breaches of HSE legislation. The ladder begins with a warning, either written or verbal. These warnings do not equate with a criminal record, but if any further breach occurs the earlier warning will be convincing evidence about attitudes to health and safety.

Next in line is usually an im

provement notice. This may be issued by enforcing authority inspectors where they believe that the law is being broken. The improvement notice will tell you what the inspector thinks the problem is and the remedial action to be taken within a specified time. This period may not be less than 21 days, during which time an appeal may be lodged.

Personal injury

If any inspector believes that there is, or is likely to be, a risk of serious personal injury, then a prohibition notice may be served. This can take immediate effect and prohibits any activity perceived as being dangerous.

There is right to appeal within 21 days, but the prohibition stands during that time.

In more serious cases you may be prosecuted and brought before the courts.

Magistrates can fine you up to £2,000; the Crown Court's power to fine is unlimited and it can impose prison sentences of up to two years.

In cases of fatal accidents where charges of manslaughter could follow, the Crown Prosecution Services may take proceedings.

Compliance with the requirements of health and safety legislation is a matter of great importance for any business, and it overlaps with your employment policy — it is up to you to set up a disciplinary code, failure to take disciplinary action against a persistently offending employee could be seen as management negligence and trigger personal prosecution.

Speedy response

The law of health and safety is constantly moving and is flexible. The 1974 Act was set up this way to allow for speedy response to new problems through new regulations. Recent examples include Control of Substances Harzadous to Health (1988); Electricity at Work (1989); and Noise at Work (1989).

Many of you will have heard of COSHH, but how many of you know how to comply?

0 Next week's feature will tell you how to prepare your health and safety policy statement — the cornerstone of your health and safety policy.


comments powered by Disqus