Home
About
Newsletter
Advice & Assistance
Researh & Briefings
Deaths, Inquests & Prosecutions
Corporate  Crime & safety Database
Safety Statistics
Obtaining Safety Information
CCA Responses to Consultation Documents
CCA Advocacy
CCA Press Releases
CCA Publications
Support the CCA
Bibliography
Search the CCA site
Contact Us
Quick Links ->
Research - HSE

Crown Bodies and Health and Safety Law

New on this page (17 April 2003): The Public Accounts Committee has said that it is "unacceptable the [Royal] Mint should hide behind Crown immunity'. To read about this Click Here.

E-mail us if you want to know when we put new material on website

The application of health and safety law to Crown Bodies is set out in a note issued by the Cabinet office in June 2001.


You can download the Cabinet office document itself by clicking here (Word Doc)

If you want to read about Crown Immunity and Manslaughter, click here

If you want to see a recent press release issued by the CCA on the HSE and Crown Immunity, Click Here

To return to "HSE" Page, click here

The situation on Crown Bodies is summarised in detail below.

What is a Crown Body
Application of health and safety law to Crown Bodies
What the Cabinet office Procedures say

HSE Guidance to its Inspectors
The government position on Crown Immunity

What the HSC said about Crown immunity in 1978
The CCA view on Crown Immunity and the Cabinet Office Procedures


What is a Crown Body
There is no clear definition of what is a Crown body. The enabling statute of an organisation will often state whether or not a particular organisation should be treated as acting on behalf of the Crown. For instance the Radiological Protection Act 1970 provides that, with certain exceptions, that the Protection Board created by the Act "shall not be taken to be a servant or agent of the Crown of the enjoy and status or immunity of the Crown", and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 states that "no health service body shall be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown". In contrast, however, the Building Societies Act 1986 states that the Building Societies Commission performs it functions "on behalf of the Crown." The general trend is for enabling statutes to state that the new organisation is not a crown body.

In relation to other public bodies - where the legislation does not clarify whether or not the organisation is or is not an agent of the Crown - a recent Home Office document states that:

"The question of whether an organisation can claim crown immunity depends upon the degree of control which the Crown through its ministers, can exercise over in in the performance of its duties. The fact that a Minister of the Crown appoints the members of such a body, is entitled to require them to give him information and is entitled to give them direction of a general nature does not make the corporation his agent. The inference that a corporation acts on behalf of the Crown will be more readily drawn where its functions are not commercial but are connected with matters, such as the defence of the realm, which are essentially the province of Government.

There is no doubt that Government Departments are Crown bodies. The prison service - since it is also a department within the Home Office - is also a crown body. Police forces are however not crown bodies.

To find out what organisations the Government considers to be Crown Bodies, click here

Back to the Top


Application of health and safety law to Crown Bodies
As the law stands a crown body is not bound by the provisions of a statute - which would include those provisions creating criminal offences - unless the statute in question itself explicitly (or by 'necessary implication') states otherwise.

The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 does state explicitly that the sections of the Act that placed duties upon employers etc. "bind the crown" in the same way as other organisations but that those sections of the Act that allow for notices to be imposed or for employers to be prosecuted, do not bind the Crown. So Crown Bodies can not be prosecuted for offences under the Health and Safety law, though they are under a duty to abide by the law. Again individual ministers/civil servants can be prosecuted as individuals for health and safety offences.

Back to the Top


What the Cabinet office Procedures say

According to the HSE. "following extensive consultation with HSE, Crown employers and the Council of Civil Service Unions, the Cabinet Office issued a Personnel Information Note setting out an agreed procedure on 13 June 2001"

Introduction
The Cabinet Office procedures first summarise the legal situation

Para. 4 Crown bodies must comply with the requirements of the HSW Act and relevant statutory provisions. They are, however, excluded from the provisions for statutory enforcement, including prosecution and penalties. Effective administrative Crown enforcement procedures are therefore vital to maintaining employee and public confidence in the health and safety regulation of Crown bodies.
Para. 6 HSE makes decisions on the inspection of Crown bodies, and any enforcement action, using the same criteria as for non-Crown employers. HSE inspectors seek to ensure that the law is complied with and that Crown employers meet the standards of good practice found elsewhere. HSE inspectors act in accordance with the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) Enforcement Policy Statement (Annex A). That means, for example, that inspection and enforcement is targeted on activities which give rise to the most serious risks, or where hazards are least well controlled.

