Editorial
What price a death? I'm sorry this is not a cheery thought for the holiday season but this month's crop of health and safety prosecutions prompt that challenging remark. Of course each individual life is 'priceless' - but what should the courts do when punishing companies for giving rise to the death as a consequence of their work activities?
We see in this month the range of responses from the courts with fines ranging from £300,000 to £1.00. Each set of facts is unique as indeed are the circumstances of the death and the underlying reasons and failings giving rise to it. However I'm sure if you asked the 'man or woman in the street' what they thought of the penalties imposed I'm sure that they would be expecting a harsher response in some of the cases. Clearly there is no point in fining companies with no assets and no ability to pay a fine anything - and that is why the £1.00 penalties were imposed. However with solvent companies and with the sentencing guidance council advising that courts should use £100,000 as the starting point when considering penalties I ponder whether the courts got the sentences right in all these cases.
Sentencing is a very difficult, nuanced responsibility that balances many factors including culpability, retribution, the response to the incident amongst many other aggravating and mitigating features. However notwithstanding the sophistication of the process and the weighing of the various factors there is always the public reaction - does that sentence 'feel' about right for what happened in all the circumstances. And when you see that some 'near death' incidents where the victim has survived and the employer is punished more severely than some fatalities is that right? However surviving an incident or accident can be just a matter of luck or chance.
I have every respect for our judges and the difficult task they have to perform but some of these penalties make me feel uncomfortable that the right balance may not have been struck. Any way - you decide!
UK Power Networks Limited fined following electrocution
|
Defendant
|
UK Power Networks Limited
|
Norwich Crown Court
|
|
Offence(s)
|
S2(1) HSWA
|
31 August 2011
|
|
Fine
|
£300,000
|
Costs
|
£219,352.09
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
UK Power Networks Limited - a national power company supplying the East of England, London and the South East - has been fined £300,000 after an employee died while working at one of its Norfolk sites.
Jonathan Crosby, 45, from Dickleburgh, Norfolk was working as an electrical overhead linesman at UK Power Networks (formerly known as EDF Energy Networks Limited) in Sawmills Road, Diss when the incident happened on 9 November 2007.
He was in a cherry-picker 5m above ground, removing an electrical transformer from the top of a pole connected to overhead power lines. As it was being removed, the transformer made contact with live power resulting in Mr Crosby receiving a fatal electrical shock.
The HSE investigation found that fuses supplying the transformer had not been removed to cut the electricity supply while it was lifted by a crane and also being held by Mr Crosby.
HSE told Norwich Crown Court that UK Power Networks had fallen markedly short in ensuring high risk work on its electricity distribution network, much of it located at height, was carried out safely.
It had failed to devise and prescribe rigorous and up to date procedures for this work, failed to train its staff adequately and failed to take steps to check these procedures were effective and employees were following them.
UK Power Networks of Newington House, 237 Southwark Bridge Road, London admitted breaching S2(1) Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. In addition to the fine, it was ordered to pay costs of £219,352.09.
Judge Peter Jacobs said:
"They fell significantly short of the reasonable practicability standards and they must take responsibility for their organisational and operational failures. It is obvious that the work being done is very dangerous and the merest contact could result in electrocution or a fall from height."
Tuffnells Parcel Express fined after worker's head is crushed
|
Defendant
|
Tuffnells Parcel Express Limited
|
Chelmsford Crown Court
|
|
Offence(s)
|
S2(1) HSWA 1974
|
1 August 2011
|
|
Fine
|
£150,000
|
Costs
|
£19,000
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Tuffnells Parcels Express Ltd has been fined £150,000 and ordered to pay £19,000 in court costs after an employee was seriously injured when his skull was crushed by a reversing lorry at the company's depot in West Horndon near Brentwood in Essex.
The HSE told Chelmsford Crown Court that in the early hours of 23 March 2010, Simon Mason, 22, from Romford, Essex was working the nightshift as a warehouse porter. An articulated 45ft HGV trailer was being reversed into an open loading bay while Mr Mason waited to unload it.
Mr Mason noticed the trailer was not positioned straight in the bay, so thinking it had stopped moving, he put his head around the back of the trailer to shout instructions to the driver. Just as he did so, the trailer came back further, crushing his head against the brick bay wall.
Mr Mason received severe head injuries requiring constant care for months and had to undergo several operations. He returned to work in February but is still suffering some long term effects.
HSE's investigation found Tuffnells had not assessed, controlled, or properly managed the risks arising from vehicle and equipment movements at its West Horndon depot. It had also failed to provide a safe system of work for its employees.
After the hearing today at Chelmsford Crown Court, HSE Inspector Glyn Davies said:
The damage to the depot wall where Mr Mason was injured
"Working with moving vehicles is a high risk activity which causes significant numbers of major and fatal injuries every year in this country. Tuffnells is well aware of these risks and this horrific incident in which a young man could have lost his life would have been avoided had the company's senior management ensured such risks were properly managed in all of its depots.
"This firm could have put in place a physical separation between the porters, moving vehicles and the loading bays and a safe way for porters and drivers to communicate with each other. None of these measures were evident and so a worker was seriously hurt for no good reason."
Last year, 17 workers were killed and more than 530 suffered major injury after being hit by moving vehicles while at work in Great Britain. Of these, two workers were killed and 130 received major injuries resulting specifically from contact with a reversing vehicle.
Tuffnells Parcels Express Ltd, whose Head Office is in Shepcote House, Shepcote Lane, Sheffield, pleaded guilty to breaching S2(1) Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £150,000 with costs of £19,000.
Meat plant worker killed by forklift
|
Defendant
|
Vion Food Scotland Limited
|
Livingston Sheriff Court
|
|
Offence(s)
|
S2(1) HSWA 1974
|
18 August 2011
|
|
Fine
|
£100,000
|
Costs
|
Nil-SCOT
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Vion Food Scotland Limited has been fined £100,000 after a worker was killed when he was hit by a forklift truck so badly loaded its driver could not see him.
George Hardie, 60, from Livingston, was walking across the yard at Vion Food Scotland Ltd in Broxburn, West Lothian, on 2 June 2009 to drop paperwork off at another part of the site.
As he was walking, a colleague was driving a forklift carrying two large empty containers across the yard to be washed.
The containers were stacked on top of each other on the front of the forklift, and the top of the load was approximately 160cm from the ground, making it hard for the driver to see over them.
As the driver approached the container wash, he felt his truck go over something, stopped, climbed out and saw Mr Hardie lying on his back, with the lower half of his body trapped underneath the forklift.
Colleagues attempted to help Mr Hardie before the emergency services arrived. Fire crews freed Mr Hardie, but when paramedics treated him they found he was not breathing and there were no signs of life. He was taken to the New Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, but was found to be dead on arrival.
An HSE investigation found that Vion Foods Scotland Ltd had not properly assessed the risks of moving the containers around the yard or made arrangements to make sure the containers were moved in a safe way. The investigation also found the company did not have a safe traffic management system or adequate supervision in place to keep pedestrians away from vehicles.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Peter Dodd said:
"If Vion Foods Scotland Ltd had taken simple steps to keep their employees safe, Mr Hardie would still be alive today.
"Forklifts were being moved around the yard with loads that meant the drivers could not clearly see where they were going. At the same time, employees were walking through the same yard, with no separation between them and the traffic, and no more protection than a high visibility jacket.
"The company should have taken steps to make sure the containers were being moved in a safe way, and managed the traffic in the yard so that people and vehicles were not sharing the same space."
At Livingston Sheriff Court Vion Food Scotland Limited of Kirkton Campus, Livingston, pleaded guilty to breaking S2 Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £100,000.
