R v Chargot: Health and Safety case goes to the House of Lords
On 10 December 2008, the House of Lords delivered its long-awaited judgement in the case of R v Chargot, dismissing the defendant’s appeal from the Court of Appeal (reported at [2008] 2 All ER 1077). It is relatively unusual for a case involving matters of health and safety to go all the way to the House of Lords.
Chargot involved an employee who was fatally injured in 2003 following an incident with a dumper truck at a construction site. Shaun Riley was tasked with driving a dumper truck, which tipped over onto its side, burying him under the load of soil it was transporting. There were no witnesses to the accident, and the precise cause was never established. The ensuing investigation did, however, reveal various shortcomings in the health and safety organisation of the construction project. For instance, Mr Riley was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the incident, no training or safety helmets had been provided, and no risk assessments had been carried out.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) brought charges against the two companies involved in the project, along with a director of the group. All three defendants were found guilty and ordered to pay substantial fines and costs, with the director, convicted under section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (“HSWA”), being fined £75,000 and £100,000 in costs. It is worth noting that had the offence taken place following the coming into force of the Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008, discussed above, the director may have also been at risk of imprisonment for a term of up to 2 years.
At the Court of Appeal, the defendants argued against the way in which the case for the prosecution had been presented to the jury. The prosecution had based its case on the proposition that it was sufficient for it to identify and prove a risk of injury arising from a state of affairs at work, whereas the appellants (defendants) contended that it was for the prosecution to identify and prove particular acts or omissions consisting of a failure to comply with the duties laid down in Sections 2 and 3 of the HSWA. The Court of Appeal held that the policy of the HSWA was to impose a positive burden on employers, rather than simply disciplining them for failure to comply with specific obligations.
The House of Lords affirmed this reasoning and were firmly of the view that the prosecution need only prove the existence of a particular set of circumstances that can be described as “exposure of employees or non-employees to a risk”, and this “risk” can be evidenced by the fact that the accident happened in the first place. The Lords then developed the scope of what can be seen as “risk” in that when considering sections 2 and 3 of the HSWA, it is to be interpreted as “reflecting only situations where there is a material risk to health and safety” such that “a reasonable person would appreciate and take steps to guard against” such risk.
To view to House of Lords judgement click here