Back to the Top


Crown Enforcement Notices
The procedures then discuss the use the Crown Enforcement Notices. These do not impose legal obligations unlike normal enforcement notices – but they in effect mimic them

Para. 9 Formal action against Crown bodies by HSE inspectors may include issuing Crown improvement and prohibition notices. Although such notices are non-statutory, the procedures involved are very similar to those for statutory notices.
Para. 13 The instructions to HSE inspectors require them to give the same priority to a health and safety problem found in a Crown body as they would to one found in a private sector organisation. Allowances of time to do remedial work in a Crown body will be no more generous than they would be for a private employer and the same sense of urgency will be expected in making improvements which are required.

Back to the Top

Crown Censures
A procedure has been established that is supposed to deal with those situations where a Crown body would in ordinary circumstances have been prosecuted. It is called a Crown Censure. It has the following characteristics
• It is not a trial.
• No witnesses are called.
• Members of the public can not attend them.
• It is not chaired by a judge but a Senior HSE inspector.
• The aim of the hearing is to to "seek acknowledgment of the problem and to obtain an undertaking to improve standards of health and safety."

Para. 14 A "Crown censure" is the term given to the formal recording of a decision by HSE that, but for Crown immunity, the evidence of a Crown body’s failure to comply with health and safety law would have been sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of conviction in the courts (in line with the Code of Crown Prosecutors). Circumstances that could lead to a censure would include a failure to comply with a Crown enforcement notice in the time allowed. .....
Para. 15 Where HSE considers that a failure to comply with health and safety law would normally justify prosecution, HSE will first notify the Crown body concerned at a senior level that it intends to begin the censure procedure. The HSE investigating inspector will then initiate a formal meeting (‘hearing’) between a senior HSE inspector and a member of the senior management of the Crown body involved by writing to the Crown body ...
Para. 16 Although a censure is not in any sense a trial, HSE will give the Crown body advance information setting out its ‘case’ in the same way as to a non-Crown body which was to be prosecuted in a magistrates’ court. The Crown body has the opportunity to provide a written response in advance of the hearing though HSE will not enter into any further correspondence prior to the hearing. No witnesses are called.
Para. 17 HSE is responsible for inviting the relevant trade union or other safety representative(s) to observe the hearing, and will either do so direct or agree that the Crown body concerned should extend the invitation. In situations where public discussion of any aspects of an incident or possible breach of health and safety law would harm national security or defence, or refer to information that relates specifically to an individual (unless that individual has explicitly consented to such information being disclosed), or relate to any other circumstances where there is a prohibition on the disclosure of information under any enactment, rule of law or non-statutory code, consideration must be given to excluding trade union or other safety representatives from that part of the hearing. Subject to these same provisions, when HSE provides the Crown body, at the hearing, with further information designed to clarify proceedings, such as diagrams or photographs, a copy of the information will also be given to observers.
Para. 18 No persons other than officials and trade union or other safety representatives may be allowed to attend a censure hearing except at the discretion of the Crown body: every effort is made during a hearing to ensure fair consideration of the matters at issue, but it is not possible for a censure hearing to have all the checks and balances of a court and wider public attendance is not generally appropriate. Under section 28 of the HSW Act inspectors may, depending on the facts of a particular case, release information to advise the public of risks and to reassure them about health and safety measures.
Para. 19 The hearing will be chaired by a senior HSE inspector. HSE will minute the meeting and, on its completion, produce an agreed note of the meeting that will be copied to the relevant trade union or other safety representatives. The agreed minute can be distributed more widely subject to the restrictions on the disclosure of information (paras 14 and 17 above).
Para. 20 The aim of the hearing is to seek acknowledgment of the problem and to obtain an undertaking to improve standards of health and safety. The hearing is therefore commenced by the HSE investigating inspector explaining the circumstances of the case and why it would justify prosecution, but for Crown immunity. The Crown body is then given the opportunity to make any representations or arguments in defence or mitigation.
Para. 21 If in the course of the formal hearing the Crown body agrees with HSE’s view that the evidence would be sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of conviction in the courts, HSE will notify the headquarters of the Department. The Department will subsequently advise the relevant Minister having first consulted HSE on their submission, and copying to HSE their final submission. The fact that a censure has taken place becomes a matter of public record, through listing in a HSE annual report supplement (paragraph 14 above)
Para. 22 If, after considering the HSE inspector’s response to any representations, the Crown body’s officials do not accept there is sufficient evidence to have provided a realistic prospect of conviction, HSE will invite them to make further representations to the head of the appropriate HSE operating directorate or division who will review the case. This is in accordance with the HSE Service First commitments. If the Crown body decides not to make such representations, HSE will record the censure without further discussion.
Para. 23 Where, despite representations, HSE remains confident that a decision to prosecute would have been justified, HSE’s Director General will write as appropriate to the Permanent Secretary responsible for the Crown body to seek agreement to recording the censure.
Individual Crown servants

