The Tragic Death Of A Worker That Cameron's H&S Plans Will Ensure Occurs Again and Again

"However people imagine it would be, following a death at work and how the families are affected, it can never ever compare with the reality of the horrendous & callous antagonism meted out to grieving relatives. I can say quite categorically that when directors make conscious decisions to risk workers lives to the extent that they kill someone the whole might of the state swings in to support those directors by making the family and the victim out to be the wrong doers. Those who have heard the full story find it very difficult to believe and those who were with us at various events along the road were shocked at what they heard and saw." - Dorothy Wright, 28th April 2011

Mark Wright was a 37-year-old man with two young children who in 2005, was working in a scrap yard near Chester run by a company called Deeside Metal Company Ltd. He had to take eight weeks off work with severe breathing difficulties, which he suspected came from inhaling toxic fumes. Then one day, a car that was due to be crushed burst into flames, and he only just dodged the explosion.

One week later, he was ordered to pour 3,500 small air freshener canisters into a mechanical crusher. The haulier who handed them over, unmarked and undocumented, claimed they were empty. In reality, the canisters weren't empty. They were full of highly combustible propellant. So when Mark put them into the crusher, a massive fireball erupted – and he inhaled burning gases that set fire to 90 per cent of his body.

The managing director, Andrew Graham, was quoted by those present at the inquest as stating that he didn't carry out the written risk assessments required by law because he regarded his staff as "illiterate".

Dorothy and Douglas Wright lost their son in this tragic and wholly avoidable accident at work. After fighting for six long years, the guilty party, her son's employers, were finally brought to trial. But Dorothy's experience begs the question: who really was on trial, the perpetrators of the health and safety crime, or the families of the victim?

Here, Dorothy, in her own words, details her experience of the trauma and anguish suffered from the day her son Mark was killed at work:

I would like you to know how my son Mark lost his life, how his death was treated as totally irrelevant by all those we trusted to protect us and to deliver justice, the devastation brought to his children and why you need to fight to protect your own family from the dismantling of the Health and Safety Executive, meagre though that protection is.

This is only one family's story. Every single year 1500 people die in work related incidents, their deaths unrecorded and ignored. Rarely is anyone brought to account so this is an every day event for some families. We were not singled out for particularly bad treatment although we were possibly 'unlucky' in getting the full pack of utter unfeeling incompetents.

But THIS is how it is for bereaved relatives of those killed by a corporate world protected by the politicians and THIS is how your own family would be treated.

Most of the details are recorded in my Victim Impact Statement but there are additional aspects that could not be included in fear that the defending barrister could object to the statement.

I believe it's important that the British people know the full extent to which those who are entrusted with protecting our lives will go to protect company directors who deliberately ignore Health and Safety law allowing their employees lives to be at risk every single day.

Only then can they fully appreciate the absolute necessity for keeping all health and safety laws, not only continuing but greatly increasing the number of Inspectors visits to employers, rigorously enforcing the laws by bringing negligent employers and individual directors to justice when deaths occur and ensuring that the CPS actually bring criminal charges of manslaughter(or even murder as has now been done successfully in Italy) when this is appropriate.


This is the added details not included in the statement, which perhaps clarifies events:

Mark was originally employed as an HGV driver in one of several companies owned by the same group of brothers Just several months prior to his death he was told by the general manager Robert Roberts that he was being transferred over to the scrap metal processing company Deeside Metal Co ltd in Saltney Chester as a yard worker when the present employee retired. Mark knew nothing at all about that business but agreed to give it a try and so his fate was sealed.

He was given only a couple of days with the retiring worker before taking over the duties and was given no training on the baling machine being used at the time of his death. During the next months he sustained various injuries, which seemed to become increasingly serious, none of which were recorded as there was no accident book.

Mark told us that there was no Health and Safety regime at all and he believed that dangerous materials were knowingly being accepted for processing, he said when he raised any safety issues with Roberts he was shouted at, bullied and held up to ridicule in front of his fellow workers so was reluctant to refuse to do what he was ordered but he strongly believed that such was the level of risks being taken that someone would be killed one day.

