Acquittal in Complex Health and Safety Trial at the Central Criminal Court

Libertas Chambers is delighted to report that Tanveer Qureshi, leading Sarah Day, and instructed by Ghulam Sohail of MPR Solicitors, successfully secured the acquittal of their client following a lengthy and complex health and safety prosecution at the Central Criminal Court.

The case arose from a tragic fatal incident on a construction site in Banstead, Surrey, where a worker died after a trench collapsed during excavation works. The prosecution followed an extensive investigation into the circumstances of the incident, the allocation of responsibility on site, and the duties owed by corporate entities and individuals under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

Following a trial lasting more than three months, Tanveer and Sarah’s client was acquitted of failing to discharge a health and safety duty. Reporting restrictions having now been lifted, it is possible to comment on the outcome and the issues raised by the case.

The case was legally and factually complex. It involved detailed consideration of the scope of duties under section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the circumstances in which an individual director or officer may face personal criminal liability under section 37, where an alleged corporate breach is said to have been committed with that person’s consent, connivance or neglect.

A central issue in the defence case concerned the distinction between title and actual responsibility. The prosecution case relied, in part, on the suggestion that the defendant, through his company, had responsibility for aspects of site management and supervision. The defence position required careful analysis of what his company’s undertaking actually was, whether it extended to excavation planning, management or supervision, and whether there was sufficient evidence that the defendant had practical control or authority over the relevant excavation works.

The case therefore required the jury to consider far more than the tragic outcome itself. It required a close examination of contractual arrangements, working practices, the allocation of duties between the principal contractor and subcontractors, the role of site managers and assistant site managers, and whether responsibility for a high-risk activity such as deep excavation could properly be attributed to a particular individual or company.

In health and safety prosecutions, there is often a danger that labels such as “director”, “manager”, “site manager” or “assistant site manager” are treated as shorthand for legal responsibility. This case demonstrated why that approach can be unsafe. Criminal liability requires detailed analysis of the evidence: what role was actually performed, what authority existed in practice, what knowledge the individual had, what systems were in place, and whether the alleged breach truly fell within that person’s sphere of responsibility.

The defence also involved careful consideration of expert and factual evidence. The issues required a detailed understanding of construction-site practice, excavation risk, the role of method statements and risk assessments, and the documentary systems by which health and safety responsibility is usually allocated, communicated and monitored.

The defendant’s acquittal underlines the importance of specialist representation in serious regulatory and health and safety prosecutions. Cases of this kind sit at the intersection of criminal law, regulatory enforcement, corporate responsibility and technical evidence. They require advocates who are able to analyse complex documentation, challenge assumptions about responsibility, and present the issues clearly to a jury.

Members of Libertas Chambers are regularly instructed in serious and complex criminal and regulatory matters, including health and safety prosecutions, corporate crime, fraud, financial crime, professional discipline and cases involving director or officer liability. The case reflects Chambers’ ability to provide robust, forensic and commercially aware representation in proceedings where the consequences for individuals and businesses are profound.

For companies, directors, managers and professionals operating in regulated sectors, the case carries an important message. Health and safety investigations can move quickly from the facts of an incident to questions of criminal liability, corporate structure, delegation, supervision and control. Early specialist advice is essential, particularly where there is any prospect of individual liability being alleged against directors, managers or those said to have assumed responsibility for safety-critical work.

Media Link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0m2g84zevko