SHP Online is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.
Head of Content - SHP and Safety & Health Expo, UBM
Author Bio ▼
Charlotte Geoghegan is Head of Content for UBM’s Protection & Management portfolio, which includes SHP, Safety & Health Expo, IFSEC, FIREX, Facilities Show and Field Service Management Expo.
February 15, 2018
Get the SHP newsletter
Daily health and safety news, job alerts and resources
SHP Health & Safety Legislation update update eBook
Health and safety in court: January 2018 round-up video
The second episode in a new, monthly video series, listing the biggest health and safety in court news stories over the past month.
This month’s video highlights the 6 biggest stories on SHP in January 2018. It includes fines for Poundstretcher and an HGV driver who killed two people on the road after checking his sat nav.
Health and safety in court: January 2018 round-up videoThe second episode in a new, monthly video series, listing the biggest health and safety in court news stories over
Charlotte Geoghegan (née Wright)
SHP - Health and Safety News, Legislation, PPE, CPD and Resources
Related Topics
Health and safety in court: February 2018 round-up video
£1.1 million fine following Red Arrows pilot death
Red Arrows ejector seat firm pleads guilty
1Comment threads
0Thread replies
0Followers
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
1Comment authors
Recent comment authors
Subscribe
newestoldestmost voted
David Hill
-re Red Arrows case. The charge was based on MoD’s claim NEVER to have had information that the drogue shackle nut should not be over-tightened. This was never verified by prosecution or court. There is an RAF training video clearly showing the instructor, twice, reiterating the need to check that the shackles can disengage, which is what pulls out the main parachute. It follows that the charge was based on a false premise. A reasonable person might think that the judge should be informed of this, and that she should throw out the case. At the very least an Inquiry… Read more »
-re Red Arrows case. The charge was based on MoD’s claim NEVER to have had information that the drogue shackle nut should not be over-tightened. This was never verified by prosecution or court. There is an RAF training video clearly showing the instructor, twice, reiterating the need to check that the shackles can disengage, which is what pulls out the main parachute. It follows that the charge was based on a false premise. A reasonable person might think that the judge should be informed of this, and that she should throw out the case. At the very least an Inquiry… Read more »