Comprehending prosecutions and fines.

stephen1974 · Post by **stephen1974** » Sun Oct 21, 2018 2:02 pm

A story came across my desk the other day about Hull City Council being fined £230,000 for an employee slipping over on the ice (again - apparently not the first time he had done so). The issue, according to the story, was the council (or the management, unclear which) only allowed £20 to be spent on safety boots and the employee wanted £25 boots. (though you have to take news articles with a big pinch of salt as they lie and mislead for a headline)

Two issues that got me:
1. What is the point in fining councils? It doesn't hurt the council, it hurts the people they are trying to serve, and in fact, the judge said the fine wasn't bigger for this very reason. Surely we can find a better way to deal with these cases.

2. The prosecution nor the judge seem to have a clue about ice rink safety because there are no standard safety boots out there that will prevent you slipping on ice. Non-slip footwear doesn't work on ice, you need spikes. If they don't know what they are talking about, they shouldn't be prosecuting on false grounds.

I fully agree the rink should have been prosecuted. The guy was seriously hurt, with head and rib injuries, and it was not the first incident. Nor should the safety boots not being the right PPE anyway be a defence, but I do think the HSE or LA should understand what they are talking about before taking action.

In this case, the appropriate PPE would have been shoe grips (anywhere from a £3 to £20), though there are arguments for other safety equipment as well such as helmets and indeed safety boots. Helmets would be a hard sell to staff though. In 15 years of working on ice i've never seen someone wear a helmet for ice maintenance.

Full story here. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hu ... er-2128334

stephen1974 · Post by **stephen1974** » Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:26 am

Intereing. This story just popped up again the SHP facebook page and it says the guy was involved in putting in fresh ice. That wasnt mentioned in the original article.

You DONT wear spikes when laying fresh ice. They will take up the paint that you've just laid down.

I would like to have seen what defence the council put in for this action and if anyone, for either side, had any experience with working on ice as it sounds like no one had a scooby doos.

joaorosa80 · Post by **joaorosa80** » Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:38 pm

"You DONT wear spikes when laying fresh ice. They will take up the paint that you've just laid down. "??
Can you not simply walk backwards when laying fresh ice? And a machine?

Total non-sense the story about the safety footwear.

Andyblue · Post by **Andyblue** » Fri Oct 26, 2018 8:38 am

The council is no different to any other entity such a sole trader, LLP or limited company. They hold legal responsibilities and know that if they are prosecuted, they will be penalised. That their funds come from taxes etc, in some ways places an even higher burden on those running the organisation to be compliant. There are times where it seems that some operate as if they are immune from prosecution because they are a concil.
Perhaps if the penalty impacted directly on those senior decision makers that change may happen!

stephen1974 · Post by **stephen1974** » Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:02 am

joaorosa80 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:38 pm "You DONT wear spikes when laying fresh ice. They will take up the paint that you've just laid down. "??
Can you not simply walk backwards when laying fresh ice? And a machine?

Total non-sense the story about the safety footwear.

Yes and no. You can paint and walk backwards, but as soon as you go to do the next layer you and the x amount of guys holding the hose will have to walk acorss what you have just done.

You cant put a machine on the ice, it would smash it to peices and tear up the paint even worse than shoe grips. You need a decent depth of ice over the top of the paint before you take a machine on to it.

The council is no different to any other entity such a sole trader, LLP or limited company

Well they are, they are publicly funded. The point of a fine is to disuade people from breaking the law. If you are not affected by the fine them it serves no useful purpose and the only result is the public lose out. No one is saying they should be immune from prosecution.

Andyblue · Post by **Andyblue** » Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:27 am

stephen1974 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:02 am

The council is no different to any other entity such a sole trader, LLP or limited company
Well they are, they are publicly funded. The point of a fine is to disuade people from breaking the law. If you are not affected by the fine them it serves no useful purpose and the only result is the public lose out. No one is saying they should be immune from prosecution.

But the court's powers on dealing with a public body are pretty limited to, well, to a financial penalty or a good telling off and nothing else. Requiring an onside agency to supervise changes (HSE or other consultancy) would involve spending to someone outside of the council services as well. There is no easy answer, perhaps unless it was to prosecute both the council and the responsible person/s who are running it.

joaorosa80 · Post by **joaorosa80** » Sun Oct 28, 2018 9:27 am

Yes and no. You can paint and walk backwards, but as soon as you go to do the next layer you and the x amount of guys holding the hose will have to walk acorss what you have just done.

You cant put a machine on the ice, it would smash it to peices and tear up the paint even worse than shoe grips. You need a decent depth of ice over the top of the paint before you take a machine on to it.

Just watched some youtube videos and everyone it´s painting with trainers, additionally, some of them used a hard hat.

abarnett · Post by **abarnett** » Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:07 am

Granted I haven't done it for nearly 25 years but would curling grippers not be an appropriate control?

LittleNell83 · Post by **LittleNell83** » Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:46 am

From reading the article there are several reasons why the fine was so large. As the employer and landlords the council are responsible. They will have insurance to cover such events to a degree.

This was not the first time this had happened:
His later fall in August was one of 11 similar accidents on the ice in three years.

Stephen Uttley, prosecuting on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive, said between August 2013 and June 2017 a total of 17 enforcement notices had been served on the council "as a result of non-compliance with legal requirements".

Therefore, I believe that the fine would be higher to reflect the above issues.

Nell

stephen1974 · Post by **stephen1974** » Sat Nov 03, 2018 12:06 am

Again, its not about the prosecution or it merits, its about the pointlessness of fining a council. It doesnt acheieve anything other than hurting the people who are ment to benefit from the council.

Andyblue · Post by **Andyblue** » Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:49 am

stephen1974 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 12:06 am Again, its not about the prosecution or it merits, its about the pointlessness of fining a council. It doesnt acheieve anything other than hurting the people who are ment to benefit from the council.

I can agree in, part, had his been he first or even second occasion. The court has no power to make them improve, change or take internal proceedings.
So whilst I tend to agree with the sentiment, I’m not sure what option, other than a fine, is appropriate.