SUMMARY
OF CCA'S RESPONSE TO HSC'S REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY
STATEMENT AND NEW INVESTIGATION CRITERIA
To download Full document ?????
Although HSC's proposed Enforcement
Policy Statement is an improvement upon the current
policy, it is still inadequate and requires significant
improvement. The main failures of the current statement
are:
Powers of Enforcing Authorities
- It fails to distinguish
between those powers which are concerned with the
prevention of harm (oral/written advice,
improvement and prohibition notices), from those
concerned with the accountability of companies
that have committed a criminal offence (written
warnings, formal cautions or prosecution). This
is in contrast to the enforcement statement of the
Environment Agency.
See Paras 2.1
- 2.11
Prevention and Accountability
See Paras 3.1
- 3.6
Resource Based Preventative
and Prosecution Policy
- It fails to state that financial
budgeting of enforcing authorities should have no
bearing upon the decisions made by the enforcing
authorities in relation to:
- which of their preventative
powers are used in any particular situation
- in relation to the commission
of a criminal offence, whether they prosecute
or issue a formal caution or written warning.
See Paras
1.4 - 1.8
Use of Preventative Powers
- It fails to lay out the
criteria that should guide inspectors in its use
of its preventative powers. This allows inspectors
far too much discretion in determining whether they
should use their informal powers (i.e. oral or written
advice) rather than their formal powers (i.e. improvement
or prohibition notices).
See Paras 4.1
- 4.6
Response to a Criminal Offence
- It fails to set out those
circumstances where formal cautions and written
warnings should be issued, rather than undertaking
a prosecution.
See Paras 5.29
to 5.32
- It fails to state clearly
what is the purpose of prosecution. The policy should
state that:
"Prosecution aims
to punish wrongdoing, to bring to account those
who have committed a criminal offence and to
act as a deterrent to the offender as well as
to others that may offend."
See Paras 5.2
- 5.25
- It fails to state clearly
those circumstances which should result in a prosecution.
In particular, it fails to state that a prosecution
should be expected where a criminal offence has
been committed that has resulted in death or major
injury.
See Paras 5.8
-5.28
Investigation
- It fails to explain clearly
the purpose of Investigation. It should state that:
"The purpose of an
investigation into a death, injury or dangerous
occurrence which has been reported to the authorities,
is to
- determine the cause
of the incident;
- determine whether action
needs to be taken to remedy the situation and,
if an injury has taken place, to make sure it
does not recur;
determine whether a criminal
offence has been committed and whether a warning,
caution or prosecution should be issued or undertaken;"
See Paras:
9 - 9.4
- It fails to have clear criteria
to determine which reported incidents should be
investigated
See Paras:
11.1 - 11.18
Sentencing
- It fails to set our clearly
the criteria to determine when enforcing authorities
should press for cases to be referred to the Crown
court for trial or sentencing.
See Paras:
6.1 - 6.6
Transparency
- It fails to ensure that
the decisions made by the enforcing authorities
are made "transparent" to workers and
others affected the decisions of the enforcing authorities.
See Paras:
8.2 - 8.6
Informing Company Directors
- It fails to ensure that
the enforcing authorities inform company directors
of the enforcement action taken by the enforcing
authorities in relation to their company.
See Paras:
7.1 - 7.3
|