DEFENCE speeches arguing for the innocence of two of the three Island Energy gas engineers accused of unlawfully killing the ten victims of the Haut du Mont explosion were heard by jurors in the Royal Court yesterday.
Neil Armstrong (58), John Wright (60) and Lee Ward (59) each deny ten counts of gross negligence manslaughter in relation to the Haut du Mont explosion on 10 December 2022.
Their employer, Jersey Gas, trading as Island Energy, also denies two alleged breaches of the health and safety law.
It is alleged that the three men, who worked together on the network operations team, collectively “acted in a manner that was exceptionally bad” prior to the fatal blast.
The prosecution said that the workers made the “utterly reprehensible” decision not to conduct a “pressure test” – which checks for gas leaks – on pipework leading to Haut du Mont the day before the explosion.
Crown Advocate Simon Thomas, prosecuting, argued during his closing speech on Monday that the defendants had ignored the “serious and obvious” risk of death when they reintroduced gas to the housing block without conducting the industry-standard test.
He further argued that the defendants had “foresight” of this exact risk when carrying out the reconnection work on the day before the explosion.
However, defence lawyers representing the accused yesterday delivered closing speeches asking that jurors find their respective clients not guilty of all ten charges of gross negligence manslaughter charges.
Mr Armstrong: “There is a significant difference between negligence and gross negligence”
Advocate Rui Tremoceiro, for Mr Armstrong, began his submission by pointing out the “very unusual” nature of a gross negligence manslaughter offence.
“The law recognises an important distinction between human error and crime,” he told. “Tragic consequences do not by themselves transform mistakes – even bad mistakes – into criminal offences.
“The central question is this: was the conduct of a particular defendant, including Mr Armstrong, so exceptionally bad – so truly reprehensible – that it properly deserves to be characterised as criminal?”
Advocate Tremoceiro suggested that Mr Armstrong’s actions on 9 December were informed by “years” of mismanagement by his employer, Island Energy.
He said that his client’s last formal piece of training on managing Public Reported Emergencies (PREs) was in July 2009, more than 13 years before the explosion.
“[The training] that he did receive in 2009 was by now a distant memory,” he said. “Which, again, is not a failure for which he was responsible.
“It is the responsibility of the employer that personnel entrusted with operational and emergency responsibilities receive appropriate and up-to-date training.”
Additionally, he argued that Mr Armstrong’s work was inextricably related to “excessive workload pressure” at Island Energy – something he said had been identified by multiple witnesses giving evidence throughout the trial.
He then turned to the allegation that his client had failed to ensure that at least one of the emergency control valves (ECVs) at Haut du Mont was “closed and plugged” following the reintroduction of gas to Haut du Mont.
The lawyer cast doubt on the Crown’s assertion that the open valve which led to the gas leak “must ultimately be traced back to Mr Armstrong”.
Advocate Tremoceiro said that “three valves” had been left unplugged at Haut du Mont, but that Mr Armstrong had only ever referred to leaving a single valve unplugged.
“Experts agree that plugs D, E and F were absent before the explosion, but there is no forensic evidence as to who removed them or for what purpose,” he explained.
“A third party could have opened one or more of the ECVs if they had access to the cupboards.”
He made reference to the evidence of Andium Homes executive Carl Mavity, who had told jurors that the social housing provider possessed “no reliable record of how many keys existed, who possessed them or who had access to them”.
“The pool of individuals capable of entering the cupboard is simply unknown,” jurors were told.
Advocate Tremoceiro accepted that Mr Armstrong had failed to conduct a pressure test – and then lied about it to two senior colleagues – but he argued that his client’s “poor judgement” did not amount to gross negligence.
“The Crown’s submission invites you to take logical leaps which I say the evidence simply does not permit,” he said.
“It seeks to equate the absence of a pressure test with an obvious and serious risk of death – but those are not the same thing.
“A pressure test, if carried out, would have revealed no more than a gas escape – the existence of a gas escape – but a gas escape does not necessarily cause an explosion.”
Advocate Tremoceiro concluded: “[Mr Armstrong] made mistakes – he accepts that – he should have ensured that a pressure test was carried out and he should not have said that one had been done.
“He can be properly criticised for these failures, but there is a significant difference between negligence and gross negligence.
“When you apply the law carefully, dispassionately and without hindsight, there is only one verdict which is safe and just in the case of Mr Armstrong – and that verdict in respect of all counts is not guilty.”