Worker crushed between two skips
|
Defendant
|
Lowmac Alloys Ltd
|
Ayr Sheriff Court
|
|
Offence(s)
|
S2(1) HSWA 1974
|
15 August 2011
|
|
Fine
|
£80,000
|
Costs
|
Nil-SCOT
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
An Ayr recycling company was fined £80,000 after a worker was severely injured when he was crushed between two skips.
On 26 August 2009, Steven Graham was standing in between two skips at a recycling centre run by Lowmac Alloys Ltd when a shovel loader weighing more than 18 tonnes hit one of the skips, pushing it towards the other and crushing Mr Graham between them.
Mr Graham, 46, from Ayrshire, screamed for help but the driver of the shovel loader did not hear him at first and carried on driving. When he realised that Mr Graham was injured, the driver tried to lift one of the skips away from Mr Graham but it took two attempts before he managed to do so.
Mr Graham was taken to Ayr Hospital by ambulance. He was treated for a broken pelvis and other severe, life-changing injuries. He continues to have difficulty in walking.
The HSE investigation found that the company had not properly risk assessed traffic management at their site in Ayr and had not provided and maintained a safe system of work in that there were no barriers or road markings to separate pedestrian workers from the shovel loader or other vehicles on site. The investigation also found that the shovel loader was too big for the area where it was operating, and that the drivers had never been formally trained, were not supervised, and had been given no training at all on health and safety issues.
The one portable toilet on site was found to be unhygienic with no running water. Several of the employees told HSE inspectors that the toilet was so filthy they preferred to urinate in the yard, and this was a practice accepted by management. It was this situation that led to Mr Graham being in between the skips.
HSE Inspector Aileen Jardine said:
"Mr Graham suffered horrendous injuries that will affect him for the rest of his life - but this incident was entirely avoidable.
"If Lowmac had taken simple steps to protect their staff, carrying out a proper risk assessment and taking measures to separate employees from the heavy vehicles that operated on site, this would not have happened.
"And if the company had shown basic consideration for the welfare of their employees by providing a toilet that was fit to use, Mr Graham would not have been left in such a vulnerable position."
At Ayr Sheriff Court Lowmac Alloys Ltd, of Green Street Lane, Ayr, plead guilty to breaching S2 Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. They were fined £80,000.
Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974 states that: "It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees."
Dad-to-be's death exposes safety flaws
|
Defendant
|
DavyMarkham Limited
|
Sheffield Crown Court
|
|
Offence(s)
|
S2(1) HSWA 1974
|
1 August 2011
|
|
Fine
|
£33,333
|
Costs
|
£49,247
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
A Sheffield crane driver died from massive crush injuries just weeks before he was due to become a father, a court was told today.
Alan Winters, 28, was killed when he and colleagues attempted to unload a four-ton crate from a shipping container at the DavyMarkham Ltd factory in Darnall, Sheffield, on 15 July 2008.
The scene after Alan Winters was cut free and taken to hospital.
Sheffield Crown Court was told Mr Winters was one of a group of workers who had already tried several ways to move the crate from the container. In a final attempt, Mr Winters climbed on the back of a forklift truck to unhook a chain from a corner of the container but the forklift reversed too far and tilted up over the lip of the container, trapping him against the roof.
Mr Winters' partner, Laurie Swift, was nearly eight months' pregnant at the time and gave birth to their son, Alan Junior, only six weeks later. She and Alan had recently moved into a new home in Sheffield's Littledale estate with Laurie's daughter Leah, then seven.
The incident prompted a full investigation by the HSE and led to the prosecution of DavyMarkham Ltd. The company has a 180-year history in South Yorkshire and is a major engineering business.
The court heard the firm was expecting the arrival of the container with two crates inside and had been anticipating difficulties unloading. Even so, an initial attempt was made to lift a five-tonne crate with a forklift truck that had a four-tonne capacity.
When that was abandoned, the site manager went away to carry out a risk assessment and find a safe way of getting the container from the lorry to the ground. In the interim, workers made more unsafe and unsuccessful efforts to unload the first crate before managing to drag it by the forklift out of the container.
A similar attempt to drag the second one from further inside was stopped as the wooden crate could be heard cracking. Finally, Mr Winters stood on the back of the forklift but the attempt ended in tragedy.
HSE Inspector Carol Downes said:
"This was a terrible tragedy. Mr Winters' death had the most devastating impact on his partner, Laurie, and his parents, Kim and Alan. His son will also never meet his dad.
"It was also utterly preventable if proper assessment and planning had been carried out before unloading was attempted. None of the managers or supervisors thought to stop the work until a risk assessment was done or safe procedure found.
"The loading or unloading of lorries or containers needs careful planning and effective control. It must be considered a critical part of transport management. This case has shown that failure to be in control of these activities can lead to fatal results."
DavyMarkham Ltd of Prince of Wales Road, Sheffield, had pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to an offence under s2 Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. They and was fined a total of £33,333 with £49,247 in costs.
Ed - Handling activities are high-risk activity with 34,000 reported injuries in 2009/10 and 21 fatalities associated with it since 2001/2.
Burton brewery fined after man hit by forklift truck
|
Defendant
|
Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) Limited
|
Cannock Magistrates' Court
|
|
Offence(s)
|
S2 & S3 HSWA 1974, reg 3(1) MHSWR 1999
|
4 August 2011
|
|
Fine
|
£31,000
|
Costs
|
£33,042
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) Limited a Burton-on-Trent brewery company has been sentenced after a delivery driver was hit by a forklift truck whilst on site.
Peter Jackson, 64, was at Molson Coors site at Station Street to unload a trailer of empty cans on 20 May 2008.
As he walked along the lines in the canning hall to find a space to deliver his load, he was struck by a forklift truck, which trapped his left leg beneath the forks. His foot and left wrist were both fractured and he has not been able to return to work since the incident.
An HSE investigation found the firm had failed to follow previous advice from HSE to devise and implement a safe workplace transport system after an inspector visited the site in December 2007.
Molson Coors, based at High Street, Burton-on-Trent, pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2 and 3 HSWA and Reg 3(1) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and was fined £31,000 and ordered to pay £33,042 costs by Cannock Magistrates' Court.
After the hearing, HSE inspector Lyn Spooner said:
"This incident occurred because of inadequate risk assessments, poor management and monitoring of contractors, and managers failing to understand their responsibilities for health and safety.
"It was an entirely preventable incident which highlights the importance of companies developing proper health and safety management systems that manage risks in the workplace properly, and communicating these not only to managers, but also to contractors.
"Not only had poor workplace transport arrangements persisted over many years, but Molson Coors also failed to follow previous advice from HSE. As a result, Mr Jackson was seriously injured in an incident that could easily have been fatal.
"It is particularly disappointing to see such failings at a large company, which has the resources to deliver much better standards."
EuroClad Limited fined after worker's crush injury
|
Defendant
|
Euro Clad Ltd
|
Cardiff Crown Court
|
|
Offence(s)
|
Reg 11(3) PUWER 1998
|
5 August 2011
|
|
Fine
|
£20,000
|
Costs
|
£6,000
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
A metal roofing company has been prosecuted for safety failings after a Cardiff worker suffered a serious wrist injury while operating production line machinery.
Darren Gillard, 46, from Splott, was employed by Euro Clad Ltd to make metal roof panels at the company's Wentloog factory.
On 19 April 2010 he was operating a machine that positions wooden blocks beneath packs of roof panels on the production line when some of the blocks became jammed in the machinery. Walking into the enclosure with the machine still in 'automatic' mode, he reached under the machine to reach the jammed bearers and free them.
However, once the blockage was removed, the machinery started up again and crushed his wrist between the bearer and the base frame.
Mr. Gillard was taken to hospital where he underwent three operations to insert a metal plate into his wrist, and skin graft treatment to serious skin abrasions sustained in the incident. He was only able to return to work four months later.
Cardiff Crown Court heard that he was able to gain access to the production line through a defective interlocked gate in the 2m perimeter fence that surrounded it. An investigation by the HSE revealed the gate had been interfered with and tied open.
This was deemed to be common practice due to a high number of jams that occurred, with workers regularly passing the gate without correctly stopping and isolating the machine.
HSE prosecuted Euro Clad Ltd for failing to take effective measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery, and for not checking the guards or interlocks were in place at the time.
The company had pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(3) Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. At Cardiff Crown Court, it was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,000.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Paul Cartwright said:
"This was a very serious injury and one that has had a significant impact on Mr. Gillard. The case demonstrates the importance of ensuring that machinery guards and protective systems remain effective. Employers need to regularly monitor practices and rectify any problems promptly. HSE will not hesitate to take action where employers fail to ensure that protective measures are in place.
"In this case, there was no such monitoring, and a dangerous system was allowed to exist for some time before it was highlighted by a serious and wholly avoidable incident."
Tulip Limited fined after worker severs fingers
|
Defendant
|
Tulip Limited
|
Grantham Magistrates Court
|
|
Offence(s)
|
Reg 11(1) PUWER 1998
|
11 August 2011
|
|
Fine
|
£16,000
|
Costs
|
£4,076
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Tulip Limited - the UK's biggest producer of pork products - has been fined after a worker severed two fingers in an unguarded mixing machine.
The 60-year-old, from Branston, Lincolnshire, lost the index and middle fingers on his right hand and damaged his ring finger in the incident at Tulip Ltd's factory in Ruskington on 10 December 2009. The incident happened as he reached into the mixing bowl to remove a piece of blue plastic that he had spotted as he was adding seasoning to the mixture.
After several operations and 10 months off work, the man returned to work but due to the loss of nerve endings in his damaged fingers, is unable to do the same job.
An HSE investigation found the mixing machine was not guarded, unlike others at the site which all had an electrically locked gate at the top of a set of access steps. If gates had been in place, they would have prevented the paddles inside the machine from turning as the seasoning was added.
Grantham Magistrates' Court was told Tulip Ltd had identified the potential dangers of the machine being unguarded during a risk assessment in February 2009 but did nothing about it.
Tulip Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company was fined £16,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4,076.
Speaking after today's hearing, HSE inspector Dr David Lefever said:
"This incident has had a profound effect on the worker. Simple, everyday tasks such as tying shoelaces or doing up buttons have become difficult. He has also had to give up playing cricket for his local team and faces the prospect of further surgery to repair his damaged fingers.
"This incident was entirely foreseeable and easily preventable. The risk could have been removed at no cost to the company by removing the access steps and only using the machine for tasks that did not require feeding from the top. Alternatively they could have provided a new set of locked steps at a cost of £960. Unfortunately, a much larger price has been paid, not least by their employee.
"This case shows that risk assessments are not just about producing pieces of paper. Employers have a duty to act on their findings. If Tulip had taken prompt action at the time, this incident would not have happened."
Glasgow demolition worker fatally injured
|
Defendant
|
Whiteinch Demolition Ltd
|
Glasgow Sheriff Court
|
|
Offence(s)
|
S2(1) HSWA 1974
|
29 August 2011
|
|
Fine
|
£15,000
|
Costs
|
Nil-SCOT
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Whiteinch Demolition Limited, a Glasgow demolition contractor has been fined after a worker was killed when a weight from a face shovel machine fell on him.
On 12 May 2008 Bernard McCarroll, aged 68 years from Croy, was dismantling a hydraulic excavator at the company's yard in Glasgow by the process known as burning, using a flame torch. The machine weighed more than 7 tonnes and had a weight at the rear to assist stability. Whilst flame cutting the bolts that held this weight to the frame of the machine, part of it fell onto Mr McCarroll who suffered serious injuries and died.
An HSE investigation found the dismantling operation had not been properly risk assessed or planned by the company. The court was told that a safe system of work had not been provided to those carrying out the dismantling task. It was also found that insufficient information and instruction had been made available by the company with regard to the assembly of this large machine.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Russell Berry said:
"The dismantling operation had not been planned sufficiently and it was left to Mr McCarroll to decide how to carry out the task as it progressed.
"In failing to carry out a risk assessment for this job and failing to plan a safe method of carrying out the work, Whiteinch Demolition Ltd failed to protect Bernard McCarroll and it cost him his life.
"This incident was entirely foreseeable and could have easily been avoided. If straightforward steps had been taken then Mr McCarroll would undoubtedly be alive today."
At Glasgow Sheriff Court Whiteinch Demolition Ltd, of Centurion Works, Balmuildy Road, Bishopbriggs, Glasgow pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974. It was fined £15,000.
Brewer fined after three men burned by caustic soda
|
Defendant
|
Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) Ltd
|
Cannock Magistrates' Court
|
|
Offence(s)
|
S3 HSWA 1974
|
4 August 2011
|
|
Fine
|
£14,000
|
Costs
|
£43,674
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) Limited has been fined after three men suffered serious chemical burns when 6,000 litres of caustic soda erupted from a faulty valve.
The three sub-contractors from a specialist engineering company were undertaking maintenance work at Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) Ltd's Station Street site.
They were drenched in a liquid jet of caustic soda when repairing a valve on a line running from a detergent tank on 30 June 2008. Up to 6,000 litres of the chemical spilled out from the container.
Martin Soanes, 53, was temporarily blinded and one of his colleagues, who has asked not to be identified, suffered 25 per cent burns, which have left him with scars and continuing sensitivity, making it difficult for him to tolerate heat. The third man suffered minor skin burns and irritation to his eyes.
Cannock Magistrates' Court heard the men had not been given adequate instructions or appropriate personal protective equipment. Although they were given visors, the overalls provided by the company were made from cloth, and the caustic fluid soaked through these.
Molson Coors, of High Street, Burton-on-Trent, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3 HSWA. The company was fined £14,000 and ordered to pay £43,674 costs.
After the hearing, HSE inspector Lyn Spooner said:
"This was a preventable incident, which caused unpleasant injuries to three men. It is fortunate that the caustic soda was dilute, otherwise they would have been much more seriously hurt.
"All companies must manage contractors properly and make sure that they are following health and safety procedures.
"They must also carry out proper risk assessments for any work that contractors are required to carry out.
"Molson Coors failed to do this, and three people have been injured as a result."
County Durham firm fined after worker's fingers severed
|
Defendant
|
Derek Parnaby Cyclones International Ltd
|
Darlington Magistrates' Court
|
|
Offence(s)
|
S3(1) HSWA reg 11 PUWER
|
3 August 2011
|
|
Fine
|
£10,500
|
Costs
|
£3,266.60
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
A County Durham firm has been fined £10,500 after a worker had three fingers severed while using a bandsaw.
John Houston, 39, from Ferryhill, was working as a contractor for Derek Parnaby Cyclones International Ltd, which manufactures and installs mineral processing and effluent treatment systems and equipment.
Mr Houston was working at the company's head office in Chilton where he was using a horizontal metal cutting bandsaw to cut down pieces of steel to make a frame. There was no safety guard in place and his left hand came into contact with the moving blade, severing three of his fingers.
The HSE brought the prosecution after investigating the incident which happened on 22 April 2010.
Darlington Magistrates' Court heard that Mr Houston had to undergo ten hours of surgery as doctors attempted, unsuccessfully, to re-attach one of his fingers. He was in hospital for a week.
