Published on Jan 07, 2025
This scenario is the stuff of nightmares for any senior manager. There’s been an accident in the workplace, somebody’s been injured and, as the person in charge at the time, you know that questions are going to be coming at you, thick and fast.
You’ll presumably already have processes in place to deal with Press enquiries and support for the casualty’s family, and there should also be a manager nominated to advise the HSE and the insurers. Surely, then, all bases have been covered?
Well… no, they haven’t.
If the HSE decides to prosecute for failing in the duty of care to the injured person, then your company potentially faces a major challenge – how is it going to defend itself in the courtroom?
The standard response goes along the lines of: “the HSE have got to prove the allegation beyond all reasonable doubt, and so, when we get to court, our lawyers will robustly challenge the HSE’s case. After all, we’ve done nothing wrong.”
It sounds reasonable, but it may not be that simple. In a landmark 2008 appeal hearing in the House of Lords[1] (now the Supreme Court) it was ruled that: “In cases … where a person has sustained injury at work, the facts will speak for themselves. [H]is employer … has failed to ensure his health and safety. Otherwise, there would have been no accident”.
There’s a provision in the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 (to be precise, it’s section 40) which lays down that, where a company is charged with failing in its duty of care, it becomes the responsibility of the company to prove that it did all it reasonably could to prevent the accident.
Think about that for a moment. It’s called “reverse burden of proof”, and it means that the company has to prove its innocence, rather than the prosecution proving its guilt. All the prosecution has to prove (in essence) is that there was an accident in the workplace which resulted in somebody being injured. Now, to be fair to the HSE, they normally provide a lot more detail than this bare minimum, but that doesn’t change the significance of section 40 – the need for the company to prove its innocence to the court.
The best way for the company to demonstrate its innocence is for it to do its own, thorough, accident investigation, the results of which can then be used to build a viable defence case.
And this is where the IPI webinar on accident investigation, Workplace Accident Investigation – from Emergency Planning to the Final Report presented by Andy Farrall, an experienced investigator, comes into its own. It takes you through the essentials of an accident investigation, from gathering evidence to interviewing witnesses to interpreting the data collected. Join Andy, on various dates throughout the year, for what could be the most cost-effective webinar you ever go on!
[1] R v Chargot Ltd and others. Opinion of Lord Hope of Craighead
Published on Jan 07, 2025 by Andy Farrell