Health And Safety Workplace Offences
Health and Safety workplace offences arise when an employer, employee, or organisation breaches legal duties meant to ensure a safe working environment. These duties typically include:
1. Duty to Protect Employees and Non-Employees
Employers must ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of:
Employees
Contractors
Visitors
Members of the public
2. Duty to Provide Safe Systems of Work
This includes:
Safe machinery, tools, and equipment
Adequate supervision and training
Protective equipment (PPE)
Safe work procedures
3. Duty to Conduct Risk Assessments
Employers must identify hazards, assess risks, implement controls, and review them regularly.
4. Duty to Report Accidents
Significant injuries, dangerous occurrences, and occupational diseases must be reported (under regimes such as RIDDOR in the UK or similar frameworks in other jurisdictions).
5. Duty Not to Expose Workers to Foreseeable Harm
Failure to foresee and prevent reasonably preventable harm can amount to an offence.
Common Penalties
Heavy fines
Imprisonment for serious breaches
Disqualification of directors
Compensation claims from injured workers
Criminal liability under regulatory laws (e.g., Health and Safety at Work Act)
DETAILED CASE LAWS (More than five)
Below are six major cases, each explained thoroughly.
Case 1: R v Chargot Ltd (2008)
Principle Established
The prosecution does not need to prove the exact cause of an accident; it only needs to show that the employer failed to ensure safety “so far as reasonably practicable.”
Facts
A worker driving a dumper truck died after it overturned. The exact cause of the accident was unclear—whether due to error or unsafe ground conditions.
Held
The company was convicted because:
They failed to carry out risk assessments for driving machinery on uneven ground.
They did not need proof of exact cause; a foreseeable risk existed, and safety precautions were insufficient.
Importance
This case makes it easier for prosecutors: once a risk is identified, employers must show they took adequate steps.
Case 2: R v Howe & Son (Engineers) Ltd (1999)
Principle Established
Directors and managers can be personally liable if the breach occurred with their “consent or connivance.”
Facts
An employee was crushed under a hydraulic press. Safety guards were missing due to management allowing the machine to operate without them.
Held
The company was guilty, and the managing director was individually convicted.
The court found that management knew the guards were missing and allowed work to continue.
Importance
This case emphasises accountability at all management levels.
Case 3: R v British Steel plc (1995)
Principle Established
A company cannot escape liability by arguing that the accident was caused by an employee’s or contractor’s failure.
Facts
A contractor was killed while trying to cross between platforms in a steelworks facility. The crossing method was unsafe and no proper system was provided.
Held
British Steel was found guilty because:
They did not set out a safe system of work.
It was their responsibility, not the contractor's, to ensure safe conditions.
Importance
Employers must supervise and manage contractor safety, not shift blame.
Case 4: R v Tangerine Confectionery Ltd & Veolia Environmental Services (2011)
Principle Established
It is a breach if there is any risk of injury—injury does not need to be likely, only credible.
Facts
Two separate incidents:
A worker died after entering machinery at a sweets factory.
A waste worker died after being crushed by a vehicle.
Held
Both companies were convicted because:
They did not identify obvious hazards.
Adequate guarding and safety protocols were not in place.
Importance
Prosecution only needs to show foreseeability of risk, not statistical likelihood.
Case 5: R v Porter (2008)
Principle Established
Individuals (e.g., school heads, managers) are only liable if a realistic, not remote, risk exists.
Facts
A school headmaster was charged after a child fell down steps and died. The prosecution argued that the headmaster failed to ensure absolute safety.
Held
He was acquitted because:
The risk of a child falling on steps was deemed remote.
The law requires prevention of reasonably foreseeable risks, not all possible accidents.
Importance
Clarifies that health and safety law is not about eliminating all risks.
Case 6: R v Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd (2011)
Principle Established
This was the first conviction under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.
Facts
A junior geologist died while taking soil samples in a trench that collapsed. The company had allowed workers to enter trenches unsupported and without supervision.
Held
The company was found guilty of corporate manslaughter.
The unsafe system of work and failure to enforce safety protocols led directly to the death.
A substantial fine was imposed.
Importance
This case set the standard for holding small companies criminally liable for gross management failures leading to death.
Summary Table of Key Legal Principles
| Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| Chargot (2008) | Cause of accident need not be proven; risk + insufficient precautions is enough. |
| Howe (1999) | Directors can be personally liable for safety breaches. |
| British Steel (1995) | Employers cannot shift blame to contractors or workers. |
| Tangerine (2011) | Risk need only be foreseeable, not likely. |
| Porter (2008) | Liability applies to realistic, not remote, risks. |
| Cotswold Geo. (2011) | First corporate manslaughter conviction; unsafe systems = heavy liability. |
RELATED Blog
comments