|
In
April 2003, the Public Accounts Committee (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.
The report criticised the existing position of crown
immunity
| 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. |
| 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. 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. |
| 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. 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. |
| 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. 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. 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. |
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 |
