In a prosecution taken under the Electricity at Work Regulations, a factory worker suffered serious burns and open wounds after receiving an electric shock while working on an industrial machine.
Derek Offord, 45, was working as a machine operator at coating and treatment firm Tecvac Ltd’s factory at Swavesey’s Buckingway Business Park, near Cambridge, when the incident happened on 28 July last year.
He was checking new cables on a hardening machine, which had recently undergone maintenance, when he suffered an electric shock. He sustained open wounds to his forearm and left palm, and burns to his left arm and knee. He spent 12 days in hospital and was unable to return to work for four months owing to his injuries.
The HSE’s investigation found that Tecvac had failed to carry out a suitable risk assessment, which should have identified the need to isolate the power supply before inspecting the cables.
HSE inspector Alison Ashworth, said: “Work with or near electricity is dangerous. This incident could have been prevented if the company had identified the risk and acted to control it. They could have prevented access to the live parts of the cables, insulated them, or ensured that stored electrical energy had been discharged.”
Tecvac Ltd appeared at Cambridge Magistrates’ Court on 26 April and pleaded guilty to breaching reg.4(3) of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. It was fined £3500 and ordered to pay £5383 in costs.
After the hearing, Tecvac site director Richard Burslem said he believes the prosecution was unnecessary. He told SHP: “We cooperated fully throughout the HSE’s investigation into this unfortunate incident.
“From research I’ve done, the fine we received is quite low. I believe this is because the magistrates recognised that we dedicate a lot of time and resources to health and safety. As a production facility, we have to identify many thousands of safety risks, and on this occasion we failed to identify one.
“I feel that the prosecution was not required because of our safety record and believe it was not in the public interest. In my opinion, the HSE only brought the case to court to recover their costs.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Forseeable, avoidable and caused injury……thats it.
Firm was lucky.
Is there a civil case to come.
I hope so.
I wondered when we’d get the first conspiracy excuse from somone who hurts thier personnel. The attempt at turning the situation to a positive is laughable!!!
Why do bad employers think that health & safety law is any different to any other law.
I really hope the low fine was to leave the enough money for a good ambulance chaser to get the injured patry a really good settlement
It’s quite simple – OBAY THE LAW, DON’T HURT YOUR EMOLOYEES and everyone will leave you alone.
Well Mr. Burslem, I wonder just how bad an accident would have to be to warrant prosecution in your eyes then?
In my opinion, you got away far too light
Surely if you were checking for faults you’d isolate first? It’s basic common sense.
So follow the logic: I drive at 100mph and get caught, I admit it, I cooperate with the police so there is no need to prosecute. (after all no one was hurt!)
Come on Mr Burslem, get real!!
The only thing ufortunate to him was he got caught!
The question to the site director has to be’ why was a machine operator allowed to check electrical cables??’ To say they have identified thousands of risks is worrying as they have missed a very basic one involving the simple fact of isolating a machine before playing with the electrics!!!. I would suggest that their risk assessments are pretty poor. If in doubt blame the HSE!!!
That’s a new one from a director – we burned the guy, he was in hospital for 12 days and off work for 4 months. Obviously not a serious accident.
Let’s suppose a road traffic accident where careless driving leads to the injury of someone else who is 12 days in hospital and then 4 months off work – wonder if the police and CPS/COPFS would prosecute and what the magistrates/sheriff would impose as a fine or even prison sentence?
What self serving nonsense from this director.
It would seem that they did not spend enough time in ensuring the safety of their staff and it may be that a number of the other risks quoted may also not be controlled. And electrical risks have often very serious consequences
Is he saying that he would be happier with a stiffer fine perhaps-yeah, right.?
I agree with Alex’s comments entirely!. It’s an unfortunate misbelieve when company directors feel they have a good safety record when in realistic terms, its probably no more than good luck.
Missing one or ten items is irrelevant if an employee, member of the public or a child dies!. In this case, the petty fine will not have caused as much pain and suffering by comparison to that received by Mr Offord. If Burslem was so adamant that his company was so compliant, why didn’t he fight th
Notwithstanding the above comments, it is unusual for the fine to be lower than costs awarded. There was another case recently where the judge commented on the HSE’s costs. I wonder if the HSE are using prosecutions as cash cows in advance of their FFI initiative?
I agree with you Alex it’s terrible that an employer tries to ‘spin’ a positive angle from this.
Try this one for size:
“Work for TecVac and you’ve got a 1000:1 chance of getting seriously injured or killed.”
In my opinion.
Oh well, that’s OK then, licenced to Ignore the Electrcity at work Regulations 1989, and the Management Regulations because you have dedicated time and resources to safety!
Seems like you ned to dedicate a little bit more time and resources to getting your safety done right… keep at it…
Levels of fine are based on the turnover of the company and a number of aggravating or mitigating circumstances such as an early guilty plea, good previous record, investing in health & safety, cooperating with the authorities etc. To successfully mitigate the level of fine below the average for this offence and then use that as a reason for stating “not in the public interest” is being disingenuous at best. The public interest is best served by ensuring the law is upheld when people are caught.
This case does raise some questions about the HSE’s seeming need to prosecute at all costs. However, I trust Tecvac has traced the errant electrical fitter who left the cables un-insulated and has taken appropriate action. There is also the question of the inspector of the work done and the signing off of same. With the declared actions taken previously by Tecvac it would seem there was a lot to do to make the site safe and therefore someone would have been allocated the task of inspector.