Mr Houston had been managing director of his own company, AJL Safenet Ltd, which manufactured and installed metal flooring, and had been working as a contractor for Derek Parnaby Cyclones International Ltd during quiet periods. AJL Safenet Ltd has now ceased trading as Mr Houston has been unable to return to work.
The court was told that Derek Parnaby Cyclones International Ltd had also allowed its employees to operate another horizontal metal cutting bandsaw without the required adjustable blade guard despite having been given advice from HSE inspectors in 2008 on what safeguards were required when using such equipment.
Derek Parnaby Cyclones International Ltd, of Avenue 1, Chilton Industrial Estate, Chilton was fined a total of £10,500 and ordered to pay £3,266.60 in costs after it pleaded guilty to both charges.
After the case, HSE Inspector Cain Mitchell, said:
"This was an entirely avoidable incident which resulted in Mr Houston suffering a life changing injury to his hand and has led to his own company going out of business. The bandsaw should not have been used without the correct guarding to prevent access to the moving blade.
"Preventing access to dangerous parts of machinery with the use of suitable guards is a simple, but vital precaution to help ensure the safety of workers.
"In this case, the bandsaw used by Mr Houston had been in use without a suitable guard for some months while a second saw had been identified by Inspectors as having no guard in place some two years earlier. However, despite this warning, the company failed to take any action putting its workers at risk of injury."
Middlesbrough firm fined after worker hurt by 600kg bag of fertiliser
|
Defendant
|
Fertiliser Solutions Ltd
|
Teeside Magistrates' Court
|
|
Offence(s)
|
S2(1) HSWA reg 3(1) MHSWR
|
23 August 2011
|
|
Fine
|
£10,500
|
Costs
|
£12,411.45
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
A North East fertiliser company has been fined after a worker was seriously injured when a 600kg bag of ammonium nitrate fell on him.
Robert Dearlove, 32, was part of a team clearing up a spillage after several bags of ammonium nitrate fell from a stack at a Fertiliser Solutions Ltd warehouse at Dawson's Wharf, in Middlesbrough.
The HSE told Teesside Magistrates' Court one operative was sweeping up the spilled ammonium nitrate, while Mr Dearlove, also from Middlesbrough, hooked the fallen bags onto the arms of a forklift truck.
The men were working near the remaining stack of bags which was stacked three high and had noticed that two bags on the third layer were leaning to one side. After Mr Dearlove hooked up the last of the fallen bags to the forklift truck, he turned around with his back to the stack.
One of the bags from the third layer fell and struck him on the back, forcing him over and causing him to strike his head on the floor. He suffered a serious back injury, a fractured right thigh and ligament damage to his left leg.
He was in hospital for three weeks following the incident, had to wear a back brace for five months and later underwent surgery on his back. He has not been able to return to work since the 29 April 2008 incident due to ongoing back pain and limited movement.
Fertiliser Solutions Ltd, of Dawson's Wharf, Middlesbrough was fined a total of £10,500 and ordered to pay £12,411.45 in costs after pleading guilty to two offences, one breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and one breach of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.
After the case, HSE Inspector Catherine Rimmer, said:
"Three years after an incident that could have easily been avoided, Robert Dearlove is still suffering as a result of his injuries.
"Although the company had a risk assessment for the bag store, which had identified bags falling from the stacks as a hazard, the control measures were simply too generic and made no reference to any safe working procedures.
"Had the two bags that remained on the third layer of the stack, and which were seen 'leaning', been removed with a forklift truck before allowing workers into the area to clear up the spilled product, Mr Dearlove would not have been injured.
"The incident highlights the importance for all companies in the fertiliser industry to ensure that they have effective arrangements in place for the safe stacking and de-stacking of fertiliser bags and for dealing with bag falls from stacks."
Ed - At the time of the incident Fertiliser Solutions Ltd was part of the J&H Bunn Group which was taken over by Koch Fertiliser Ltd in March 2011.
Roof fall leads to fine for Nottinghamshire firm
|
Defendant
|
Mechanical Solutions Ltd
|
Derby Magistrates' Court
|
|
Offence(s)
|
Reg4(1) WHR 2005
|
3 August 2011
|
|
Fine
|
£10,000
|
Costs
|
£5,366
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
A mechanical engineering company has been fined after a subcontractor suffered serious back injuries falling through a roof.
Self-employed roofer Michael Hawkins, 23, of Rotherham, fell approximately six metres through a fragile roof at a large industrial building at Cotes Park Lane, Somercotes, Derbyshire. He underwent six operations in just six months including a large skin graft to his back and has been unable to return to work since the 16 June 2009 incident.
Mr Hawkins had been subcontracted by Mechanical Solutions Ltd, of Mansfield, which had been employed by the building's owners to help cover the asbestos cement roof with steel cladding. It was his first day on site.
Derby magistrates were told by the HSE that the company had failed to ensure the work was properly planned, appropriately supervised or carried out in a safe manner.
The HSE investigation found part of the roof was only single thickness and therefore considerably weaker in some areas than others, yet the company failed to identify how fragile it was.
The court heard the company's own method statement stated that harnesses were to be used near unprotected edges, however no provision had been made for use of harnesses in either the single thickness area where the incident occurred or the adjacent unguarded roof edge.
The method statement also stated all skylights and openings must be protected, but no evidence of this was found.
Guard rails for access boards used to move about the main asbestos cement roof, were either missing or incomplete. There was also no safety protection underneath, which was made more significant because there was no netting to prevent workers from falling through the roof into the factory below.
A Prohibition Notice was served after the incident preventing a return to work on or near the fragile roof until a safe system was in place to prevent another fall.
Mechanical Solutions Ltd, of Acorn Business Park, Commercial Gate, Mansfield, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. The company was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £5,366.
Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Carol Southerd said:
"This was not an isolated lapse. Work had been taking place on the roof for weeks before the incident happened. It is clear Mr Hawkins and other workers were able to enter freely onto an inadequately protected area of a hazardous fragile roof. They were exposed to significant risk of serious or fatal injury.
"The company fell far short of the expected standard in the system of work. There was inadequate risk assessment, instruction and supervision."
Roof fall results in suspended prison sentence
|
Defendant
|
Steven Mason
|
Chelmsford Crown Court
|
|
Offence(s)
|
S3(2) HSWA
|
25 August 2011
|
|
Penalty
|
8 months susp for 12months
|
Costs
|
£500
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
A self-employed roofing contractor from Essex has been given a suspended prison sentence after an incident in which a friend fell through the roof of a domestic garage - and later died of his injuries.
Steve Mason had been contracted to replace a flat roof on a double garage at a house in Well Lane, Stock, near Chelmsford, and James Waughman was accompanying him.
While on site Mr Waughman, 58, of Perry Road, Tiptree, suffered a stroke and fell through a gap in the rafters on to the garage floor, suffering multiple injuries. He died in hospital on 17 July 2009, just over three weeks after the incident on 24 June.
Steve Mason, also 58 and of Perry Road, Tiptree, received an eight month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months, and was ordered to pay £500 costs today at Chelmsford Crown Court after admitting breaching section 3 (2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Lesley Balkham said:
"This sends out a powerful message to roofing contractors. Steve Mason failed to properly consider the risks of the job and act to limit the chances of injury or even death. He should have put guard-rails around the edge of the roof and taken measures to prevent anyone falling through it, but he chose not to.
"No matter what size the business, everyone in the construction industry should be very familiar with the risks of working at height and appreciate the importance of ensuring that the right precautions are put in place, however small the job. Falls from height remain one of the biggest causes of workplace deaths in the UK."
