Four people and three companies have denied a total of 13 charges relating to the death of Amanda Telfer, 43, who was killed when she was crushed by three window frames, as she walked past a building site in Hanover Square, Mayfair, London, on 30 August 2012.
The Old Bailey heard that Ms Telfer was walking past the site when the frames which weighed more than half a tonne, and were leaning against a wall, fell on her.
Bystanders and paramedics tried to resuscitate her, but MsTelfer, from Bermondsey, was pronounced dead at the scene.
There were a series of obvious and, in many cases, straightforward steps that could have been taken to avoid that risk – Prosecutor Duncan Atkinson QC
The court heard that the frames had been delivered a day earlier but builders were not ready to install them, leading to them being left “unprotected and unrestrained”, The BBC reported.
Prosecutor Duncan Atkinson QC said it was “obvious to anyone” that the heavy frames, which together weighed 1,444lb (655kg), carried a “clear and serious risk of death”, including to those walking past.
Mr Atkinson told the court: “There were a series of obvious and, in many cases, straightforward steps that could have been taken to avoid that risk, ranging from cancellation, delay, refusal of delivery on the one hand, to the storage, the use of straps and barriers.
“None were taken by any of the defendants and Amanda Telfer died as a result.”
The jury at the Old Bailey was told how another member of the public had almost been hit in a “near-miss” at the site just days before the fatal accident.
Work was “routinely carried out” on the pavement and equipment was stored there overnight, but there was no external barrier to separate the working area from the public, Mr Atkinson said.
“In the days before the accident, a plywood hoarding had fallen from one of the apertures on the building, almost hitting a member of the public as he made his way home.”
Mr Atkinson said the alleged incident raised questions over health and safety at the site.
The denied charges, brought following an investigation into the incident by the Metropolitan Police’s Homicide and Major Crime Command and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), are:
The trial continues.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Lauren.
Can you explain to me why this has taken 4 1/2 years to get to this stage.
Regards
Hi Keith, 3 years is fairly usual for a prosecution, never mind one requiring simultaneous prosecution of 3 individuals and 3 companies. It also depends on the “cooperation” of witnesses, not just those voluntarily giving evidence but also employees being “compelled” to give evidence against their employer(s) (Section 20 of HASAWA) as well as Police And Criminal Evidence (PACE) interviews that legal entities (usually the “employer”) suspected of having committed a crime are “invited” to attend (unlike Police PACE interviews where thanks to powers of arrest & detention are compulsory). Additionally this is presumably the entry of a plea in Crown Court, so it may have been referred by an earlier Magistrates Court hearing. All courts are currently under a lot of strain to fit in hearings, even statutory declarations take about 3 months for an appointment. This situation is unlikely to improve as the government seeks to further erode human rights and Health and Safety legislation (leading to all kinds of legal challenges that will now have to funnel through the court system rather than be dealt with by automatic procedure)
It beggars believe that such stupid work practices could be happening in this day and age, I hope the book is thrown at this lot
I am surprised all the defendants have pleaded not guilty…I would not be surprised on their websites it states how seriously they take health and safety, blah, blah.
defendants have the right to change their plea right up until the last opportunity to do so. Some defendants will seek to find an advantage by indicating a not guilty plea and stacking their legal team with heavyweight barristers etc. in a “game of brinksmanship” hoping CPS will panic at the amount of money being gambled on achieving a successful verdict and withdraw all/some of the charges (depending on the strength of evidence and the likelihood of a conviction). If the prosecution (CPS) respond by stacking their team with similar (expensive) barristers and appear determined to proceed, only then will the defence seek to minimise legal costs by pleading guilty just before the actual hearing. Barristers usually only get paid full rate for their court appearances. This is a fairly standard practice also employed in compensation/damages cases, hoping the claimant will “bottle it” and settle for a lesser sum out of court.
All companies/employers respond publically to prosecutions by stating how seriously they take Health & Safety, it’s a cliché and to do otherwise would “suggest/imply” potential contempt.
The “flipside” to switching the plea from previous “intention to plea” statements is to continue to indicate a guilty plea in the hopes that the prosecution will not have their case ready to contest at the particular stage in the process and then change the plea and insist on hearing the case now (rather than waste further time and cost with another adjournment). This is especially attractive if the Govt. has sought to save some expense by having an inexperienced (cheaper) solicitor attend a “routine” plea hearing (often at magistrates referral to Crown Court, although there are less “savings” to be made these days, thanks to recent changes in sentencing at magistrate level) which suddenly turns into a full hearing against an experienced defence team of barristers.