THE former safety and compliance officer for Island Energy felt his “stomach drop” upon finding out that an emergency valve had been left open by his colleague prior to the Haut du Mont explosion, jurors heard.
Neil Armstrong (58), John Wright (60) and Lee Ward (59) are charged with unlawfully killing ten people who died following the Haut du Mont explosion on 10 December 2022.
The three men, who worked together in the network operations team at Island Energy, deny ten counts of gross negligence manslaughter.
Jersey Gas, which trades as Island Energy, also denies two alleged breaches of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989.
Opening the case last week, Crown Advocate Simon Thomas, prosecuting, said that the fatal explosion occurred after Mr Armstrong left an emergency control valve at the Haut du Mont flats “open and unplugged” after reconnecting its gas supply on 9 December.
Jurors were told that the open valve “could have been identified” if the three defendants “had carried out a crucial, basic and fundamental test before restoring gas”.
Advocate Thomas described the test – called a pressure, or “tightness” test – as something that “any competent gas engineer would be aware of
“He then went on to tell me that he thinks he got distracted”
Giving evidence yesterday, James Johnstone – the safety and compliance officer at the time of the explosion – told jurors that his “stomach dropped” upon hearing from Mr Armstrong that a valve had been “left open” at Haut du Mont prior to the explosion.
After witnessing the “devastation” of Haut du Mont in the immediate aftermath of the explosion, he said he made his way to the Island Energy offices to meet his team.
He added that once at the office, commercial sales manager Andy Robinson told him that “he thought he knew what caused [the explosion]”, and said: “You need to speak to Neil.”
“I didn’t push for any information, because he was obviously very upset and distressed,” Mr Johnstone told the jury. “He then went on to tell me that he thinks he got distracted, he took a phone call, and he may have left an ECV open.”
“When you heard the comment about the possibility of the ECV being left open, what was your reaction?”, Advocate Thomas asked.
“Honestly, I felt my stomach drop when I heard that comment,” the witness replied.
“I would have stopped the job”
Jurors were told that Mr Johnstone, who was working as Island Energy’s duty manager on the evening of 9 December, had been in regular communication with Mr Armstrong on the day before the explosion.
He said that his colleague had assured him that he had conducted a “pressure test” on the gas pipe leading to Haut du Mont after making the decision to reconnect the network.
“I asked Neil what pressure the test was carried out at,” he said. “He said it was carried out at 70 millibars (MB).”
“So you proceeded on the basis that a pressure test had been carried out”, Advocate Thomas enquired.
“Well that is my understanding of it – it is natural in the gas industry when you carry out work on installations that they are subjected to pressure or tightness tests afterwards.
“My automatic assumption as to what has been done is a pressure test has been carried out.”
Mr Johnstone told the jury that, had he known that Mr Armstrong and his team – consisting of team leaders Mr Wright and Mr Ward – had not conducted a pressure test after reconnecting the gas pipe, he would have immediately “stopped the job”.
“My reaction would have been [that] we cannot reintroduce gas to the work until we can verify that it is sound,” he explained.
Jurors heard him say that, had a pressure test been carried out, it “would have indicated” the gas leakage resulting from the valve left open by Mr Armstrong.
“I didn’t think it was necessary for me to attend the site at that point”
Advocate Thomas asked Mr Johnstone about his receiving a call from duty engineer Leigh Hunt after a smell of gas was reported near Haut du Mont on the evening of 9 December.
He said that Mr Hunt had told him that neither he, the fire and rescue service or Mr Armstrong, who was also present, had “found anything” by way of a gas leakage.
Mr Johnstone confirmed that “based on the information” provided to him, he then gave his colleague “permission to leave the site”, before “booking in a recheck” for the following day.
However it was stated that the safety boss believed Mr Hunt and Mr Armstrong to be checking for gas the Haut du Mont premises, when in actuality they were both at the site of the gas pipe excavation near commercial buildings.
He was asked why, as duty manager, he did not deem it “appropriate” to head to the Haut du Mont site himself after being notified of reports of gas.
“My understanding was that the installation had been tested and it was tight,” he answered. “The emergency services had said they couldn’t find anything, the service engineer said he couldn’t find anything, and also Neil was on site as well.
“Based on the culmination of all those points I didn’t think it was necessary for me to attend the site at that point.”
“He can be known to be quite aggressive”
Advocate Mark Boothman, representing Mr Wright, asked the witness whether he thought Mr Armstrong had created a bad working culture within the network operations team.
“In a small workplace you hear murmurings, you hear moaning,” accepted Mr Johnstone. “How much of it is warranted, unless you are involved with it on a day-to-day basis, you are not really going to know for sure. Some of it can be hearsay, some of it can be banter.”
He added that Mr Armstrong could “come across as aggressive”.
“Mr Armstrong is from Glasgow, as am I, and I’m very aware how gruff the Glaswegian accent can be, and at times I come across as aggressive,” he said.
“There could be a case where anyone who isn’t used to the accent can feel it is coming across as aggressive, which can imply bullying.”
Advocate Boothman put to the witness that he had described Mr Armstrong as “very intimidating” and “a bit of a bully” during interviews with the police.
“You must accept from a health and safety perspective, that somebody who has attributes like those that I’ve just read to you, is problematic from a health and safety perspective?”, Mr Boothman asked.
“Not necessarily from a health and safety perspective, [but] it could be problematic from a work relationship perspective”, Mr Johnstone answered.
Commissioner Andrew Oldland is presiding.
The trial continues.