He found an alternative job and was intending to hand in his notice on 12th but it was too late.

His life was taken from him in the most horrendous way and our hell began!

The Police Family Liaison Officer

Having watched our son die as the life support was switched off and he was declared dead, our first step towards total disillusionment was when the police family liaison officer confronted us as we were leaving the room where Mark lay, saying cheerily 'Well I can go off home now folks, would anyone want a lift?'

Not even an acknowledgement that Mark was dead. I later was told that in the hours she had sat with Mark's family waiting for our arrival, she had regaled them with tales of some of the gruesome deaths she had attended , she had constantly and without any permission, noisily entered and left the room where Mark's wife and son sat with him in his last moments, giving them no privacy.

Mark's son remembers that very clearly and resented it enormously In the first few days, while we were in a state of utter shock, this woman told us that she would be there at the end of the phone but, in fact, her phone was either not switched on or went unanswered. She also repeatedly arranged to, come to see us on a given date at a given time but having waited in so anxiously all day she wouldn't turn up then phone the next day to say she had been tied up with paper work.

The most horrendously callous, cruel thing she did was only a couple of days after Mark was killed, when she came to the house, which was full of friends and family and proceeded in their presence and in presence of Mark's 15 year old son, who had just seen his father burned beyond recognition, to tell us of the full horror of Mark's death, saying that her boss had told her 'not to hold back'.

She said there was a closed circuit TV footage of the exact moment of the explosion until the flames engulfed the camera , that those at the station had watched it and were horrified but 'not to worry as we wouldn't need to watch it' She actually appeared to relish the viewing of it.

ON the next visit she told us of the family of a man who was murdered who live beside the killer but the Crown Prosecutor had decided there was insufficient evidence to bring a murder charge, so the family had to live seeing this man walking about every day, they were finding it hard It was only later as events unfolded that I realized that she knew even then, that the Crown Prosecutor had already made his decision. It was some week later that we were to learn this.

We actually phoned the police station and told them we didn't want this woman back in the house as she was adding greatly to our suffering, we were never allocated another FLO.

Seeking Help

When this terrible death happens to a member of your family you realize very quickly indeed that there is no one at all who will help you but I also knew that I had to search out some kind of help from somewhere.

My daughter in law was not working at that time, having a 2 year old daughter to look after, Mark’s employer had simply sent his P60 and the few days pay for April to the day they killed him, nothing more, no enquiry about how Mark's widow and children were fairing.

Although we were there to help out, I felt some kind of financial assistance had to be put in place for the sake of the children. So I had to put my shock and grief to one side, take my son's temporary death certificate and tout round the various departments that are now required in the process of claiming bereaved parents benefit, benefit for the children, housing benefit etc.

As I had spent all my working life in various government departments I thought I knew the process but even I could not believe how complicated, uncaring and inefficient the process now is. How impossible it must be for the newly bereaved who don't have that knowledge. At one point I had to phone the customer services manager to point out a mistake in the rate of benefit they had awarded. The manager argued with me, I said I had worked in that department some years ago and I didn't think anything had changed since then. Grudgingly she said she would look into it, an hour later she phoned to say indeed I was right and she had not been aware of that particular regulation. So how many mistakes are made and the bereaved not being paid the full benefits? I then sat with the telephone directory phoning round various bodies asking what help they could give. I phoned my friends in the Samaritans as I had been a Samaritan, they suggested some agencies.

Once again I was 'fortunate' in that I knew these people existed and could perhaps help, most relatives are not in that position. They are in such a state of traumatic shock and profound disabling grief. Where do they start?

In my quest I phoned Hilda Palmer at Manchester Hazards Centre who was able to help immediately and offer support. She also told me about the Centre for Corporate Accountability, at that time a charity that helped the bereaved relatives in their dealings with CPS and HSE. Alas a wonderful helping hand that is no longer available to the bereaved.