Back to the Top


Position of Individual Managers and other employees
Individuals who work for crown bodies do not have Crown Immunity. However the Cabinet Office procedures impose serious obstacles to the possibility of prosecution. This is because, apparently, the HSE gave assurances in 1975 that individual would only be prosecuted where there was "wilful or reckless disregard" of health and safety.

Para 24 Under Section 48(2) of the HSW Act, persons in the service of the Crown may be prosecuted for health and safety offences, and, if convicted, fined, or for certain offences imprisoned. Managers, as well as other employees who are personally culpable, should not escape prosecution simply because they are Crown servants. However, the HSE gave assurances in 1975 that an individual Crown servant would be prosecuted only in the same circumstances as an individual in non-Crown employment, for example where there was wilful or reckless disregard of health and safety requirements. There is no question of individuals being prosecuted in substitution for the Crown body, or for honest mistakes, or because of defects in management organisation. It is therefore highly unlikely that civil servants would be prosecuted except, for example, through a deliberate act or omission by them which imperiled their own safety, or the safety of others.

HSE Guidance to its Inspectors
The HSC have produced a 'Sector Information Minute (SIM 7/2002/34). This simply informs the inspector of the the Cabinet Office memo - but for completeness, it is set out below.

"To: All HSE Inspectors

This SIM informs inspectors about the issue of a Personnel Information Note (PIN) by the Cabinet Office dealing with enforcement procedures for Crown bodies, including Crown censures. A copy of the PIN is given at the appendix.

Background

1 Although the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSW Act) apply to the Crown, including departments and agencies, Crown bodies are immune from statutory enforcement of health and safety legislation by virtue of HSW Act s.48(1).
2 Whilst proceedings may not be taken against the Crown, administrative procedures known as Crown censures have been developed for use in circumstances where it is HSEâs opinion that, but for Crown immunity, there would have been sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction in the courts.
3 Since 1988, there have been 25 Crown censures, but the absence of an agreed, documented procedure has led to some difficulties in recent years. Accordingly, following extensive consultation with HSE, Crown employers and the Council of Civil Service Unions, the Cabinet Office issued a Personnel Information Note setting out an agreed procedure on 13 June 2001 (see appendix). The appendix does not include annexes A-C containing the Health and Safety Commission's Enforcement Policy Statement and Crown enforcement notices.

