WORK undertaken by three gas engineers prior to the Haut du Mont explosion which killed people was “clearly not carried out in conformance with the Island Energy procedures”, an expert witness has told jurors.
Neil Armstrong (58), John Wright (60) and Lee Ward (59) are charged with unlawfully killing the ten victims of the Haut du Mont explosion on 10 December 2022.
The three men, who worked alongside each other on the Island Energy network operations team, each 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.
Chris Clarke, a retired chartered engineer and chartered safety professional who began working for British Gas in 1986, was called to the stand as an expert witness on behalf of Island Energy on Tuesday.
Continuing his evidence yesterday, the former health and safety manger at Wales & West Utilities described Island Energy’s safety procedures as “perfectly adequate”.
He was asked by Advocate Mike Preston, representing the gas company, to assess how the Island Energy leadership team reacted to the loss of gas supply at the St Helier Yacht Club – and by extension Haut du Mont – on 9 December.
“It seemed a little bit over the top,” Mr Clarke said. “It was certainly more than we [in the UK] would have done in the same circumstances, but it’s good practise.”
The expert witness went on to describe the task to reconnect the gas supply to Haut du Mont on the day before the explosion as “fairly straightforward work”.
It was suggested by Advocate Preston that the failure to carry out a pressure test on pipework leading to the social housing block was “the most serious failure” prior to the fatal explosion.
“I would agree with that,” Mr Clarke accepted. “A chain of events occurred, but the pressure test would have been the one that prevented this happening.”
However, he stated that the training and experience of the three gas engineers said to be responsible for not applying the test was “exactly how I would expect it to be”.
“In their interview, they were able to describe how procedures should be put in place,” the witness argued. “There didn’t appear to be any fault in what they were saying, they clearly knew what they had to do.”
Advocate Preston reminded him that neither of the three defendants were trained in Safe Control of Operations – an established set of procedures for controlling the risk that arises from individuals not carrying out work correctly.
“On the basis that it appears Island Energy did not implement SCO, I wouldn’t expect them to be SCO trained”, he responded.
Mr Clarke referred to SCO as an “administrative procedure” which “tells you how to fill the forms in”, and therefore not applicable for workers with a “spanner in their hands”.
“What is your opinion as to the way that the work was carried out [on 9 December]?”, Advocate Preston asked.
“Well, it was clearly not carried out in conformance with the Island Energy procedures”, the expert witness replied.
Crown Advocate Simon Thomas, prosecuting, cross-examined Mr Clarke on his evidence that Island Energy had not needed SCO at the time of the explosion.
“They were operating to a different style of system of control, and that therefore negated the need for a full SCO suite of procedures”, the gas expert clarified.
Mr Clarke said that it was possible to control the safety of Island Energy operations by the use of “supervision”.
He explained: “My observation was that the way it was being done in Island Energy was not using lots of paperwork and additional procedures, but using the very back-to-basics style that I had observed when I worked at British Gas.
“From my own experience, in that time, we operated in a safe way.”
Advocate Thomas pointed out that Island Energy’s former head of network operations, James Cherry, had previously told jurors that he thought the gas company was complying with SCO.
The witness said that he was “surprised” by Mr Cherry’s evidence given the lack of SCO compliant work being carried out in the relevant time period by Island Energy employees.
Jurors then heard the prosecutor ask the witness whether he thought Mr Armstrong had been “supervising his team properly” prior to the Haut du Mont explosion on 10 December.
“I’m not sure it is a yes or no answer,” Mr Clarke said. “It would appear from the evidence I’ve heard that he was not doing it effectively on that day.
“But not because the supervision wasn’t there, or because he wouldn’t do it, or anyone else [wouldn’t do it].
“It would appear that he chose not to.”
Commissioner Andrew Oldland is presiding.
The trial continues.