After several phone calls in an attempt to ascertain what legal help my daughter in law needed, it was established that the police and HSE would investigate and would have their own solicitors, but that one would be needed to pursue compensation for Mark's family. Even then the family is having to live on benefit, there is no financial help available to the bereaved towards their legal costs, while the employer gets help from his insurance company.

The only help available comes from the NO Win No Fee type of arrangements. The type of arrangement severely criticised by this government, who now suggest that the legal fees in these cases should come out of the compensation payment finally awarded to the families.

As my daughter in law was in no emotional state to deal with this, having 2 grieving children to cope with, I acted for her with the solicitor concerned. I cannot speak too highly of the professionalism, the knowledge, the care, the compassion, the sense of outrage at witnessing how we were treated, that was shown by the solicitor, who was absolutely wonderful during the 4 years it took to battle for compensation, while the employer delayed and prevaricated every step of the way.

If anyone thinks there is a culture of claiming for everything and courts paying out huge sums willy nilly they should experience it. As the employer makes it so difficult for the families, it means that the legal costs mount up meaning that if the bereaved family have to pay the legal costs from the final award, the families would suffer yet again, because of the negligent greedy employer who, unlike the grieving family, are given every consideration, respect and courtesy at every stage, as though they are the wronged party.

I can assure you that going through the court for compensation for the bereaved children is the most heartless, soul destroying process and runs parallel to the investigation by the police the HSE and the possible Inquest.

Workers lives are not valued very highly by anyone and every excuse to reduce the award is presented. In Mark's case the employer said that as Mark's son Leigh was 15 when his father was killed there would not be much of an impact on him and so he should be awarded little! In fact the impact on a lad of 15 is profound and long lasting causing life long emotional and financial disadvantages. Children of the victims suffer enormously.

The civil case dragged on for 4 years!

Justice System

In the weeks that followed Mark's death we still thought that justice would be done in a reasonably short period of time based on what Mark had told us. We fully expected manslaughter charges to be made. Although we did not know what evidence had been presented to the Crown Prosecutor at this time, but we were sure there would be enough to justify this.

We were told by the police that they wouldn't bother investigating Corporate manslaughter against Deeside Metal nor any charges against A Graham, the director, as it was just 'too difficult to prove' but they would investigate possible gross negligence manslaughter against Robert Roberts, the manager. They explained that the Coroner John Hughes would hold Mark's body until it was clear that no manslaughter charges would be made, in order to protect the accused's human rights as he would have the right to ask for a second post mortem even although there was no doubt as to the cause of death.

The First Coroner

As weeks went by and we waited for Mark's body to be returned to us, our solicitor found a Home Office memo that directed coroners to arrange a second post mortem in cases of possible homicide where police enquiries take longer than 4 weeks, to allow the body to be released to relatives for burial to alleviate their suffering.

She sent this to the coroner asking if this could be done and Mark released to us - there was no response.
I phoned the Coroner and was told by him that he never spoke to the relatives and I should go through my legal representative.

It was not until 2007 ,the first of many pre Inquest meetings arranged by this coroner that he acknowledged he had received the letter saying that our solicitor did not understand that it was only homicide cases that warranted early release of the body to help the family. Now in my dictionary homicide is said to be' the killing of a human being' so which part of that does not apply to an employee killed by his negligent employer?

We also later learned from a police superintendent that the Crown prosecutor had made his decision not to prosecute Roberts 'very early on indeed' which had affected the level of police enquiries and also meant that the inhuman suffering meted out to my family by holding on to Mark's body was utterly unnecessary and was done either to make it look as though a thorough investigation was being carried out or more likely simply because the individuals were just incompetent and couldn't give a damn abut the families' suffering.

The Crown Prosecutor

Mark's body was finally released to us in June 2005, following a written decision from the Crown Prosecutor Ed Beltrami that he considered there was insufficient evidence to charge the general manager Robert Roberts with manslaughter and that case would now be passed to HSE.