Mr Wright: “Mr Wright found himself in an impossible situation”
Advocate Mark Boothman, representing Mr Wright, made the case that his client should not be held criminally responsible for Island Energy’s failings – pointing to evidence of a company plagued by a “toxic culture”, poor management and inadequate safety procedures.
He began by acknowledging the “unprecedented tragedy” of the explosion and the “huge amount of sympathy” felt for the victims and their families – but urged jurors not to let emotion cloud their verdicts.
“Please focus on the evidence,” he added.
Accusing the prosecution of “cherry-picking”, the defence lawyer argued that, when considered “in the round”, the case against his client had not been proved.
Speaking yesterday to jurors who are soon due to retire to consider their verdicts, Advocate Boothman described a “catalogue of failings” within Island Energy which had made life difficult for more junior employees such as Mr Wright.
The defence lawyer referred to evidence from former HR chief Kimberley Patterson, who described a “toxic” working environment where staff lacked respect for one another and management reviews were treated as a “waste of time”.
As Advocate Boothman recounted, former head of network operations James Cherry had also told jurors that staff were instructed not to spend money on training, while former manager Mark Wheeldon described a “lack of oversight” and “recruitment issues”.
Drawing on their evidence, Advocate Boothman argued that employees had been left without adequate supervision, training or written procedures.
“It was the company’s responsibility to make sure suitable competent people were available,” he said.
Turning to the work carried out the day before the blast, the defence lawyer argued that the work to disconnect Haut Du Mont had not created the danger which led to the explosion.
“The danger was caused by the reconnection,” he said.
Echoing the prosecution’s argument that an open valve was responsible for the gas leak – contradicting Advocate Tremoceiro’s claim that there was nothing linking it to his client – Advocate Boothman said it was Mr Armstrong who had attended the gas cupboard and left the valve open.
“It was Mr Armstrong who had failed to close and plug the valves at Haut du Mont,” he said, describing this as “the mechanism that caused the explosion”.
Advocate Boothman maintained that the tragedy could have been prevented had the emergency control valves been closed and the pipework plugged.
The other critical events, he added, came later that day, when the team discovered that the work had also cut off the gas supply to the St Helier Yacht Club.
Mr Wright was then instructed by Mr Armstrong to reconnect the pipework amid what has been described as a “panic” to restore the supply before an event at the venue that evening.
In arguing that Mr Armstrong bore responsibility for the decision, Advocate Boothman drew heavily on Mr Wright’s video-recorded police interview, in which he described questioning whether a pressure test should be carried out before the gas supply was restored.
“I asked the question, ‘test?’, and because Neil was panicking, he said ‘just get it on’,” Mr Wright told investigators.
He also recalled being told: “Forget the test, get it on.”
Mr Wright said he was not happy about the decision but believed it was for his supervisor to make.
“I can’t make that call; that’s down to my supervisor. If he says ‘don’t’, I don’t. What Neil says goes basically.”
Advocate Boothman argued that his client had been placed in an “impossibly difficult” position, expected to challenge a supervisor whom other employees had described as intimidating.
Former Island Energy employee Luke Le Brocq previously described Mr Armstrong as “aggressive” and “a bit of a bully”.
Mr Wheeldon also suggested that Mr Wright may not have had the confidence to challenge his supervisor’s decision to restore the supply without a safety test.
Advocate Boothman argued that it was easy, with the benefit of hindsight, to say Mr Wright should have done more – including invoking Island Energy’s “red card” policy, which allowed employees to stop work if they had safety concerns.
However, he reminded jurors of evidence from Mr Le Brocq, who described the policy as “a paper policy rather than being successful in practice” and said workers who used it risked being labelled “a bit of a trouble-causer”.
Summing up, Advocate Boothman urged jurors to consider Mr Wright’s position within Island Energy, the company’s working culture and his relationship with Mr Armstrong.
“Mr Wright was not management; he was not the one making the decisions,” he said.
He argued that Mr Wright had been following instructions and felt unable to challenge his supervisor – again describing the situation he faced as “impossible”.
“There were other ways this work could’ve been done. There could’ve been a written procedure. The work could have paused and come back Monday, but these are all decisions that were out of Mr Wright’s control,” he said. “He was the one near the bottom of the hierarchy doing what he was told.”
Advocate Boothman acknowledged that elements of the work carried out on 9 December were “far from satisfactory” – but stressed that the threshold for proving gross-negligence manslaughter was “very high”.
“Acquitting him of these offences is no way of condoning what he did that day,” he said.
Advocate Boothman concluded by urging jurors to find that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against Mr Wright beyond reasonable doubt – and that it would be “cruel” to find him guilty on that basis.