Other cases in brief
|
Defendant
|
Offences
|
Penalty
|
Costs
|
Details
|
|
Kubik Homes Limited
|
S3(1) HSWA
|
£8,000
|
£2,426.50
|
Kubik - principal contractors, Bellway subcontractors. Building site with 'appalling standards' no injuries or incidents. Make shift 'staircase' raised accessway without edge protection etc. Several Prohibition Notices served.
|
|
Bellway Developments Limited
|
S3(1) HSWA
|
£8,000
|
£2,384.50
|
|
Ancient House Press plc
|
Reg11(1)PUWER
|
£7,500
|
£8,272
|
Employee's hand mutilated by an unguarded machine.
|
|
Evanacre Colmore Row Ltd
|
Regs 11(1)(a) and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006
|
£7,000
|
£1,500
|
Failures regarding asbestos management during office refurbishment. Owners (Evanacre), project managers (Marchant) and builder (Morewood) all prosecuted. High levels of asbestos fibres found in vacuum cleaners etc. Licensed contractor required but not employed.
|
|
Marchment Consulting Ltd
|
Regs 11(1)(a) and 16 of the CAR 2006
|
£7,000
|
£1,500
|
|
Roland Morewood
|
Regs 8(1) and 16 CAR 2006
|
£1,000
|
£823
|
|
Kestrel Timber Frame Ltd
|
S2(1) HSWA
|
£6,700
|
£4,117
|
Employee hand injury with circular saw.
|
|
Lupton and Place Ltd
|
S3(1) HSWA
|
£6,000
|
£6,250
|
4m fall from height without injury
|
|
Grupo Antolin Leamington Ltd
|
Regs 8(1) & 11(1) PUWER 1998
|
£5,000
|
£2,858
|
Unguarded machinery - severed finger.
|
|
Orwell Trucks
|
S2(1) HSWA
|
£4,500
|
£2,726
|
Air strut gave way trapping worker who was undertaking routine vehicle check.
|
|
Tangerine Confectionery Ltd
|
Reg 11 PUWER
|
£3,400
|
£4,568
|
Hand in machine - employee's finger severed
|
|
First Skips Ltd
|
S2(1) HSWA
|
£3,350
|
£3,528.70
|
Worker injured by reversing vehicle
|
|
Azam Bros Ltd
|
Reg 4 Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006
|
£2,500
|
£2,500
|
Failure to manage asbestos removal works. Failure to survey whether or not asbestos was present.
|
|
Mohammed Zahid
|
Regs 4, 5, 8(2) and 10 Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006
|
£1,000
|
£500
|
|
Rainsafe Protect Ltd
|
Reg 4(1) WHR 2005
|
£2,000
|
£2,069
|
Working at height without appropriate protection
|
|
Ovenpride Wholesale Ltd
|
S2(1) HSWA
|
£1
|
NIl
|
Fatal fall from stepladder
|
|
Amjad Mahmood
|
|
£300
|
£200
|
|
Foxtel Ltd
|
S2(1) HSWA
|
£1
|
Nil
|
Fatal fall from height - 13.5 whilst installing satellite dish. Company no longer trading
|
Environment Agency Prosecutions
Illegal waste boss from Berkshire has to pay back more than £800k
|
Defendant
|
Amrik Johal
|
Reading Crown Court
|
|
Offence(s)
|
S33 EPA 1990; Proceeds of Crime Act
|
4 August 2011
|
|
Penalty
|
2 yr community penalty
|
Costs
|
|
Confiscation
|
£881,513 or 5 years prison
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
The boss of an illegal waste company has been ordered to repay more than £800,000 under the Proceeds of Crime Act (2002) and given a two year community sentence - and warned he faces five years in jail if he doesn't pay up.
This is the largest Proceeds of Crime Act ruling the Environment Agency has secured to date.
Amrik Johal, 53, of Cheviot Road, Langley, Slough, was convicted on 23 April 2010 after a week long trial for running an illegal waste operation on his land at Colnbrook Bypass, Colnbrook, Slough. The operation was an illegal waste transfer station and scrap metal yard, the running of which had a serious impact on local residents living within ten metres of the site. This included dogs barking and powerful floodlights shining into their homes late at night, and the crushing of cars, which is a very noisy process.
Mr Johal was given a two-year community order at Reading Crown Court at the end of the two-year court saga. The verdict followed the trial at Bracknell Magistrates' Court in April 2010, after which the Environment Agency made an application for confiscation of Mr Johal's assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The matter was referred to the Crown Court and the sentencing of Mr Johal was postponed until the determination of that application.
The confiscation application was determined on 7 July 2011, when Mr Johal was order to pay the sum of £881,513, representing the proceeds of his crime. This sum must be paid within six months of the date of this order - and in default Mr Johal will serve five years imprisonment.
During the trial in April 2010 the court heard that Environment Agency officers visited the site in Slough on numerous occasions between March 2006 and March 2007 and told Mr Johal that he did not have the correct authorisations for the waste activities seen at the site. The court also heard about Mr Johal's previous convictions for similar illegal waste offences.
During the numerous visits to the site, Environment Agency officers found:
• skips full of mixed waste including, cardboard, buckets, carpet underlay and wood,
- piles of mixed wood, metal and other waste on the ground,
- empty skips branded 'Johal skip hire' with the defendants mobile number,
• skips containing engines, cables and waste electronic equipment, piled at least nine metres high,
• large piles of other waste across the whole site including tyres, green waste, concrete, and vehicle batteries,
• End of life vehicles were in the process of being de-polluted and crushed by the grab machine,
• waste skip lorries and container lorries carrying waste onto the site and leaving the site empty.
Environment officers saw a weighbridge on the site, which are used at waste transfer stations to weigh vehicles and their contents. On one occasion they witnessed a car being brought on site and later saw its crushed remains on site. Mr Johal was on site on this occasion and when environment officers questioned him about it, he gave a number of different responses to what had happened to the distinctive red car, but eventually admitted crushing it.
Officers explained in detail the requirements Mr Johal would need to run the site legally.
Mr Johal was interviewed under caution on 20 March 2007 where he denied any involvement in any waste activities on the site. Mr Johal was interviewed separately by Thames Valley Police for other matters and, during this interview, he admitted to running a skip hire and metal recycling business.
Environment Crime Officer Morgan Lound said: "Through the numerous site visits Mr Johal was aware that he was acting illegally. His illegal activities were harmful to the environment, undermined legitimate business and have caused distress to local residents for many years."
"We are particularly satisfied with the confiscation order of £881,513, and the threat of five years' imprisonment if he does not pay, because the Environment Agency wants to make sure that serious waste crime doesn't pay.
"For years Mr Johal has presided over an extensive and unlawful operation that has competed with law-abiding operators who operate from land with planning permission, who pay permit fees for a waste permit and are obliged to put in place expensive infrastructure to protect the environment and measures to protect the neighbours from nuisances such as dust, noise and odour."
Hazardous waste violations
|
Defendant
|
Crown Waste Management Limited
|
Coventry Magistrates' Court
|
|
Offence(s)
|
S33 EPA 1990; Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005
|
2 August 2011
|
|
Fine
|
£32,000
|
Costs
|
£2,174.60
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
On 2 August 2011, Crown Waste Management Limited pleaded guilty at Coventry Magistrates' Court to three charges relating to the handling of hazardous waste in October 2009.
The charges were brought by the Environment Agency under Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005.
Crown Waste Management Limited, of Pool Road Industrial Estate, Nuneaton, Warwickshire were fined £32,000, ordered to pay £2,174.60 in costs along with a £15 victim surcharge.
Prosecuting for the Environment Agency, Kiran Cassini told the Court that In September 2009 Crown Waste Management were contracted to remove asbestos lagging from Gamecock Barracks in Nuneaton where demolition works were being carried out. Between September and November two skips were delivered to the site in Nuneaton by Crown Waste Management and later collected for disposal. Both skips were then deposited on land at Pool Road, Nuneaton where no environmental permit was in force. This land was opposite a permitted facility owned and operated by Crown Waste Management Limited. However, under the terms of their environmental permit, they were not allowed to accept asbestos at their site.