We requested a meeting with him to discuss this, to be accompanied by David Bergman, at that time the director of Centre for Corporate Accountability and our solicitor The prosecutor was not too keen on us being accompanied saying it was confidential to the family but we persisted and he agreed. So just a few days after we buried Mark we sat round the table with the Crown Prosecutor, he brought to the table only 1 piece of paper, the final statement under caution made by Roberts. He said he had not come prepared to answer any questions, just to give his reason for his decision and that he would not change his mind.

Once again there was no word of condolences given or any kind of acknowledgement that a life had been lost.
David Bergman of CCA said he had travelled up from London for this meeting and he had come prepared so he thought the prosecutor owed it to the family to try to answer any question we may have. The prosecutor immediately became annoyed and as the meeting progressed and questions asked, he became unbelievably enraged, literally shaking.

He read out Roberts' statement in which he said that a haulier, whom he had dealt with regularly, brought to him from Jeyes of Wrexham, a global company who has several factories in Britain making various household cleaners, a bin containing approx 4000 small aerosols. Roberts said he had asked the Haulier if the aerosols were empty and the haulier had said he wouldn't have brought them otherwise. Roberts stated that he had tested several by pressing on the valve and the aerosols just made a phtt sound so he accepted them on that basis and told Mark to take them inside to the shed and load them onto the baler for crushing. Roberts was then called outside to attend to something and within a few minutes there was an explosion and fireball which ripped part of the roof off and blew out a window

Mark was consumed by a fireball causing his death.

At this stage we had not seen all the evidence held so could not query the facts. However our solicitor had obtained the instructions for the baler from the manufacturer prior to the meeting. The person she spoke to was utterly shocked that the baler should be used for the purpose of crushing containers of any kind. The manual clearly stated that anyone operating the baler should have read and signed the manual before operating, that specific safety clothing should be worn and that the very specific warning should always be observed. The warning was written in large letters followed by exclamation marks and said,

'This baler should never be used to crush enclosed cylinders of any kind or anything containing volatile substances To deviate from this would cause danger to the operator'.

Our solicitor produced this and asked why the prosecutor had not taken this into account. He replied 'Well manufacturers tend to exaggerate these things' he said he had made his decision because Roberts, had he not been called away, could have been there when the explosion occurred and therefore could not have perceived there was any risk.'

David Bergman suggested that he had made an error in law and produced case law that clearly stated that, even where someone did not perceive there was a risk, the risk of death was there and he had a duty to protect not only Mark's life but his own. This was clearly established in the case referred and the accused was convicted.

Throughout this meeting the prosecutor made several remarks that seemed to us to point to bias for example' We have to look at all the evidence from the employer's point of view.' and 'Well even if I decided to charge this man with manslaughter he would only be fined so may as well leave it to HSE to do.' and 'By any standard you would call this man incredibly stupid but don't call him a criminal.'

He treated us with utter contempt and wouldn't even look at us while he shook with temper!

David Bergman suggested that he seek advice from counsel, on the point of law because if that was the only reason he had not brought manslaughter charges he was erring in law. The prosecutor reluctantly agreed and stormed from the room almost taking the door from its hinges in rage. We had a further meeting when again David bergman suggested he seek advice from counsel with expertise in work related manslaughter as he considered that counsel had not addressed the point of law in question. At end of all this the crown prosecutor refused to review his decision.

I then wrote to the Chief Superintendent of police suggesting that if the Crown prosecutor came to this decision then perhaps the police had been lax in their investigation. This resulted in a visit to my home of a Superintendent who listened to everything I told him and said he would look at the case. We had a further meeting and he said he agreed that I had justification and he would re open the case and interview other witnesses. It was at this point he told me that the Crown prosecutor had made his decision not to prosecute very early on in the investigation. The Superintendent went to speak with the Crown prosecutor but again he refused to budge.

