|
|
|
|
|
Excerpt
on HSC's Enforcement Policy from the CCA Evidence to
the Select Committee Inquiry relating to the Work of
the Health and Safety Executive
| 23. |
Breaching its own Enforcement
policy: It appears that the HSE is failing to
prosecute companies in relation to major injuries
despite sufficient evidence. The HSE's own enforcement
policy states that prosecution will be considered
when there is, inter alia, "judged to have
been potential for considerable harm arising from
breach". |
| 24. |
The policy also states
that the decision to prosecute "must also
take account of the criteria set down in the Code
of Crown Prosecutors, and in Scotland by the Procurator
Fiscal." The English/Welsh Code states that
there are two stages in the decision to prosecute.
First, the "evidential test", and if
this is passed the "public interest test".
In relation to the public interest test, the Code
states that "in cases of any seriousness,
a prosecution will usually take place unless there
are public interest factors tending against prosecution
which clearly outweigh those tending in favour"
(italics added). |
| 25. |
The 10% prosecution rate
in relation to major injury appears to be in breach
of HSE's own policy and the Code of Crown Prosecutors.
The second limb of HSE's policy - "potential
for considerable harm arising from breach"
- will have definitely existed in that "considerable
harm" has in fact been caused, and so whenever
sufficient evidence of a breach has been discovered,
prosecution should take place. And in relation
to the Code of Crown Prosecutors, it is difficult
to see what public interest arguments could be
made out for not prosecuting whenever the evidence
test is satisfied - a test probably satisfied
in at least 40% of the cases. |
To download Select Committee Evidence in Full
|
|
|
|
|