On both occasions when the skips were collected the relevant consignment notes were not provided as required by the Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005. Contractors who were managing the demolition works at Gamecock Barracks made several attempts to obtain the relevant consignment notes from Crown Waste and on 17 November 2009 a consignment note was provided stating that the asbestos had been taken to Sita Limited, a permitted site in Packington, Coventry that was authorised to accept asbestos when in fact the waste remained on land at Pool Road until the Environment Agency began to investigate matters.
Following intervention by the Environment Agency, the asbestos was finally disposed of correctly in July 2010.
Speaking after the case, an Environment Agency officer in charge of the investigation said "Crown Waste Management Ltd took on the disposal of hazardous waste without being competent to do so and deposited, stored and treated that waste illegally without the benefit of a permit or using adequate paperwork. The fine reflects the serious nature of the offence."
In mitigation the Court was told that the incident arose as a result of a member of staff forgetting that the waste had been deposited opposite the permitted facility and had since been dismissed. The company regretted the incident and was ashamed of its actions. The incident did not result in any pollution or harm to human health.
Company fined for polluting Leek Brook
|
Defendant
|
Esterchem Ltd
|
Stoke-on-Trent Magistrates' Court
|
|
Offence(s)
|
Regulations 38(1)(a), 38(2) and 12 (1)(b) Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010
|
26 August 2011
|
|
Fine
|
£25,000
|
Costs
|
£7,428.76
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Esterchem Ltd pleaded guilty to one charge of polluting the Leek Brook and two charges of failing to comply with the conditions of their environmental permit.
The court sentenced Esterchem Ltd, a chemical production company based at Brooklands Way, Leekbrook, Leek, Staffordshire to a financial penalty of £25,000. They were also ordered to pay £7,428.76 in costs, along with a £15 victim surcharge.
The charges against Esterchem Ltd were brought by the Environment Agency under Regulation 38(1)(a), 38(2) and 12 (1)(b) of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010.
Esterchem Ltd was responsible for the release of Sodium Hydroxide into the Leek Brook, resulting in the complete wipe out of fish stocks along a three quarter mile stretch of the brook. Company Director, Adam Bray has accepted a caution (in his personal capacity) for his involvement in the pollution incident.
On Sunday 11 July 2010, Mr Bray reported to the Environment Agency, that a half full, 1000 litre capacity industrial bulk container (IBC) had been opened by vandals and sodium hydroxide had escaped into road drains outside the site. The next morning, Environment Agency officers observed dead fish in the Leek Brook, and measured high pH readings of 10 - 11, indicating an increase of alkali concentration.
On Tuesday 13 July 2010, water samples were taken from Leek Brook and from the River Churnet. A number of dead fish were seen and the bed of the Brook was a fawn yellow colour for approximately 1000 metres. That same day, two Fisheries Technical Officers from the Environment Agency carried out a fish survey on the Leek Brook. High pH levels of 10.29 - 12.5 were recorded along the Leek Brook downstream of the surface water sewer discharge pipe near the end of Brooklands Way. Above the discharge pipe the pH was recorded as 8.25. A total of 1,728 dead fish were counted although it is believed that the number killed as a result of the pollution was significantly higher than this.
Environment Agency officers were informed that the incident was discovered at 18:45 hours on 11 July 2010 and the area had been thoroughly cleaned with large volumes of water to remove and dilute the residue. The IBC was one of four that had been used as a security barrier behind the entrance gates, following another break in on the evening of Saturday 10 July 2010. It was stated that the valves of the IBCs had been locked. The containers were placed on a downward slope, with no provision for containment of leaks or spillages. Failure to provide a secondary containment was in breach of the company's environmental permit. There was a white coloured stain on the roadway and around the road drain covers outside the site.
The nearest road drain outside the site had a small, dark puddle of liquid immediately in front of the drain which was pH 10, indicating an alkali.
On Monday 19 July 2010, the Environment Agency carried out biological sampling of Leek Brook, and concluded that the discharge had had a significant impact on the insects and bugs in the brook.
By Friday 30 July 2010, further water samples were taken from the brook and the River Churnet. It was noted that the fawn-yellow colour previously noticed on the bed was no longer visible. Officers also dye traced the road drain outside Esterchem's premises and traced it to the surface water sewer discharge pipe near the end of Brooklands Way.
On Tuesday 12 October 2010, Mr Bray, representing Esterchem Ltd was interviewed under caution by the Environment Agency. He explained that he had used the IBCs of sodium hydroxide as an emergency security barrier behind the entrance gates, due to the site being broken into the previous night. However he admitted that it was unsuitable as a barrier, and should not have been used for this purpose. He stated that in storing it without any form of secondary containment, Esterchem Ltd had not followed their own procedures. He was aware the road drain outside the premises connects to the Leak Brook, but had not fully considered the consequences of flushing water through the drainage system. No attempt had been made to contain the wash water, as advised in the Safety Data Sheet for the chemical.
In mitigation, the court was told that this was a unusual case of a company being prosecuted for something which had been brought about by the actions of vandals. It was the act of a decent man in the heat of the moment.
Speaking after the case at Newcastle-under-Lyme Magistrates Court, an Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Control Officer said: "Environmental permits are in place to protect the environment and prevent harm to human health. In this case, the consequences of not following the permit conditions has caused significant harm to the environment. We will not hesitate to take action if it means preventing future pollution incidents."
Bradford skip hire owner sentenced over waste crimes
|
Defendant
|
Neil Bland
|
Bradford Crown Court
|
|
Offence(s)
|
Regulation 12 and Regulation 38(1) (a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 and S2 of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999
|
12 August 2011
|
|
Penalty
|
6 mnths prison susp 2 years
240 hrs community work
|
Costs
|
£7,428.76
|
Confiscation
|
£5,6000
|
|
Defendant
|
Town and Country Skip Hire Ltd
|
|
|
Offence(s)
|
Regulation 12 and Regulation 38(1) (a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 and S2 of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999
|
|
|
Penalty
|
£100 x2
|
Costs
|
£7,428.76
|
|
|
A Bradford man has been sentenced to six months in jail suspended for two years and ordered to forfeit £5,600 under the proceeds of crime act at Bradford Crown Court.
Neil Bland of Meal Bridge Farm, Whalley Lane, Denholme, Bradford pleaded guilty to two environmental waste offences. Mr Bland is a director of Town and Country Skip Hire Ltd registered at Railway Street, Huddersfield. Both Mr Bland and the skip hire company were charged with two offences of operating without an environmental permit.
Mr Bland was sentenced to two months on the first charge and four months consecutive on the second charge, suspended for two years.
He was ordered to carry out 240 hours unpaid work and is subject to a supervision order for 12 months. He was also ordered to forfeit £5,600 within six months or face three months in jail. The company was fined £100 on each charge to be paid in 28 days.
Giles Bridge, prosecuting for the Environment Agency, told the court that officers began undercover surveillance of Mr Bland's skip hire business in March 2009 after they suspected that waste was being moved and stored without the relevant permits.
Some skips of waste, mainly rubble, were seen to be moved off site at Meal Bridge Farm. The Town and Country Skip Hire wagons were moving full skips of waste into the farm and were leaving with empty skips.
A business that receives waste should be regulated under an environmental permit. It also needs to hold a waste carriers licence if it is to move waste, usually in skips, from one location to another. The carrier must also keep records and these are know as waste transfer notices, which record the source of the waste, the carrier, the type of waste and disposal point.