The Internal Review By CPS

I enquired if I could obtain a judicial review of CPS decision I was advised that a judicial review could cost up to £50,000 and there was no certainty that the prosecutor would change his decision even if the judge said he had erred in law.

I made the wrong decision of going down the route of an internal review where another Crown prosecutor reviews the evidence as I was so sure, once again, that someone else would have to admit he was wrong in law I did not realize that the system closes ranks.

So the second prosecutor upheld the decision not to prosecute Roberts, but justified it by using a different part of the law. With the help of my MP, the case was then referred up to the Attorney General where another Crown prosecutor looked at it and again, said the decision was correct but justified it by referring to yet another part of the law, adding insult to injury in saying they considered we had been treated by CPS with 'incredible sensitivity'.

The First Coroner

We then had to deal with the Coroner, who kept arranging pre Inquest meetings in various parts of Wales, which meant long travel and hotel stays, the meeting didn't bring any progress and in some cases there was several months between meetings.

Our solicitor then requested a copy of all the evidence as we still hadn't seen what had been collected and felt we need to know to prepare our questions for the Inquest. The Coroner said we would need to pay him £577 up front before he would issue the evidence that referred to all parties concerned, i.e. Jeyes, Deeside Metal and the HSE.

As it was clear that he would not supply the evidence unless we paid it and our daughter in law couldn't afford it, my husband and I paid it and the evidence was sent. It was only then reading that evidence that we new the full extent of the negligence, the full horror of Mark's death and the fact that the yard manager at Jeyes from where the Aerosols originated told one story of how they left their premises, the haulier who took them told a very different story and then Roberts had told a different story again. It was very clear that further questions should have been asked but this was never done.

Roberts and the haulier said it was the other who said the aerosols were empty but what was also evident was that Roberts had written a risk assessment that stated that no aerosols should be accepted without a certificate of degassing and be shredded, a risk assessment he had ignored on this occasion. He had been questioned about the various other injuries that Mark had sustained and his attitude was clearly that it's all part of the job, nothing to be concerned about. The very telling point was when the police questioned him on what Mark had told us about the hazardous waste that seemed to be coming in, when he started to use the phrase 'no comment'. So because the CPS refused to charge him none of this was ever 'clarified'.

What also became clear was that Deeside Metal had never carried out any kind of fire risk assessment. At the time of the blaze the fire door was locked and Roberts had the key, there had never been any kind of fire drill in a high risk environment like this, so when the fire occurred everyone just ran about like headless chickens while Mark screamed for help inside the burning building. It was actually the manager of the company next to Deeside Metal who ran to fetch his own fire extinguishers and tried to put out the blaze. The fire hose was too short, the fire extinguishers could not be easily found and when found were empty! In other words every single employers fire regulations had been ignored. This was never even mentioned at the final hearing or at any time, no one seemed to care.

Reading this evidence and also the statements from some of Mark's workmates who told the truth was painful in the extreme and we had to stop frequently because my husband and I were in tears. I feel my son was as good as murdered, and I know I'm not alone amongst those who have lost a relative in feeling this way.

We prepared our list of witnesses that we would like to see called to Inquest but the Coroner disagreed saying no one from Jeyes needed to be called as all he had to do was establish simply how Mark died, no more than that. It was not his job to look at anything further or to save lives.

Finally the Coroner settled on a date for Inquest having taken almost 3 years to get there. As it neared the time our daughter in Italy became seriously ill and was taken into hospital, with the prospect of an emergency operation, we asked if the date could be changed, it was refused.

Hilda Palmer then phoned the Coroner's clerk and was told the same, she said we were being put in a position that we had to choose between being with our seriously ill daughter or attending our son's Inquest for which we had waited years. She said if they held to this she would ensure that the press heard of it! Lo and behold an hour later a phone call was received saying it had been postponed!

At this point my MP became involved. After I had spoken at a H&S conference and mentioned the £577 charge, I had been told by a coroner that the evidence should be provided free of charge and it was against the law to ask for payment.

