fire door/health and safety legislation

[Softus]

...here's an extract on the guilty before being found innocent bit

UK Legislation (Health and Safety)/UK Parliament
Statutes/Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (1974 c 37)/Part I Health,
Safety and Welfare in Connection with Work

(6) Health and safety regulations--
(a) may specify the persons or classes of persons who, in the event of a
contravention of a requirement or prohibition imposed by or under the regulations,
are to be guilty of an offence, whether in addition to or to the
exclusion of other persons or classes of persons;

timw, my interpretation of that is that it defines those roles that are summarily liable and those that are excluded from liability, and I don't accept that it stipulates guilt in such a way that the burden of proof is upon the defendent.

For example, a manager might ask a graduate employee to prop open a door with a fire extinguisher. Clearly, to me, compliance by the latter is a naive act, whereas the manager's request is nothing short of criminal. I would expect the Act to both address, and to make whatever distinction upholds, that moral reality.

 

[tim west]

I'm not a legal eagle by any chalk but on numerous H&S courses (the legal side tends to be the first topic) the instructors have all pointed to the same that with this law you are obliged to prove your innocence rather than the prosecution having to find you guilty, I cant really comment further than that as i don't know for sure having never found myself in that situation in court.

I agree with your example as that scenario has cropped up in the courses from questions by participants, the answer given to that is to make sure you have documentation of the managers decision of him taking responsibility for his decision, otherwise you can refuse to obey that decision. Of course any dangerous order can be ignored immediately as you are you're own safety officer and if you deem something as high risk(common sense is used here) then you can refuse to do it.

One interesting thing that has cropped up recently in these courses is the terminology "manager" and you may notice in your workplace that titles have changed and now that there are "managers" of this and that, the reasoning behind this so we are told is that the term "manager" shows up in the legal blurb as the person responsible for their sections H&S although the ultimate responsibilty still lies with the MD to make sure they have adequate H&S procedures in place.

 

[WDIK]

again as i understand it, in civil law as Tim has alluded to, the burden of proof differs, in that evidence is used to prove guilt on a balance of probablity.
where criminal law relies on evidence being able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[^woody^]

I've still not seen any evidence that the actual propping open of a fire-door is specifically illegal for the act itself.

Its important to distinguish the function of the doors in context of any fire risk, as say, the fire doors to a protected escape route would be more important to a firedoor on an disused and empty store cupboard.

And I still beleive that its not the act of propping the door open, but the potential consequences of such an act which could attract any legal prosecution or claims. It's also important to bear in mind that the claimant/prosecution would have to prove that the act itself caused risk/danger/harm

 

[tim west]

Woody, this webpage states its illegal at the top

http://www.dorgard.com/Dorgard.asp

 

[blondini]

A record £250,000 fine for breaches of fire safety law, imposed last year on a major national retailer, is an example of the seriousness with which fire door wedging is regarded by the enforcing authorities. In this case the fire safety offences were deemed so serious that the case was referred to the Crown Court for sentencing.

Taken from http://www.fmxmagazine.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=18&storycode=1936&c=3

 

[Bilioustrumpstaine]

My understanding of messing with fire safety equipment is this and this was explained to me by a fire officer, not a guy on the 999 jobs but the guy who visits your premises to deem them safe, so all this guy does is advises on regs and checks up to see you are on top of the job.

If there was a fire and a fire door was locked shut and a person or persons were killed because they could not escape I as the manager of the store would be held accountable and would be charged with manslaughter. It wouldn't matter if I wasn't in my store at the time an incident happened I would still be accountable.

If your fire regs were not kept to the fire officer had the power to close your business until such time as your premises were in a suitably safe condition to be opened again. We had problems with fire extinguishers being stolen and fell foul of him a couple of times and he would give us a few days to put things right and then come back to check.

This was a few years back now but I am sure that the basic principles are still in place.

 

[tim west]

that sounds like a different scenario with the firedoors locked, the op was about them being wedged open.

 

[Bilioustrumpstaine]

I've still not seen any evidence that the actual propping open of a fire-door is specifically illegal for the act itself.