Site raid
On 8 May 2009, Environment Agency officers raided the site and Mr Bland was arrested. A search of the site revealed piles of sorted waste, skips of metal and timber, cardboard and rubble. They also found skips of electrical waste including a leaking car battery which is classed as hazardous waste.
Mr Bland was later interviewed under caution, where he admitted that he was operating without an environmental permit. He accepted that he had taken waste onto the farm, mainly at weekends when other facilities were closed, where he tipped the waste and kept re-loading to keep the skips moving. He admitted that he had taken a gamble by doing this.
Mr Bland said he could not get an environmental permit as the farm is in a green belt.
On 27 August 2010, further surveillance was carried out at Meal Bridge Farm when a yellow JCB was seen at the site. Skips were being brought onto the site and off loaded, one was emptied onto the ground.
Further observations were made on 1 September 2010 an on 6 September 2010 the site was searched by Environment Agency officers. A skip on the back of one of the wagons was inspected. It held mixed waste and waste from a primary school in Keighley.
When officers looked at the transfer notes, they showed that waste had been collected from commercial and domestic premises. Some skips had been taken to an authorised waste transfer station but some had gone to Meal Bridge Farm.
Previous waste convictions
Mr Bridge told the court that Mr Bland had previous convictions for similar waste offences from 2008. He continued his activities after the initial proceedings started, and he was gaining financial advantage over businesses that comply with the law by avoiding tipping fees. Since the investigation started, the Environment Agency revoked Mr Bland's waste carriers licence.
In sentencing, Judge Grant said that Mr Bland had showed complete disregard for the regulations that are in place to prevent damage to the environment and danger to the public.
Speaking after the case, Mark Parker, environmental crime officer at the Environment Agency said: "This sentence sends out a strong message to operators that the Environment Agency will not tolerate illegal waste activities. We will use all the powers at our disposal to ensure that waste management businesses comply with the law."
Ed: The offences were
Town and Country Skip Hire Limited did, In the district of Bradford, between the 27th of August 2010 and the 6th of September 2010 knowingly cause the operation of a regulated facility on land at Meal Bridge Farm, Denholme and the operation of the facility was not authorised by an environmental permit.
Contrary to Regulation 12 and Regulation 38(1) (a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 and S2 of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999
And you were a Director of the said Company and the offence was committed with your consent.
Contrary to Regulation 41(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 and Section 2 of the Pollution, Prevention and Control Act 1999.
Town and Country Skip Hire Limited was charged with the following offences:
Town and Country Skip Hire Limited did In the district of Bradford, between the 27th of August 2010 and the 6th of September 2010 , knowingly cause the operation of a regulated facility on land at Meal Bridge Farm, Denholme and the operation of the facility was not authorised by an environmental permit.
Contrary to Regulation 12 and Regulation 38(1) (a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 and S2 of the Pollution Prevention and control Act 1999.
Haulage companies fined for tipping waste at Cornish farm
|
Defendant
|
Michael Leah
|
Truro Crown Court
|
|
Offence(s)
|
|
16 August 2011
|
|
Penalty
|
12 mnths suspended for 2 years
|
Costs
|
£4,000
|
Confiscation
|
£50,000
|
|
Defendant
|
Mark Outram
|
|
|
Offence(s)
|
|
|
|
Penalty
|
250 hrs community work
|
Costs
|
£3,000
|
|
|
|
Defendant
|
Broad and Sons
|
|
|
Offence(s)
|
Section 33(1)(a) and (b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
|
|
|
Penalty
|
£2,500
|
Costs
|
£
|
Confiscation
|
£4,080
|
|
Defendant
|
Maen Karne Aggregates
|
|
|
Offence(s)
|
Section 33(1)(a) and (b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
|
|
|
Penalty
|
£2,250
|
|
|
Confiscation
|
£3,750
|
|
Defendant
|
St Pirrans Trucks
|
|
|
Offence(s)
|
Section 33(1)(a) and (b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990
|
|
|
Fine
|
£2,000
|
|
|
Confiscation
|
£4,860
|
|
Defendant
|
Harts Haulage Ltd
|
|
|
Offence(s)
|
Section 33(1)(a) and (b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990
|
|
|
Fine
|
£1,800
|
|
|
Confiscation
|
£3,000
|
|
Defendant
|
Michael Mudge Ltd
|
|
|
Offence(s)
|
|
|
|
Fine
|
£1,600
|
Costs
|
£7,428.76
|
Confiscation
|
£3,200
|
A group of West Cornwall hauliers and director of a skip hire company have been ordered to pay nearly £100,000 in fines and costs for illegally tipping thousands of tonnes of waste at a farm near Helston.
The case was brought by the Environment Agency.
The dumping of approximately 9,000 tonnes of construction and demolition waste at Trenoweth Farm, Gweek, culminated, this week, in the operators of five local haulage companies appearing at Truro Crown Court for sentencing.
In addition to fines and costs, offenders were ordered to pay back profits they had made from their criminal activities under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
Main offender, Michael Leah, received a 12 month prison sentence suspended for two years and was ordered to pay £50,000 under Proceeds of Crime plus £4,000 costs.
At the time of the offences Michael Leah was director of a haulage and skip hire company and operated a licensed Waste Transfer Station at Ludgvan near Penzance. Waste was brought to the transfer station for sorting before being sent off for recycling, reuse or disposal.
An investigation by the Agency revealed that during 2007 and 2008 Leah had illegally dumped waste, including asbestos, at three separate sites including two farms and a residential property at St Ives.
The sites included Boswens Farm, Newbridge, St Just where a landowner asked Leah to provide hardcore to improve an old farm track. Work was stopped after Agency officers became concerned at the type of waste being imported to the site. Samples taken from the track included 'significant amounts' of asbestos and other unsuitable waste material.
Checks with English Heritage showed the illegal tipping had seriously damaged ancient field boundaries forming part of a Scheduled Monument that also includes ancient hut circles. Boswens Farm lies within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty on a stretch of Heritage Coastline.
In addition, a number of highly invasive Japanese Knotweed plants were found growing from freshly-imported waste material at the farm during a follow-up visit by the Agency.
Michael Leah said he had only deposited three lorry loads of subsoil at Trenoweth Farm, but was unable to verify this by supplying the relevant waste transfer notes. He was also unable to provide documentation for all asbestos entering and leaving his waste transfer station prior to March 2008.
The court heard Michael Leah's company, Leah Ltd, has gone into liquidation. His site manager, Mark Outram from Penzance was ordered to carry out 250 hours unpaid community work and pay £3,000 costs.
The five organisations listed above were also involved in offences at Trenoweth Farm and had earlier pleaded guilty to illegally depositing and disposing of controlled waste in contravention of Section 33(1)(a) and (b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Redwynn Sterry for the Environment Agency said: "This case demonstrates how important it is for those who handle waste to make full and adequate checks in respect of where waste is deposited. Simply taking the word of a so called 'site agent' or landowner is unacceptable,'
'The range of sentences shows the Courts take the illegal disposal of waste very seriously. The Agency will use the Proceeds of Crime Act to ensure any profits obtained through waste crime are confiscated rendering illegal activities pointless.'
