A company co-owner and a health and safety advisor have been jailed following the death of a labourer in Fulham in December 2010.
Thirty-seven-year-old Anghel Milosavlevici was crushed to death while working on a basement excavation in Ellerby Street, Fulham. The excavations were not properly supported and collapsed, crushing and trapping Mr Milosavlevici. The emergency services were called but he was pronounced dead at the scene.
Southwark Crown Court heard on 4 December how Mr Conrad Sidebottom of Siday Construction Ltd who was also the site manager, was aware of the dangerous state of the excavations, but took no steps to ensure it was safe. It was also heard that Mr Richard Golding, a qualified health and safety advisor employed by AllDay Safety Services Ltd, was also aware of the risks as he was responsible for drafting the method of work statement.
This document was found to be inadequate and was not followed, despite him having the authority to stop dangerous works, which he failed to do.
The HSE said that:
On sentencing the Judge said that Mr Golding’s defence (in relation to seeing no excavations on site) was “ludicrous” and that his failure to do anything when on site showed a level of disregard to the workforce that was “staggering”.
Co-owner of Siday Construction Ltd, Conrad Sidebottom, 46, of Park Road, Hertford, was found guilty of manslaughter on 2 December and was sentenced to three years and three months in jail. Richard Golding, 43, of Hadleigh, Benfleet, Essex was found guilty of exposing another to a risk of health and safety and was jailed for nine months.
Detective Chief Inspector Tim Duffield, Homicide and Major Crime Command, who worked closely with HSE, headed the investigation. DCI Duffield said: “There was overwhelming evidence that Sidebottom and Golding’s failure to carry out their respective roles directly resulted in the death of Anghel Milosavlevici. In this case the danger of collapse was not only foreseeable, it had been specifically identified by Golding in his risk assessments.”
Mr Milosavlevici’s sister Cristina and his fiancée Claudia said in a statement: “He was the most gentle, kind-hearted and generous man you could ever hope to meet.
“He worked for Conrad Sidebottom for more than two years before he was killed, but we were shocked to hear evidence at the trial about how dangerous the site had become, and how little concern Mr Sidebottom showed for the safety of everyone involved in the excavation works.
“We hope today’s verdict makes other construction company directors take stock of their own working practices, and ensure that they are doing everything possible to keep their workers safe.”
UPDATE: 18 DECEMBER 2014
In response to some of the comments on this in-court story, the SHP approached HSE to see if it could provide further information on the health and safety consultant and his documents, which are referred to as being inadequate. We have received the following comment from the HSE inspector, which we hope provides the information required. We have also updated the above in-court story to take into account information that was not available at the time that the in-court was written.
The prosecution and defence agreed that Mr Golding was employed by AllDay Safety Services Limited, which is why he was charged under Section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Mr Golding was tasked by AllDay to help SIDAY write their method statement. He did this by obtaining information from SIDAY about the work that was to be done and by using some information from a previous basement job that SIDAY had done – a clear cut and paste exercise in places.
SIDAY were going to use a 1.5 tonne excavator and an earth suction machine to excavate the basement.
The method statement was prepared without reference to any temporary works engineer drawings or schemes in relation to the propping and shoring temporary works that would be needed on site. This was to be added by SIDAY at a later date according to the method statement. The method statement would not have been adequate until SIDAY added in the relevant temporary works information – something that did not happen.
Additionally, SIDAY decided to totally change the method of work when they started on site. Instead of using the specified machines, they opted for hand digging. This meant people having to get into trenches to dig using spades and buckets. It would have been even more important, therefore, to have adequate propping and shoring of the excavations as people would be working in them constantly.
Mr Golding was also contracted to carry out monthly inspections of the basement dig. He did his first on the 26th October and his second on the 23rd November – 9 days before the fatal incident.
Photographic evidence presented to the Court case clearly shows a number of deep unshored and unpropped excavations throughout October and November. However, Mr Golding maintained both in interview and in Court that he did not see any excavations at all other than a small one at the front of the building, which was a shallow trial pit. He does not appear to have noticed that extensive excavation work was underway and ongoing at the site during the period of his visits.
Mr Golding did not take any action even though it was clear that the method statement was not being followed. Indeed, work was being carried out in a totally different way. He did not ask to see any temporary works drawings/schemes for the excavations.
In summary HSE concluded that he visited site on two occasions to inspect work to ensure health and safety. He claims that he did not see any excavations when on site and appears not to have challenged the changed method of working, or to have asked any questions in relation to temporary works, principally in relation to the excavation propping and shoring. The Judges sentencing remarks were pretty damning in this regard. He said that Mr Golding’s defence (in relation to seeing no excavations on site) was “ludicrous” and that his failure to do anything when on site showed a level of disregard to the workforce that was “staggering”.
