This case post-dates the case of AG -v- Jersey New Waterworks Company Limited. Jersey Unreported ( 28 November 1977 ), when warnings have been given loud and clear that fines would be substantially increased. Crown Advocate Matthews has taken us through all relevant cases, and as was said by Scott Baker, J, in the leading English Court of Appeal case R -v- Howe & Son (Engineers) Limited. [1999], 1 All ER at page 253. CA
"We are not persuaded that the size of the company, and its lack of ability to provide its own specialist safety and electrical personnel mitigates these offences. The means of the company is on the other hand a very material factor in assessing the amount of the fine. As to the level of fines imposed generally for offences of this nature, it is the view of each member of this Court that they are too low, and therefore not an appropriate yardstick for determining the level of fine in this present case."
Those are the thoughts that were expressed by this Court over a period of time up to and including AG -v- Jersey New Waterworks Company Limited.
We understand that Stansells is owned by an English plc, and we have no reason to doubt that it has substantial assets. At page 255, the English Court of Appeal went on to say this - and these are words with which we must agree:
"The object of prosecutions for health and safety offences in the workplace is to achieve a safe environment for those who work there, and for other members of the public who may be affected. A fine needs to be large enough to bring that message home where the defendant is a company, not only to those who manage it, but also to its shareholders."
Of course, we must add that the reason for imposing a large fine is to encourage other workers. Stansells is clearly a very well organised firm with an excellent safety record, and we say that even taking into account the two previous convictions which are, in our view, entirely distinguishable. The firm has a system for ensuring that employees report back anything untoward that they find and once this accident occurred it must be said that Stansells immediately resolved to rectify this particular problem, and we are quite certain that it will not happen again.
That, of course, is of little comfort to Mr Murphy, and in the circumstances, despite Mr Mourant’s strenuous and useful plea in mitigation, we are going to fine the company, in accordance with the conclusions of the Crown, £10,000, with £2,500 costs, and that is to be paid within fourteen days.
Authorities
A.G -v- Leaders Health Foods Limited. (14 th October, 1994) Jersey Unreported
AG -v- Jersey New Waterworks Company Limited (28 November 1997) Jersey Unreported. [1997.214]
AG -v- New Lyn Apartments (12 December 1997) Jersey Unreported. [1997.224]
AG -v- Ashfield Builders Limited (20 February 1998) Jersey Unreported. [1998.036]
AG -v- Hacquoil & Cook (1 May 1998) Jersey Unreported. [1998.090]
AG -v- Cowley Farm Limited (7 August 1998) Jersey Unreported. [1998.168]
AG -v- Regal Construction (Jersey) Limited (21 August 1998) Jersey [1998.178]Unreported.
R -v- F. Howe & Son (Engineers) Limited, [1999], 1 All ER 253/255 CA
R -v- Rollco Screw & Rivet Company Limited (1999) TLR 319
AG -v- Stansells QVC Limited (1 September 1995) Jersey Unreported
AG -v- Stansells QVC Limited (3 October 1997) Jersey Unreported.