Informa Markets

Author Bio ▼

Safety and Health Practitioner (SHP) is first for independent health and safety news.
July 22, 2012

Get the SHP newsletter

Daily health and safety news, job alerts and resources

Esso maintenance contractor charged with manslaughter

The Crown Prosecution Service has brought a charge of gross-negligence manslaughter against a contractor, in relation to the death of a worker at an Esso-owned oil refinery.

Esso Petroleum Company Ltd had contracted Austin and McLean Ltd to undertake maintenance on a jib, from which a large fuel pipe was suspended, at the oil refinery in Fawley, Southampton.

On 30 August 2008, 40-year-old Juan Antonio Quintanilla Romero, a native of Honduras, was working on a fuel tanker, which had docked at the refinery. As he did so, the jib gave way, due to the failure of a badly-corroded connector bolt, and the fuel pipe collapsed on him.

Following investigation by both the Hampshire Police Service and the HSE, the CPS has decided to charge Austin and McLean with gross-negligence manslaughter and breaches of sections 2 and 3 of the HSWA 1974. Esso has also been charged with breaching sections 2, 3 and 4 of the same Act, along with reg. 9 of LOLER 1998 and reg. 5 of PUWER 1998.

Gaon Hart, senior Crown advocate in the special crime team at the CPS, said: “I have very carefully considered the evidence and have decided that Austin and McLean Limited should be charged with offences, including an offence of gross-negligence manslaughter, relating to a gross breach of their duty of care towards Mr Romero.

“I have also decided that Esso should be charged with HSWA 1974 offences, including those under sections 2, 3 and 4 relating to a failure to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of employees and visitors.

“I have concluded that there is sufficient evidence resulting from the investigation to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is required in the public interest. Those are the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.”

The gross-negligence manslaughter charge against Austin and McLean is defined as corporate manslaughter under common law. Even though the incident occurred after the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 came on to the statute books in April 2008, the firm was not charged under the Act because a large part of the company’s conduct in relation to the incident occurred prior to this date, a CPS spokesperson explained.

Both Esso and Austin and McLean will appear at Southampton Magistrates’ Court on 5 September.

Related Topics

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Colin
Colin
11 years ago

S27 of the CM&CH Act says that S20 does not affect any liability for an offence committed before the commencement of the Act. Apparently the recent Lion Steel case highlighted difficulties in prosecuting for failings prior to the CM&CH Act, hence this approach in Austin & McLean.

Colin
Colin
11 years ago

It looks as though Austin and McLean are around 25 employees or so and are part of a bigger Austin & McLean Group. Without any individual being charged, my legal contact suggests it will be interesting to see how the CPS presents its case as to not fall foul of previous common law CM prosecutions. Judge Gilbart was very critical of the prosecution in the Lion Steel case. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/hhj-gilbart-qc-sentence-remarksr-v-lion-steel.pdf

Ddevil
Ddevil
11 years ago

Good point Ray i’m not sure either.

Mikeevans
Mikeevans
11 years ago

My understanding of article is that it appears that CPS prosecution is based on evidence of company’s actions/lack of actions overwhelmingly pre CM & CH Act. This act can’t be applied retrospectively so CPS is applying law that was relevant at time of the actions/lack of actions i.e. an offence of gross-negligence manslaughter, relating to a gross breach of Austin & Macleans duty of care.

Ray
Ray
11 years ago

I don’t understand the charge of ‘gross-negligence manslaughter…defined as corporate manslaughter under common law.’ It is my understanding that common law ‘corporate manslaughter’ has been abolished pursuant to s20 of the CM&CH Act. All very strange.

Ray
Ray
11 years ago

Dave, I have sent an email to a man who will know – Michael A. Watch this space.

Ray
Ray
11 years ago

Mike/colin, thank you for those observations. I presume that Austin and McLean Ltd, are a small ‘one-man-band’ type company where there is a reasonable chance of a conviction. It still seems and odd decisions to me given the history of common law CM prosecutions.

Topics: