Andrew McLaughlin Successfully Defends both a Production Company and a Director on Health & Safety Offences
Andrew McLaughlin has enjoyed a spectacular win at Reading Crown Court where he defended both a production company and a director of the company for alleged health and safety offences.
The production company was charged with a breach of section 3(1) of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and a breach of Regulation 3(1)(b) of the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999.
The director faced two charges of neglect pursuant to section 37 of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 in relation to the offences alleged against the company.
The facts were that a self-employed rigger had been engaged by a rigging contractor to dismantle rigging at the Bray Studios in Reading following a rehearsal by “The Cure” in preparation for their world tour.
The rigger had gone onto a metal beam in the roof space without a harness and fallen 40 feet to the floor as a result of which he suffered fatal injuries. Toxicology tests revealed he had been drinking and taking cocaine. The prosecution’s case was that the system of work was unsafe and that the work should not have been done from the roof space at all.
The case was due to last 4 weeks with two other defendants involved, namely, the rigging contractor and the rigging supervisor, who were separately represented.
On the first day, Andrew argued successfully the alleged risk assessment offences against the production company were misconceived because they did not owe the duty to carry out a detailed risk assessment of the task of dismantling the rigging (even though they had in fact done a risk assessment which dealt briefly with this activity). Faced with this, the prosecution offered no evidence on these counts.
In addition he argued that the remaining alleged offence against the director should not go to the jury. He stated that the prosecution’s case that the director neglected his responsibility for supervision of the riggers was entirely unsupported by the evidence it proposed to adduce. The fact that this director and no other, including the sole director of the alleged rigging contractor, had been charged with neglect meant the charge was an abuse of process. The judge agreed, dismissed the prosecution’s response and ruled the count should be stayed.
As a consequence the director was acquitted.
On the 3rd day, still reeling from the events of day 1 and having received information that implicated a different rigging contractor from the one who had been charged, the prosecution offered no evidence against all 3 defendants on the remaining charges.
The application for costs against the prosecuting authority is due to take place in the near future.
For further details about Andrew McLaughlin and his practice please visit this page.
If you would like any further information please contact his clerks.
Published 28/05/2010
Go back