Mr Conrad Sidebottom was co-owner of the company SIDAY Construction Limited, now in liquidation, and had joint equal shares with his brother and a friend – hence the SIDAY name that fused their surnames. He was also, by his own admission, the site manager for the project at Ellerby Street and visited the site regularly, some 2-3 times a week.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Most of the press reports are including the phrase ” Mr Richard Golding, a qualified health and safety advisor “; presumably in court it was revealed in greater detail as to what this actually referred to.
It is the sort of thing that any prosecution legal team would pick holes in.
What level of ‘qualification’ did Golding have and was he a member of any professional body, such as IOSH?
As a specialist publication and the magazine of IOSH to boot, I don’t think it unreasonable that such greater detail should be included, above and beyond that distributed by the general press.
I totally agree with your feelings on this matter. I am becoming more frustrated by the numbers of persons who class themselves as SHE consultants or advisors who have little or no qualification and/or experience in the sectors they offer their services to.
I think the case has been very poorly covered by Lauren in this particular article. Sadly, I feel she has fallen into the trap of a tabloid journalist and not reported actual details and facts that will help H&S professionals to gain a better understanding of the case, and what the future ramifications might be for other H&S Professionals.
Having read many other versions of this incident there are several facts I think the SHP should have unpacked for its members and these should be a concern to us all.
Firstly, other accounts have given dates and facts that when examined tell another story. For example, the Safety Advisor (Mr Golding) visited the site on the 23rd November 2010 and the accident occurred on the 2nd December 2010. This was 9 days later! Having been involved in construction for over 30 years, a lot can change on a construction site in 9 hours, let alone 9 days. Another press report said “There was no real criticism during the trial about the proposed safeguards and had they been followed, what did happen would never have happened.” As a Construction H&S Manager I read the “proposed safeguards” as meaning the Risk Assessment/Method Statement (RAMS). Therefore the court found the RAMS were suitable for the task but not followed, and the freelance H&S Advisor visited the site 9 days before the incident.
If you were to carry out a survey of Construction H&S Professionals to find out if their RAMS, or ones they had approved were always followed correctly, what would the percentage be? If there is an H&S Professional regularly out on site and able to say 100%, I for one would pay a king’s ransom to be mentored by such an individual.
It is also worth bearing in mind that Mr Golding was a freelance H&S Advisor who was probably only contracted to make monthly site visits, so this should be even more of a concern for us directly employed H&S professionals who only have one client!
I also feel that questions should be raised regarding the qualifications and experience of the men working on site. None of the press reports seem to mention this. If they were trained and competent, the question should be asked “what action did they take themselves?” This in itself is another challenge to H&S professionals, if management are pushing workers to carry out dangerous work what should they do? Has anyone ever tried calling the HSE for a response that needs prompt action? The HSE complaints phone number was suspended years ago. Is there any alternative?
I’d also like IOSH to confirm the Mr Golding’s membership status, experience and qualifications, and provide a much more comprehensive article, as the only difference between this case and any other cases was the outcome. Had this incident resulted in an excavation collapse alone rather than a fatality, it would probably not have been reported under RIDDOR, as most employers and even some safety professionals, do not even know what RIDDOR says regarding excavation collapses.
This case should concern us all. Our sympathy should go out to Mr Milosavlevici’s family and fiancé but before we join Ralph in picking up stones to throw at Mr Golding lets have all the facts first.
Steve Johnson CMOISH
Thank you all for taking the time to comment on this article.
I would really like to respond to Steve Johnson’s comment in particular.
Firstly, I would like to explain that in no way is this case, or any of the ‘In Court’ cases covered by SHP ‘tabloid’. We have a very rigorous reporting procedure that aims to be factual and in no way sensationalist. We try to avoid the use of words such as ‘tragedy’ and report that someone has ‘died’ rather than someone was ‘killed’. We have no benefit to gain by sensationalising any story and this story is no different.
As a former consultant myself, I am constantly trying to change people’s perceptions of the industry from those alluded to in the tabloid press, as you will see in my blog. I aim to summarise key points of complex cases to give readers the significant information in a factual way.
At SHP, we use the highest level of sources as we can for each In Court report, and for this story that included the Metropolitan police. As you will see, most of what is said in the article is based on this press release.
When writing this case I used our standard format– headline, introduction (which summarises the case), names, dates, facts and figures. Followed by Court name and date, further information on the incident itself, sentencing, breaches and relevant quotations.
We rarely list any prosecuted person’s credentials, qualifications or membership to bodies or institutions – as this information is not always readily available. I understand that in this case the safety consultant’s qualifications may be of more interest to the readers and it is something we can look into further.
I was always aware that this case would be emotive as it involves a safety consultant and obviously many of our readership are consultants themselves. But I can honestly say that I wrote it no differently to any other article.
I am sorry you feel that some parts of the case were omitted from the article but both the Met Police and the CPS press releases do not contain all of the facts you have stated above. They summarise the incident overall, as have I.
I hope this gives a little more clarification to how the story was researched and written.
