managing director jailed for manslaughter on the basis of what he should have known

The managing director and owner of a Peterborough-based concrete company has been jailed for the manslaughter of one of his employees. The company's area manager was also jailed for the same offence. The company itself was also convicted of manslaughter and received the second highest fine ever imposed in England for corporate manslaughter.  The fine of £75,000 was accompanied by an order for the defendants to pay £89,000 in costs to the Health and Safety Executive and the Crown Prosecution Service.  This is the largest company to have been convicted of manslaughter in the UK, with a turnover of £11 million, 104 employees and 12 plants throughout the east of England. 

As well as pleading guilty to the charge of manslaughter, the company also pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by failing in its general duties to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of its employees. 

Christopher Meachen, the deceased employee, worked as a concrete batcher for the company on its Norwich plant.  Just before he died, Meachen was working in a pit fed by a hopper.  The skirt around the hopper had been worn down to such an extent that substantial quantities of aggregate fell on the floor.  It was common practice for workers to shovel this onto the belt which then carried it up to the hoppers manufacturing the cement.  In the course of his work, Meachen had got onto the belt and became entangled in the machinery.  He died there from the multiple injuries sustained.

Had safeguards been introduced to protect employees from the conveyer belt, it is very likely that the accident would not have occurred.  Frank Sykes, a Principal Inspector for the Health and Safety Executive in the investigation stated that the area manager had been grossly negligent in requiring employees to work with the unguarded belt.  Further, he opined that the owner, also being managing director, was also guilty because, despite arguments he knew nothing of the breaches, he should have known of them.  He had not arranged any inspection of the plant for the whole two and a half years he had owned it.

This case is particularly notable for the warning signs it sends to those controlling and managing companies at the highest levels.  First, historically, it has been most unusual for such company officers to be convicted on the basis of not knowing something which they should have known or been aware of.  No evidence could be found that the owning managing director did know of the breaches, but this was not enough to preclude conviction and heavy punishment.  Secondly, the case also illustrates that courts are becoming more alert to the fact that it isn't enough to simply have a health and safety system; it must be used.  If it is not used, the system is irrelevant and penalties are likely to ensue.

For more information, please contact John Mitchell, head of Blake Lapthorn solicitors' Health and Safety team on 023 8085 7231 or john.mitchell@bllaw.co.uk.