D2
The law is straightforward enough to be understanded by everyone, all that companies must do
to ensure that they don’t become convicted with this is:
● Make the workplace safe and eliminate or control risks to health
● Ensure plant and machinery are safe and that safe systems of work are set and followed
● Ensure articles and substances are moved, stored and used safely
● Provide adequate welfare facilities
● Give workers the information, instruction, training and supervision necessary for their
health and safety
● Consult workers on health and safety matters
By following these rules, it will allow the company to stay on the safe side of the law and keep
their workers and customers safe. However, the law is not always fair for the victims such as the
charges against the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wills NHS Trust. On 21 April 2015, Maidstone
and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust was charged after a woman, Frances Cappuccini, died giving
birth by emergency caesarean in October 2012.The Trust was accused of corporate
manslaughter and Dr Errol Cornish, 67, of Bromley, south-east London, also faced a charge of
gross negligence manslaughter. It is the first time an NHS Trust has been charged with
corporate manslaughter since the offence was introduced in 2008. After the trial in January
2016, the Inner London Crown Court delivered a not guilty verdict.
As you can see this is not fair as it is not known if this was accidently or purposely done and that
they had a responsibility of preventing someone to die. However, if the NHS was guilty of
corporate manslaughter there would be more charges against the organisation in the future
which would cause the NHS to shut down. This will not just cause a lot of people to lose their
job but also cause the nation to lose a valuable free service that is not found anywhere else.
This is the main reason why they weren’t charged as the judge thought about how this will
impact everybody else rather than the victim’s family. Also, the final decision of the case had a
purpose to protect society so that it would not negatively harm the state of economy.
http://www.cqms-ltd.co.uk/news/landmark_corporate_manslaughter_case.html
Another case is when a automotive company was fined when a worker lost his finger whilst
working. Within this case, a Birmingham-based automotive company was fined after a worker
lost his finger.Birmingham Magistrates’ Court heard how a welder at Lander Automotives
Limited was expected to work on a variety of jobs as required by production. While he was
working on a machine the employee’s glove became entangled in the drill bit. He suffered partial
amputation to the third finger on his right hand.An investigation by the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE) into the incident which occurred on 17 June 2015 found that the company
failed to provide adequate training, a safe system of work, a risk assessment or method
statement.
Lander Automotive Limited, of Clapgate Lane, Birmingham, pleaded guilty to breaching Section
3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and was fined £27,000 and ordered to pay
costs of £1,574 and a £120 victim surcharge.
The law is straightforward enough to be understanded by everyone, all that companies must do
to ensure that they don’t become convicted with this is:
● Make the workplace safe and eliminate or control risks to health
● Ensure plant and machinery are safe and that safe systems of work are set and followed
● Ensure articles and substances are moved, stored and used safely
● Provide adequate welfare facilities
● Give workers the information, instruction, training and supervision necessary for their
health and safety
● Consult workers on health and safety matters
By following these rules, it will allow the company to stay on the safe side of the law and keep
their workers and customers safe. However, the law is not always fair for the victims such as the
charges against the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wills NHS Trust. On 21 April 2015, Maidstone
and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust was charged after a woman, Frances Cappuccini, died giving
birth by emergency caesarean in October 2012.The Trust was accused of corporate
manslaughter and Dr Errol Cornish, 67, of Bromley, south-east London, also faced a charge of
gross negligence manslaughter. It is the first time an NHS Trust has been charged with
corporate manslaughter since the offence was introduced in 2008. After the trial in January
2016, the Inner London Crown Court delivered a not guilty verdict.
As you can see this is not fair as it is not known if this was accidently or purposely done and that
they had a responsibility of preventing someone to die. However, if the NHS was guilty of
corporate manslaughter there would be more charges against the organisation in the future
which would cause the NHS to shut down. This will not just cause a lot of people to lose their
job but also cause the nation to lose a valuable free service that is not found anywhere else.
This is the main reason why they weren’t charged as the judge thought about how this will
impact everybody else rather than the victim’s family. Also, the final decision of the case had a
purpose to protect society so that it would not negatively harm the state of economy.
http://www.cqms-ltd.co.uk/news/landmark_corporate_manslaughter_case.html
Another case is when a automotive company was fined when a worker lost his finger whilst
working. Within this case, a Birmingham-based automotive company was fined after a worker
lost his finger.Birmingham Magistrates’ Court heard how a welder at Lander Automotives
Limited was expected to work on a variety of jobs as required by production. While he was
working on a machine the employee’s glove became entangled in the drill bit. He suffered partial
amputation to the third finger on his right hand.An investigation by the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE) into the incident which occurred on 17 June 2015 found that the company
failed to provide adequate training, a safe system of work, a risk assessment or method
statement.
Lander Automotive Limited, of Clapgate Lane, Birmingham, pleaded guilty to breaching Section
3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and was fined £27,000 and ordered to pay
costs of £1,574 and a £120 victim surcharge.
