A maintenance engineer at West Midlands sheet-metal company H&E Knowles suffered “horrific injuries” after his head was trapped for ten minutes in a pneumatic metal press.
Wayne Hill, 42, suffered a broken nose and jaw, bit through his tongue and had his upper lip ripped off in the incident at Brierley Hill on 18 August 2011. He also sustained severe lacerations to the back of his head and neck, and muscular damage to his left arm, which necessitated extensive reconstructive surgery.
Mr Hill, who now has reduced sensitivity in his upper lip and nose, pain in his teeth and scarring to his shoulder, also needed to undergo counselling after the incident after suffering nightmares and flashbacks.
Magistrates heard that the machine, which presses metal sheets into wheelbarrow bodies, had broken down the day before the incident, and become stuck in the ‘down’ position. This was a “regular occurrence” at the company, according to HSE inspector John Glynn, who investigated the case and prosecuted it in court. Mr Hill managed to reactivate the machine for a short time, but it stopped again, rendering him unable to complete the necessary repairs.
The next morning he returned to try to repair the machine by replacing a micro-switch on the pneumatic cylinder. In the act of replacing the switch, Mr Hill did not realise that the interlocking switch on the guard door was faulty, which meant the machine was able to operate automatically with the safety guard open.
“Mr Hill became stuck when the machine unexpectedly started working, crushing his head and shoulders and inflicting horrific injuries,” said inspector Glynn, who told SHP that the machine was homemade and 25 years old; as well as being poorly-designed and not up to British standards. “There were no electrical or mechanical drawings, no pneumatic diagrams nor any normal technical information,” he recounted.
In addition, there were no operation or maintenance manuals and the machine had not been regularly inspected since 2009.
“If the company had carried out regular daily inspections, it would have noticed that there was a problem with the switch,” the inspector explained. “The company failed to take reasonable steps to protect its employees. It should have known more about this machine than just letting an engineer work out on his own what he needed to do.”
A few days prior to the incident, the HSE served a Prohibition Notice barring further use of the machine, but this was ignored.
Appearing before Dudley magistrates on 20 September, H& E Knowles Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974 by failing to provide an adequate safe system of work for its employees. It was fined £18,000 and ordered to pay £7220 in full costs.
In mitigation, the company offered had its early guilty plea and said it had fully cooperated with the HSE’s investigation. It added it had made genuine efforts to remedy the failings in its health and safety systems by working with internal and external health and safety advisors, and has since re-trained its staff.
Inspector Glynn concluded: “Mr Hill was extremely lucky not to have lost his life in this entirely preventable incident. The company should have provided safe equipment and a safe system of work for its staff. Instead, it failed almost entirely to comply with health and safety legislation in that it designed, built and operated a dangerous piece of machinery.”
The Safety Conversation with SHP (previously the Safety and Health Podcast) aims to bring you the latest news, insights and legislation updates in the form of interviews, discussions and panel debates from leading figures within the profession.
Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Google Podcasts, subscribe and join the conversation today!
Yes, it would appear that it’s a power press which needs daily inspection – as mentioned by the quoted Inspector in this piece. However, there is no need for re-inspection after 4 hrs use. The requirement is for the press to be inspected within the first four hours of the working period, not to be re-inspected every four hours.
Ernie,
The CPS do not prosecute H&S offences. (Well, only in certain circumstances such as in conjunction with a manslaughter case)
As it was a guilty plea, the Magistrates would have had to give a discount on the penalty which they were minded to give. The sentencing guidelines indicate a reduction of one third for a guilty plea at the earliest reasonable opportunity so, in fact, if the Magistrates were minded to give a £20k fine, this would’ve been reduced to c.£13,400. This suggests they have discounted from a notional amount they’d expect from Crown Court to keep it under £20k and keep jurisdiction in Magistrates’ Court
This is a disturbing case, they knowingly breached a PN inflicking severe injury and the fine does not reach the maximum for a single offence?
Given that this machine was not compliant in anyway, how is this verdict just?
Presumably these efforts to redress safety failings occured after the injury was sustained. And purely as a consequaence of a having caused serious injury.
Mitigation my arse, early plea, where were they going to go with it otherwise?
Continually astounded!
As Captain Yellow states the CPS would not be involved in this type of case.
And, as you say 18k is near 20, so why not therefore impose the maximum permissible, given the abject failure of the duty holder.
A breach of a notice should warrant the maximum penalty, even more so given the resulting avoidable injuries sustained.
The Civil case will be a stroll, and the amount awarded will be huge having ignored a PN, but it will be insurable, and impose little loss to them in real terms.
I agree with you, however the justification for admitting to a breach of Notice should infer no discount in my opinion.
As they say, the Law is an ass.
We have the best justice system in the world so we are told, I seriously beg to differ?
It is amazing that so many faults were found, a prohibition notice ignored and yet only a fine of £18,000 was imposed.
This case was heard in the Magistrates Court and magistrates can impose a maximum fine of £20K on employers under sect. 2(2)(a) of the HSWA74.
Magistrates could have referred the case to the Crown Court, but chose not to! Was this based on advice given to the CPS by the HSE?
£18K is close to the maximum penalty and reflects the serious breach of sect. 2 given the constraints on the lower court. Perhaps the CPS could have brought other charges, rather than the single failure under 2(2)(a)
Someone will remind me but does not this constitute a power press so needs daily check before use of all guards interlocks etc. (and re-inspection after 4hrs use.). Perhaps maintenance engineers ought to know better but I suspect maintenance engineers may be the worst cuplrits for over-riding safety interlocks?