Prosecutions
Fines totalling £191,000 after diver dies in lock.
23/10/2009
Following a prosecution that arose from a diving fatality in Gloucestershire in October 2004, the HSE has warned that planning and identifying known risks as well as managing diving when undertaking construction works are all vital.
British Waterways pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and two breaches of Regulation 3 (1) (b) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regs 1999. at a Crown Court hearing in Gloucester recently.
A contractor based in Hampshire who was working for British Waterways, also pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6 (1) of the Diving at Work Regs 1997, and the diving supervisor (also of Hampshire) pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 10 (1) (a) (i), Diving at Work Regs 1997.
British Waterways was fined £80,000 for the HSWA charge and £3,500 for each of the two of Regulation charges plus ordered to pay costs of £75,000. The contractor was also fined £15,000 for its one breach and ordered to pay costs of £6,000. And the diving supervisor was fined £6,000 for his breach and ordered to pay costs of £2,000. In total, the prosecution has brought around £191,000 in fines and costs.
The HSE took the decision to prosecute the companies and the diving supervisor following an incident in which a construction diver was fatally injured at a lock in Tewkesbury. The diver was involved in construction work on the upstream side of a temporary dam, a seal at the bottom of the dam holding back the water failed and the diver was sucked against the wall of the dam. The pressure prevented him from breathing or from being pulled to safety by colleagues. After a number of minutes, he was pulled out of the water and taken to hospital but was later declared dead.
The HSE’s diving inspector commented upon the hearing:
"This case has resulted from the committed efforts of both ourselves and the Gloucestershire Police over several years and has highlighted the serious hazard of differential pressure to divers, especially to those working on construction projects."
"The importance of planning and managing major projects – such as the one in this case – cannot be emphasised enough. In my opinion, it is not good enough to make decisions on the hoof or try and deal with a problem as things start to go wrong. You cannot take a gamble with peoples' lives. The problem of differential pressure highlighted by this case is so important that we are about to publish health and safety guidance to the diving industry, based on research in this area. Hopefully, this will help to reinforce our safety message to the industry as a whole and prevent further tragic incidents of this kind."
"My thoughts are with Mr Moore’s fiancée and family."
A contractor based in Hampshire who was working for British Waterways, also pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6 (1) of the Diving at Work Regs 1997, and the diving supervisor (also of Hampshire) pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 10 (1) (a) (i), Diving at Work Regs 1997.
British Waterways was fined £80,000 for the HSWA charge and £3,500 for each of the two of Regulation charges plus ordered to pay costs of £75,000. The contractor was also fined £15,000 for its one breach and ordered to pay costs of £6,000. And the diving supervisor was fined £6,000 for his breach and ordered to pay costs of £2,000. In total, the prosecution has brought around £191,000 in fines and costs.
The HSE took the decision to prosecute the companies and the diving supervisor following an incident in which a construction diver was fatally injured at a lock in Tewkesbury. The diver was involved in construction work on the upstream side of a temporary dam, a seal at the bottom of the dam holding back the water failed and the diver was sucked against the wall of the dam. The pressure prevented him from breathing or from being pulled to safety by colleagues. After a number of minutes, he was pulled out of the water and taken to hospital but was later declared dead.
The HSE’s diving inspector commented upon the hearing:
"This case has resulted from the committed efforts of both ourselves and the Gloucestershire Police over several years and has highlighted the serious hazard of differential pressure to divers, especially to those working on construction projects."
"The importance of planning and managing major projects – such as the one in this case – cannot be emphasised enough. In my opinion, it is not good enough to make decisions on the hoof or try and deal with a problem as things start to go wrong. You cannot take a gamble with peoples' lives. The problem of differential pressure highlighted by this case is so important that we are about to publish health and safety guidance to the diving industry, based on research in this area. Hopefully, this will help to reinforce our safety message to the industry as a whole and prevent further tragic incidents of this kind."
"My thoughts are with Mr Moore’s fiancée and family."