LH Access Technology Ltd & Anor v. Her Majesty's Advocate

[2] In his reports, Sheriff N.M.P. Morrison Q.C. summarised the Crown's agreed narrative relating to LH Access as follows:

The agreed narrative noted that the plea from [LH Access] was accepted on the basis that they should have provided a safe system of work by providing banksmen, in particular, one at the front and one at each side of the machine.

The narrative included reference to an accident investigation report by Dr Stewart Arnold who stated that the system of work employed to recover the vehicle was unsafe and inadequately planned, and in particular a safe method of recovery had not been planned, the method chosen was unsafe and placed Mr Martin at unacceptable risk of serious injury, that Mr Martin having to stand between the wheels to steer the vehicle placed him at risk and there was no direct line of sight between Mr Martin and Mr Barclay."

A similar Crown narrative was presented in respect of Border Rail, with the penultimate paragraph being in the following terms:

"The agreed narrative noted that the plea from [Border Rail] was accepted on the basis that when its foreman, Steven Payne, became aware of the operation he should have stopped it because it was unsafe."