Crown Censure Procedure

4

Inspectors who are familiar with the existing censure procedure will note the following changes introduced in the PIN:

1 Paragraph 17 - HSE is responsible for inviting the relevant trade union or other safety representative(s) to observe the hearing, and will either do so directly or agree that the Crown body concerned should extend the invitation; and
2 Paragraph 22 - If, after considering the HSE inspector's response to any representations, the Crown body's officials do not accept there is sufficient evidence to have provided a realistic prospect of conviction, HSE will invite them to make further representations to the head of the appropriate HSE operating directorate or division, who will review the case. If the Crown body decides not to make such representations, HSE will record the censure without further discussion.
5 Inspectors will be aware that HSE's report Health and Safety Offences and Penalties included a list of Crown bodies which had been censured during the year 1999/2000, and similar information was published on HSEâs Internet website.

Date first issued: 10 July 2001"

Back to the Top


HSC and Crown Immunity
In 1978, the Health and Safety Commission stated:

"Crown bodies have the same obligations under the HSW Act as other employers but, unlike other employers, they can neither be issue with statutory improvement or prohibition notices, nor be prosecuted … The Chairman of the Commission has frequently drawn attention to our view that it is not right that Crown employers should be in a privileged position. From evidence given to us by the [Health and Safety] Executive we have concluded that the attitude of Crown employers to health and safety is in general no better and no worse than other employers and the same provisions relating to enforcement seem to be necessary if the legislation is to be effective in Crown establishment."

Government's Position on Crown Immunity and health and safety offences
From the Governments "Revitalising Health and Safety document"

Action Point 15: The Government will seek a legislative opportunity, when Parliamentary time allows, to remove Crown immunity from statutory health and safety enforcement. Until immunity is removed, the relevant Minister will be advised whenever Crown censures are made.

72. Crown bodies have always been exempt from provisions in health and safety law for prosecutions and statutory prohibition/improvement notices. The Health and Safety Executive currently enforces health and safety in Crown bodies by means of non-statutory improvement and prohibition notices. When, but for Crown immunity, the Health and Safety Executive would have prosecuted, there are agreed arrangements for recording a Crown censure against the Crown body concerned.
73. The Health and Safety Commission will advise Ministers on the range of options for introducing statutory health and safety enforcement against Crown bodies. The Food Safety Act 1990 offers a possible model. This provides for statutory improvement and prohibition notices against Crown bodies and, in lieu of prosecution, the power to seek a High Court (or, in Scotland, Court of Session) declaration of non-compliance. In the meantime, the Cabinet Office in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive is to issue new guidance to departments and agencies on the procedures for enforcing health and safety requirements in Crown bodies.

To see what else the Government committed itself to in the 'Revitalising Health and Safety Document", click here

The CCA's View
In relation to the notion of Crown Immunity, it is the CCA’s view that:

There is no justification for Crown Bodies to be treated any differently than other organisations.
Crown immunity should be removed and crown bodies should be treated in exactly the same way as non-Crown Bodies
The proposal to treat health and safety offences by Crown bodies in the same way as offences in the Food Safety Act is not sufficient - since a 'decleration of non-compliance' is only a ruling in a civil court and it explicitly states that any declaration by the civil court would not "make the crown criminally liable.

In relation to Current Procedures, it is the CCA’s view that:

•  Crown Censures should be held in public

In relation to making decisions about prosecuting individual Crown servants, assurances that the HSE gave in 1975 should be renegotiated. The Cabinet Office note states that:

"the HSE gave assurances in 1975 that an individual Crown servant would be prosecuted only in the same circumstances as an individual in non-Crown employment, for example where there was wilful or reckless disregard of health and safety requirements. There is no question of individuals being prosecuted in substitution for the Crown body, or for honest mistakes, or because of defects in management organisation. It is therefore highly unlikely that civil servants would be prosecuted except, for example, through a deliberate act or omission by them which imperiled their own safety, or the safety of others."

There are serious problems with this.

