Met guilty verdict turns spotlight on safety law

Prosecutions and Claims |
04.11.2007

Questions remain about the scope of the Health and Safety at Work Act after the Metropolitan Police were found guilty of breaching Section 3 over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.

De Menezes was killed by police firearms officers at Stockwell tube station on 22 July 2005 after being wrongly identified as a suicide bomber.

On 1 November, a jury at the Old Bailey found the Met guilty of breaching Section 3(1) of the Act for failing to ensure the safety of non-employees. The prosecution had argued the police operation to follow and stop the 27-year-old was carried out "so badly that the public were needlessly put at risk."

Imposing a fine of £175,000 with costs of £385,000, the judge said the Met was guilty of a series of "catastrophic" errors. He described the case as a "corporate failure, not an individual failure", adding that it was "an isolated breach brought about by quite extraordinary circumstances."

The trial came about after the Crown Prosecution Service decided that no individual officer should face charges over the death, but the police should be tried for exposing members of the public to risks to their safety.
Before the trial, the decision to prosecute the police under health and safety legislation was questioned by Met Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, who cautioned that the case could have implications for everyday policing, and said he was uncertain whether "that was the design of the legislators in 1974."

After the verdict, London mayor Ken Livingstone said, "Health and safety legislation was not drawn up for such extreme situations. This verdict makes the struggle to defend Londoners against terrorism more difficult."
Jon Cooper, a partner at law firm Bond Pearce, told this magazine that while the HSE had no part in the prosecution, the perception that it was involved may persist.

"We're already seeing in the media criticism of the use of the Health and Safety Act in what are regarded as operational matters for the police," he noted.

"The case turned very much on its facts. But what it does do is demonstrate just how far-reaching Section 3 is ... It may cause concern in some circles to see Section 3 being used in that way."

But Cooper rejected the idea that the case will have long-term effects on policing. "There's been a lot of suggestion that the police will
be ham-strung in some way," he said. "I don't think they will: it was an exceptional case and a jury decision."