I really appreciate hearing your thoughts.
Lauren
Sadly Lauren’s comments don’t really answer the main criticisms of the original and subsequently supplemented article in SHP.
Like many others of HSP’s readership, I am a safety consultant and deeply concerned by this case. Like many others I would like to find out exactly where the failings were in order to ensure that myself and my company are never placed in a similar situation.
Lauren’s article merely records a few facts about the case in court and the sentencing without any details of what went wrong and where. There also seem to be various anomalies between her report and those appearing in other areas of the media, for instance she describes Mr Sidebottom as the site manager, although elsewhere he is referred to as the Finance Director of the Groundwork subcontractor. Was there a Principal Contractor and if so, where was their site manager?
She refers to Mr Golding’s documents as being inadequate, but elsewhere I have read that the court did not say that had they been followed an accident would still have happened. Apparently his site visit was 9 days before the event. I have seen nothing to suggest that at that time his documents weren’t being followed and that things were unsafe at that time. As stated by Steve Johnson, 9 hours on a construction site is an awful long time, let alone 9 days!
This whole incident raises a myriad of questions that many of us, as Health & Safety Professionals, who probably make up virtually all of your readership, really need to know the answers to as I’m sure I speak for many others in saying that this could easily happen to all of us from what few facts have come out so far.
Please give us much more forensic detail of the events that took place on this site so that in the future we can avoid such harrowing events for all concerned.
Very well put Lauren.
If you are only reporting from the facts you are given, then that isn’t your fault. From a personal point of view, our family have friends that work on behalf of a few of the national newspapers. They have said many a time how frustrating it is to get the right information if the press office will only release certain bits. People have to understand that different press offices can release different pieces of information, so just because Lauren reported something potentially different to someone else, doesn’t necessarily mean that Lauren got her facts wrong. Some people will jump the gun and predict what will come out to try and get the info out first. But thats where you take the risk.
Dear Lauren,
Firstly, let me apologise to you, or any reader, if my comments have insulted your writing style in any way. I understand about the limitations regarding using press releases when reporting on court cases, but let’s not forget that this particular case is an extremely rare and significant event. As Health and Safety Professionals we are looking to the SHP, our professional publication, to give guidance to us as members on how we can protect ourselves and learn from these events to aid us in the future. Arguing about writing styles was never my intention.
If the headlines had made it clearer, that in this case, it was a Freelance Tech SP H&S Advisor working for a subcontract Groundworker, who visited site 9 days before a fatality had occurred, who then received a 9 month custodial sentence, I’m sure many more would people would be commenting on this webpage.
When this is known it raises other questions. For instance there must have been other professionals with equal or greater H&S responsibilities for the project. I.e. the Main Contractor, ProDG Limited, to whom the £576,163.88 contract was awarded. Also how many times had their H&S Advisor or Management visited the site? When did they last visit the site? Did they not see the “dangerous conditions” that the “workers regularly discussed”. Did they not have a legal duty of care? How where they not implicated?
One report by Richard Boland, (HSE head of operations) said “I want to stress that there is no excuse for anyone building a basement not to seek expert advice, for example from a structural engineer”. This gives the impression that there was no Structural Engineer for the project. However there must have had been for it to get through planning/ local authority building control. This again raises questions, for example; who was the Structural Engineer (SE), how many times had the SE visited the site, when did the SE last visit the site? Did the SE not see the “dangerous conditions” that the “workers regularly discussed”. What was the SE legal duty for the works?
Most Construction H&S professionals would ask questions of the design. For example, did the underpinning designer consider methods to eliminate or reduce the risk? Who specified the 3.5 metre deep hand dug excavations which are lowest on the hierarchy of underpinning methods and must have contributed to the accident, especially when much safer underpinning options are available? One report said the design was changed. Who changed it and why was it changed and what implications did it have?
When I have read this and other reports it is easy to conclude, as Ralph Stubbs did that the H&S Advisor was on site when the accident occurred, but did not exercise his authority in stopping the works, due to lack of concern and competence. It’s only when you look at the dates and do the maths that it starts to tell a different story. One which I earnestly request that SHP investigate further and produce an article that will educate and inform us to help us in our roles.
I appreciate that this information may not be available from the Met Police and the CPS press releases but there must have been a full HSE report that can be obtained by the SHP which can be analysed and used to produce such an article.
Steve Johnson CMIOSH
Please excuse my ignorance if I am missing some vital piece of information but I would like to know why the Co-Owner
Conrad Sidebottom received a 3 year 3 month sentence when the law suggests that 2 years imprisonment is the maximum sentence.
I believe many convictions for fatalities are not resulting in enough prison sentences anyway, but this has lead me to carrying out a lot of
research to understand why his sentence is stronger than the law suggests. I may be asked this question in training sessions or I may
wish to use it if it is outlined as to why.
Thanks in advance.
Dean Williams