Other cases in brief
|
Defendant
|
Offences
|
Penalty
|
Costs
|
Details
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southern Water Services
|
Not stated[1]
|
£5,000
|
£2,187
|
Sewage discharge into river breaching permit and caused by poor maintenance
|
|
Billy Tom Fury
|
Not stated[2]
|
£5,000
|
£1,285
|
Fly tipping spotted by police helicopter
|
|
Meadowbank Special Steels (Commodities) Limited
|
Regs 12 and 38(1) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007
|
£3,000
|
£4,000
|
Operating waste metal facility without a permit
|
|
Colin Barnes
|
Reg 38(1)(c) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007
|
£2,500
|
Not stated
|
Breach of permit conditions regarding storage of engine parts - oil escaping onto unmade ground
|
|
Harry David Rowbottom
|
Reg 13 Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 Contrary to s33(1)(b) and s33(6) EPA x2
|
£2,000
|
£2,500
|
Burning waste without a permit; and disposal of waste by burning
|
|
Burwell Skip Hire Ltd
|
Regs 12(1)(a) and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010
|
£1,750
|
£2,309
|
Operating waste site without a permit
|
|
Harold Richardson
|
S5 Public Order Act 1986
|
£500
|
£769
|
Abusive behaviour towards EA inspectors
|
Laws and regulations quoted in the prosecutions
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
|
S2(1)
|
It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.
|
|
S3(1)
|
It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.
|
Public Order Act 1986
|
S5
|
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he-
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove-
(a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
(b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(c) that his conduct was reasonable.
|
Environmental Protection Act 1990
|
S33
|
(1) Subject to subsections (1A), (1B), (2) and (3) below and, in relation to Scotland, to section 54 below, a person shall not-
(a) deposit controlled waste or extractive waste, or knowingly cause or knowingly permit controlled waste or extractive waste to be deposited in or on any land unless an environmental permit authorising the deposit is in force and the deposit is in accordance with the licence;
(b) submit controlled waste, or knowingly cause or knowingly permit controlled waste to be submitted, to any listed operation (other than an operation within subsection (1)(a)) that-
(i) is carried out in or on any land, or by means of any mobile plant, and
(ii) is not carried out under and in accordance with an environmental permit.
(c) treat, keep or dispose of controlled waste or extractive waste in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health.
|
|
S34
|
(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, it shall be the duty of any person who imports, produces, carries, keeps, treats or disposes of controlled waste or, as a broker, has control of such waste, to take all such measures applicable to him in that capacity as are reasonable in the circumstances-
(a) to prevent any contravention by any other person of section 33 above;
(aa) to prevent any contravention by any other person of regulation 6 of the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 or of a condition of a permit granted under regulation 7 of those Regulations;
(aa)to prevent any contravention by any other person of regulation 9 of the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 or of a condition of a permit granted under regulation 10 of those Regulations;
(b) to prevent the escape of the waste from his control or that of any other person; and
(c) on the transfer of the waste, to secure-
(i) that the transfer is only to an authorised person or to a person for authorised transport purposes; and
(ii) that there is transferred such a written description of the waste as will enable other persons to avoid a contravention of that section or any condition of a permit granted under regulation 7 of those Regulations or any condition of a permit granted under regulation 10 of those regulationsand to comply with the duty under this subsection as respects the escape of waste.
|
Water Resources Act 1991
|
S85
|
(1)A person contravenes this section if he causes or knowingly permits any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter or any solid waste matter to enter any controlled waters.
(2)A person contravenes this section if he causes or knowingly permits any matter, other than trade effluent or sewage effluent, to enter controlled waters by being discharged from a drain or sewer in contravention of a prohibition imposed under section 86 below.
(3)A person contravenes this section if he causes or knowingly permits any trade effluent or sewage effluent to be discharged-
(a)into any controlled waters; or
(b)from land in England and Wales, through a pipe, into the sea outside the seaward limits of controlled waters.
(4)A person contravenes this section if he causes or knowingly permits any trade effluent or sewage effluent to be discharged, in contravention of any prohibition imposed under section 86 below, from a building or from any fixed plant-
(a)on to or into any land; or
(b)into any waters of a lake or pond which are not inland freshwaters.
(5)A person contravenes this section if he causes or knowingly permits any matter whatever to enter any inland freshwaters so as to tend (either directly or in combination with other matter which he or another person causes or permits to enter those waters) to impede the proper flow of the waters in a manner leading, or likely to lead, to a substantial aggravation of-
(a)pollution due to other causes; or
(b)the consequences of such pollution
|
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
|
Reg 4
|
Every employer shall ensure that work equipment is so constructed or adapted as to be suitable for the purpose for which it is used or provided.
In selecting work equipment, every employer shall have regard to the working conditions and to the risks to the health and safety of persons which exist in the premises or undertaking in which that work equipment is to be used and any additional risk posed by the use of that work equipment.
Every employer shall ensure that work equipment is used only for operations for which, and under conditions for which, it is suitable.
In this regulation "suitable" means suitable in any respect which it is reasonably foreseeable will affect the health or safety of any person."
|
|
8(1)
|
Every employer shall ensure that all persons who use work equipment have available to them adequate health and safety information and, where appropriate, written instructions pertaining to the use of the work equipment
|
|
11(1)
|
Every employer shall ensure that measures are taken in accordance with paragraph (2) which are effective-
(a)to prevent access to any dangerous part of machinery or to any rotating stock-bar; or
(b)to stop the movement of any dangerous part of machinery or rotating stock-bar
before any part of a person enters a danger zone.
|
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
|
Reg 3(1)
|
Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking, for the purpose of identifying the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions.
|
Work at Height Regulations 2005
|
Reg 4(1)(a)
|
Every employer shall ensure that work at height is - (a) properly planned; (b) appropriately supervised and (c) carried out in a manner which is so far as is reasonably practicable safe.
|
|
6(3)
|
Where work is carried out at height, every employer shall take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury.
|
|
9(2)
|
Where it is not reasonably practicable to carry out work safely and under appropriate ergonomic conditions without passing across or near, or working on, from or near, a fragile surface, every employer shall:
ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that suitable and sufficient platforms, coverings, guard rails or similar means of support or protection are provided and used so that any foreseeable loading is supported by such supports or borne by such protection;
where a risk of a person at work falling remains despite the measures taken under the preceding provisions of this regulation, take suitable and sufficient measures to minimise the distances and consequences of his fall.
|
Control of Abestos Regulations 2006
|
Reg 4(3)
|
In order to enable him to manage the risk from asbestos in non-domestic premises, the dutyholder shall ensure that a suitable and sufficient assessment is carried out as to whether asbestos is or is liable to be present in the premises.
|
|
5
|
An employer shall not undertake work in demolition, maintenance, or any other work which exposes or is liable to expose his employees to asbestos in respect of any premises
|
|
8(1)
|
Subject to regulation 3(2), an employer shall not undertake any work with asbestos unless he holds a licence granted under paragraph (2) of this regulation.
|
|
10(1)
|
failing to give information, instruction and training to employees liable to be exposed to asbestos.
|
|
11(1)(a)
|
Every employer shall prevent the exposure of his employees to asbestos so far as is reasonably practicable.
|
|
16
|
Every employer shall prevent or, where this is not reasonably practicable, reduce to the lowest level reasonably practicable the spread of asbestos from any place where work under his control is carried out.
|
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007
|
Reg 29
|
The demolition or dismantling of a structure, or part of a structure, shall be planned and carried out in such a manner as to prevent danger or, where it is not practicable to prevent it, to reduce danger to as low a level as is reasonably practicable.
The arrangements for carrying out such demolition or dismantling shall be recorded in writing before the demolition or dismantling work begins.
|
The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010
|
Reg 12(1)
|
A person must not, except under and to the extent authorised by an environmental permit -
operate a regulated facility; or
cause or knowingly permit a water discharge activity or groundwater activity is an exempt facility
|
|
38(1)
|
It is an offence to-
contravene regulation 12(1); or
knowingly cause or knowingly permit the contravention of regulation 12(1)(a)
|
[1] Not stated - possibly s85 WRA 1990 or a breach of the Permitting Regulations
[2] Not stated - possibly s33 EPA 1990 or s34 EPA 1990 or similar