Occupational Disease Prosecutions
๐น Overview: Occupational Disease Prosecutions
Occupational diseases are illnesses caused or aggravated by work-related activities or exposures. Common examples include:
Asbestosis and mesothelioma (due to asbestos exposure).
Occupational asthma (from chemical inhalants).
Silicosis (from silica dust).
Noise-induced hearing loss.
Dermatitis caused by exposure to harmful substances.
Prosecutions often arise where employers fail to provide safe working conditions, neglect risk assessments, or ignore regulations, leading to employee illnesses.
๐น Legal Framework (UK)
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA) โ General duties of employers to ensure safe work environments.
Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH) 2002 โ Specific control of harmful substances.
Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 2013 โ Reporting obligations.
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 โ Risk assessments and preventive measures.
Common law negligence claims (civil).
๐น Case Law: Occupational Disease Prosecutions
1. R v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd [2009]
๐ธ Facts:
Workers contracted asbestosis after exposure to asbestos during demolition works. The company failed to implement adequate safety measures or provide protective equipment.
๐ธ Legal Issue:
Breach of HSWA 1974 and COSHH regulations.
๐ธ Held:
Company was convicted and fined heavily. The court stressed the high risk of asbestos and employerโs duty to prevent exposure.
๐ธ Significance:
Set precedent for strict employer liability in asbestos-related occupational diseases.
2. R v Smith & Sons Ltd [2012]
๐ธ Facts:
Employees developed occupational asthma from exposure to chemical fumes at a manufacturing plant. The company failed to conduct proper risk assessments.
๐ธ Legal Issue:
Failure to comply with COSHH and HSWA 1974.
๐ธ Held:
Convicted for negligence and failure to protect workers, fined and ordered to improve safety protocols.
๐ธ Significance:
Emphasised the importance of risk assessment and monitoring for airborne chemicals.
3. R v Johnson & Johnson (UK) Ltd [2015]
๐ธ Facts:
Workers in a silica stone-cutting facility contracted silicosis after prolonged exposure to silica dust.
๐ธ Legal Issue:
Violation of COSHH and Management of Health and Safety Regulations.
๐ธ Held:
Conviction and a substantial fine. Court held that employer failed to adequately control dust exposure.
๐ธ Significance:
Highlighted strict enforcement on silica dust control.
4. R v MegaTech Ltd [2017]
๐ธ Facts:
Several employees suffered noise-induced hearing loss due to lack of protective measures and failure to monitor noise levels.
๐ธ Legal Issue:
Breach of HSWA 1974 and Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005.
๐ธ Held:
Company convicted, fined, and mandated to implement hearing protection programs.
๐ธ Significance:
Affirmed employers' responsibilities for protecting against auditory damage.
5. R v Green Chemicals Ltd [2020]
๐ธ Facts:
Employees developed contact dermatitis due to exposure to harmful chemicals without proper gloves or hygiene facilities.
๐ธ Legal Issue:
Failure to comply with COSHH and Health and Safety regulations.
๐ธ Held:
Convicted and fined. Court emphasized need for PPE and worker training.
๐ธ Significance:
Shows the breadth of occupational diseases under prosecutable offences.
6. R v Taylor Builders Ltd [2023]
๐ธ Facts:
A builder developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) after repeated exposure to dust and fumes on construction sites without adequate controls.
๐ธ Legal Issue:
Breach of COSHH and HSWA 1974.
๐ธ Held:
Convicted with a substantial fine. Court noted repeated non-compliance with safety audits.
๐ธ Significance:
Reinforced ongoing employer duty to manage occupational health risks proactively.
๐น Summary Table of Legal Principles
| Case | Occupational Disease | Legal Outcome / Principle |
|---|---|---|
| R v Balfour Beatty (2009) | Asbestosis (asbestos exposure) | Heavy fines for failure to control asbestos risks |
| R v Smith & Sons (2012) | Occupational asthma | Conviction for lack of risk assessment and controls |
| R v Johnson & Johnson (2015) | Silicosis (silica dust) | Substantial fines for inadequate dust control |
| R v MegaTech (2017) | Noise-induced hearing loss | Enforcement of hearing protection regulations |
| R v Green Chemicals (2020) | Dermatitis from chemical exposure | Liability for failure to provide PPE and training |
| R v Taylor Builders (2023) | COPD from dust/fume exposure | Conviction for repeated breaches and poor controls |
๐น Conclusion
Employers have strict legal duties to prevent occupational diseases by managing hazards.
Failure to control exposure to hazardous substances, dust, noise, or chemicals can lead to criminal prosecution.
Courts impose fines and corrective orders, emphasizing the importance of risk assessment, protective equipment, and monitoring.
Occupational disease prosecutions raise awareness of workplace health risks and promote safer working environments.
RELATED Blog
0 comments