My MP wrote to the Minister of Justice, who then wrote to the Coroner telling him that the money should be refunded as there was as they say 'no basis in law' to charge (good way of putting it). The Coroner refused saying that there had been a round table meeting with all concerned at which point all parties agreed to pay him that amount. This was totally untrue. There had been no meeting and no agreement. The MOJ washed their hands of it at that point saying that they had no control over a Coroner and could not make him return the money. To be honest the money did not greatly concern me, it was just that I had no faith at all in this coroner by then to carry out a thorough Inquest, having repeatedly referred to Mark's death as an 'accident'. Although there are juries at Inquests into work related deaths the Coroners always instruct the juries as to the verdicts that he will accept, usually not allowing an unlawful killing verdict. We were pretty sure this coroner had already decided, even before hearing the witnesses, that he wanted an accidental death verdict pure and simple.

It was decided that I would raise an action in the small claims court for return of our £577 and the removal of the coroner from Mark's Inquest. Our solicitor wrote to him, telling him this and we immediately received a cheque from his personal account and he withdrew from the case.

I wrote to the Office of Judicial Complaints raising my concerns about the delays in bringing case to Inquest and also that Coroner had charged all parties £577 to provide the necessary evidence refusing to return it when advised to do so and lying to Ministry of Justice. The OJC were concerned enough to refer the case to The Lord Chancellor, whose surprising response was that the Coroner had done nothing that warranted any action, he had repaid immediately on realizing his 'mistake' in charging us!

So this coroner still sits in absolute power, hearing cases of work related deaths, hopefully no longer charging grieving relatives for providing the necessary evidence.

The Inquest

We then had to start again with another Coroner and try to get legal representation for an Inquest. No financial help is given to the families for legal representation at an Inquest even when the family are up against barristers representing the negligent employers and paid for by their insurance company.

We were fortunate in our solicitor managing to justify funding through the civil action but then had a problem getting a barrister prepared to represent the family. Some wanted payment up front, some wanted a higher fee, and some just weren't interested in representing families or refused to push for an unlawful killing verdict. However we finally got hold of a barrister who was prepared to go all out for unlawful killing. This is yet another of the many mountains the bereaved families have to climb, getting good legal representation and having the thousands of pounds necessary. If they don't have the money they are unrepresented in court, up against the employer's barrister.

This second coroner turned out to be everything every Coroner should be, efficient, thorough, fair treating all parties with respect and consideration while questioning everything.

Prior to the Inquest which took place in February 2009 thanks to the CCA, we had received counsel advice on a pro bono basis when the evidence was looked at yet gain and in the barrister's opinion the CPS had erred in law.  Not once but on the 3 occasions the case had been reviewed and in her judgment this was a case where manslaughter charges should have been made. The case was then referred up to the Director of Public Prosecutions who at that point said they would wait until after the Inquest as it was so close.

The Inquest lasted 6 days and once again was so harrowing for the family listening yet again to all the details; we left court while the CCTV footage was being shown of the incident which killed our son.

There was a lot of no comment answers and the workers mainly told the same story word for word except two, one of whom had left the company shortly after Mark was killed. He confirmed the lack of any Health and Safety regime. He was just a lad and told the court that when Mark was killed his mother told him to get out of the job.

The other was an employee who had made an excellent statement to police earlier on and also confirmed the lack of any safety regime and of the bullying not only of Mark but of other workers. This poor man was sacked just before the Inquest after working there for 22 years - sacked for telling the truth. It was made out that he was sacked for misconduct and therefore his evidence could not be trusted as he had a grievance against the company. I spoke to him after the Inquest and thanked him for telling the truth and expressed my sorrow that he had lost his job because of it. He said he considered it a favour as at his age he wouldn't have had the courage to leave and it had possibly saved his life as he too had thought that a death was possible.

The coroner did a remarkable job and persuaded the haulier, who had refused to give any kind of statement to confirm what had been said between him and Roberts and his evidence once again contradicted the statement made by Roberts.