  • The law allows prosecution for "failure to take reasonable care" for health and safety of others. It is not necessary to prove "wilful or reckless disregard of health and safety".

  • Since 1975, the HSC and HSE has adopted new policies in relation to deciding whether to prosecute individual managers and directors of private companies and managers of other organisations. (see new Enforcement Policy Statement, for example).

  • The HSE should consider the culpability of crown servants in the same way as it considers the culpability individuals of other organisations.

• To see press release on issue of Crown Bodies, Click Here
• To download letter from the CCA sent on 27 Sept 2002 to the HSE Director General, Click Here (PDF)

To return to "HSE" Page, click here

Back to the Top


Public Accounts Committee Report
In April 2003, the PAC issued a report on the Royal Mint which (amongst many other things), looked at the death of David Wynne, a Mint Employee, and whether it was appropriate that the Royal Mint should have immunity from prosecution.

Relevant Excerpt from Report

22 On 28 June 2001, an accident at the Royal Mint resulted in the death of an employee. A 6.5 tonne bell annealing furnace became detached from the hook of an overhead crane whilst being transported between locations in the production department and fell four metres to the floor, striking the employee and causing fatal injuries. A subsequent investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which received the full co-operation of the Royal Mint, determined that the furnace had not been properly attached and secured to the crane lifting hook. The HSE found that the Royal Mint had failed to perform a suitable and efficient assessment of the risks posed by the crane operation and that not all employees involved in the process could be shown from written records to have received sufficient training and instruction.[34]
23 The Royal Mint told us that it had undertaken a range of measures to address the specific findings of the HSE, which had since confirmed that it was content with the action taken.[35] The Deputy Master had also given particular attention to improving health and safety standards and staff awareness throughout the plant in the months since the accident.[36]
24 We sought to establish whether the fact that the Royal Mint enjoys the protection of Crown immunity had contributed to the weaknesses and failings in health and safety procedures uncovered by the HSE investigation. Crown immunity means that bodies such as the Royal Mint cannot by prosecuted for offences either created by statute or of the common law. In the case of health and safety legislation, whilst the law applies to the Royal Mint, the results of HSE investigations—as in this case—can only result in Crown censure. Whilst Crown immunity does not grant protection to individuals from prosecution, in this instance the HSE and Police investigations concluded that no Mint director or employee should face prosecution.
25 Crown immunity does not provide protection from civil claims. The Royal Mint has written to the representatives of the deceased employee to confirm its admission of liability and asked them to provide details of the quantum of their claim, which will be considered sympathetically by the Royal Mint.[37] The Deputy Master gave us an absolute assurance that the applicability of Crown immunity to the Royal Mint in no way impacted on the attitude of the organisation to the importance of compliance with health and safety legislation.[38]
26 In a note submitted to the Committee following our evidence session, HM Treasury officials stated that the Government's position on Crown immunity remains as set out by Lord Falconer in his response to a Parliamentary Question by Lord Kennet, given on 4 November 1999.[39] However, recent consultation papers on corporate killing and health and safety have proposed modifications of immunity. In the light of responses to that consultation, officials have analysed the options and advice is to be put to Ministers.[40] Although recommendations on policy lie outside the remit of this Committee, we were told by the Deputy Master that he personally would have no problem if a policy decision were to be taken by the Government to remove Crown immunity from the Royal Mint.[41]

Relevant Excerpt from Report's Conclusion

The applicability of 'Crown Immunity' to the Royal Mint

(iv) The Health and Safety Executive's investigation into the circumstances which led to the death of a Royal Mint employee in June 2001 found the Royal Mint to have been at fault. It is unacceptable that the Mint should hide behind Crown immunity in such circumstances. The Treasury should review the applicability of this principle to a commercial operation such as the Royal Mint.

To see the whole report, click here

Back to the Top

Home -> Research & Briefings -> Government and Regulatory Bodies -> The Health and Safety Executive
Page last updated on June 9, 2003