Its important to distinguish the function of the doors in context of any fire risk, as say, the fire doors to a protected escape route would be more important to a firedoor on an disused and empty store cupboard.

And I still beleive that its not the act of propping the door open, but the potential consequences of such an act which could attract any legal prosecution or claims. It's also important to bear in mind that the claimant/prosecution would have to prove that the act itself caused risk/danger/harm

But isn't that a bit like saying it's alright to shoot at people as long as you don't hit them.

All fire doors are important and I would say even more so in a store room. The whole idea is containment, of heat flames and smoke to allow people time to escape.

 

[Bilioustrumpstaine]

that sounds like a different scenario with the firedoors locked, the op was about them being wedged open.

Yes, but the point I was making was it is criminal law that you get dealt with not civil.

 

[megawatt]

Woody wrote:

And I still beleive that its not the act of propping the door open, but the potential consequences of such an act which could attract any legal prosecution or claims.

Believe what you like ... You just happen to be wrong

Do you believe the same thing applies to other fire safety devices i.e. Is it legal to empty all the water out of a water gas appliance so long as the appliance is never needed? ... Is it legal to disconnect fire alarms so long as there is never a fire? ... Of course not, don't be so daft ... They are enshrined in the HSWA to ensure that the law can be applied proactively i.e. BEFORE someone dies as a result of your stupidity.

It's also important to bear in mind that the claimant/prosecution would have to prove that the act itself caused risk/danger/harm

How quaintly naive
The fire service (investigation team) has no problem proving guilt in numerous cases up and down the country every day.

If you prop open a fire door and someone gets injured as a result you are off down the kermit for some jail time ... call your local fire service and ask them if you aren't convinced rather than wasting our time with "I still believe that" and expecting someone here to cite case law.

MW

 

[tim west]

Yes, but the point I was making was it is criminal law that you get dealt with not civil.

sorry, silly me

 

[WDIK]

bottom line,

you can and should be fined for propping a fire door open, and its the responsible persons duty in civil law to ensure that it never happens.

you go to prison for a criminal offence if as a result of an act of gross negligence someone is injured or dies.

 

[blondini]

Oh Man! Just do a search on Yahoo for 'health and safety criminal law' see if that convinces anyone. Some quotes:


It imposes criminal liabilities on employers

A breach of health and safety law is a criminal offence

Health and Safety Legislation is criminal law in the UK

 

[WDIK]

Section 7
A Brief Guide to Health and Safety Law
The Law in the UK is divided into various ‘types’ with overlapping responsibilities and duties.
These types of law also have different views on the same problems and may come to different
verdicts from the same facts. For this reason each of the major types are very briefly reviewed
separately. If you require to know more on this aspect of your role please contact the Safety Office
and ask as there is no single straightforward text that can be recommended.
Civil law
This stems from concepts of ownership and rights, and the consequential ability of one person to
infringe another persons rights in some way.
• The requirements are non-specific.
• The key test is to ask if someone has done someone else a wrong (a tort).
• The law seeks to right the wrong (e.g. by compensation).
• Cases are decided on merit and on balance hence the concept of 'contributory negligence'.
• A person can insure against a civil law claim, and the University does to a certain extent.
Criminal Law
This stems from concepts of duty and rights, and the consequential ability of one person to infringe
another persons rights or to fail to fulfil a duty in some way.
• The law is specific in its requirements.
o The requirements are laid down in Acts of Parliament and Regulations (and other
Statutory Instruments) made by Parliament to put detail into the requirements.
• The key test is to determine if a requirement has been broken or not fulfilled.
o Breaking a requirement is a crime, whether or not anyone suffers.
• The law seeks to impose a penalty.
• Cases are decided on a basis of 'innocent until proven guilty'. However there are some
exceptions and a large number of expectations.
o The law imposes a literal interpretation (pedantic) and has an either / or nature.
o It is not a defence to be ignorant of the requirements of criminal law, however
detailed or specific they are.
• You cannot insure against committing a crime. The ‘guilty’ person carries all the penalties
and costs imposed by the courts.
• The state employs law enforcement officers to seek out breaches of criminal law.

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/internal/safety/docs/hos-etc-pt7.pdf