Roberts was belligerent and angry when giving evidence shouting that Mark's family were hounding him and when we got up to leave the court at a point when we could not listen to any more of his lies, he shouted after us that we couldn't face the truth. He had to be silenced by the Coroner.

The managing director was every bit as horrendous, saying at one point that he didn't bother with risk assessments as his employees were all illiterate but when the Coroner went over all the names of those who had given evidence the only one he accused of being illiterate was the one who was sacked for telling the truth to the police. However so many folk told lies that the picture was clouded.

The Coroner was very clear in his summing up and his explanation of possible verdicts giving the jury the option of an unlawful killing verdict.

The verdict however was a written one listing all the various points of failure by Jeyes, Deeside Metal and Roberts.
I think they found it difficult to understand that the duty of care was primarily with Roberts in spite of all the failures by Jeyes, and by A Graham, the director.

The Charges And Trial

Following on from the Inquest a statement was taken from the haulier, the DPPS office finally agreed that the Crown Prosecutor erred in law and Roberts was then charged with manslaughter making his first appearance in court in September 2009.

After numerous cancelled and adjourned hearings and delays in submitting verdicts, the defense brought an abuse of process hearing saying that the accused had suffered so much having this hanging over him and being told on 3 occasions by the CPS that he would not be prosecuted. They argued it would be an abuse of his human rights. He even said that Mark's family had dared to question a learned Chief Crown prosecutors judgment and in some way had applied some kind of pressure on the DPP to change the decision.

The judge agreed that it was an abuse of process (as the CPS had made such an utter shambles of the case) I was told after the hearing that it was felt the judge had made a wrong decision but 'no one ever questions a judge.'

So justice was finally denied, Roberts walked away from a manslaughter charge pleading guilty to section 7 HSAWA offence instead in that he had failed to protect Mark's life. Jeyes and Deeside Metal were charged with HSAWA offences. Once again, after interminable delaying tactics from Deeside Metal they eventually pleaded guilty to the charges. I was determined that this new judge should be made aware of as much as possible, hence the Victim Impact Statement which was accepted by him.

So we came to a one day hearing only, no witnesses called, with only basic evidence being heard.

Both Roberts and the Deeside Metal director made pleas concerning all their suffering saying Roberts had suffered enough and asked that no fine be imposed as he had just last week taken early retirement.

The barrister also said that, as Roberts was wholly responsible for Health and Safety, the Director A Graham was guilty only on a technicality and if a heavy fine was imposed he would have to close his business and make everyone unemployed as he was just surviving.

The judge retired to consider the penalty while Graham and Roberts sat there calmly and confidently.

The judge returned and was so utterly scathing of both Roberts and A Graham. I feel he went as far as he could possibly go in hinting that this was really manslaughter. He said everything that we had been saying all these years!

H he fined Jeyes £330,000 plus costs, Deeside Metal £100,000 plus costs and Roberts £10,000 and no costs.

He thanked me publicly for the informative VIS and the look of shock and horror on the faces of Roberts and Graham , having had everything their own way up until then, was I guess, the only little bit of justice Mark will ever get.

Naturally, Deeside Metal has appealed against the amount of fine, with the appeal still to be heard at the time of writing this.

It is clear from our experience that there has been a conscious decision by the CPS, right from the top, I suspect from Government, not to use the criminal laws of gross negligence manslaughter or corporate manslaughter to bring the horrendously negligent to account, but to rely on the HSE to bring court actions.

As the HSE is now systematically being attacked and decimated by the government, and not in any position to either investigate or enforce the HSAWA; where do we go from here?

How many workers need to be killed or what horrendous event has to take place before the people say enough is enough?

I am ashamed that I am a citizen of a so called civilized country that allows this to go on and will continue to stand with my fellow FACK campaigners, in the hope that we can convince the nation to demand an end to this unnecessary loss of life.

Source: Dorothy Wright

See also: Look Into The Human Face Of Workplace Killing

fro