THE safety procedures in place at Island Energy before the Haut du Mont explosion were “adequate” and in line with the “Jersey way of doing things”, jurors were told yesterday during a closing speech made on behalf of the gas company.
Jersey Gas, which trades as Island Energy, deny two alleged breaches of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989.
The company is said to have breached its duty to ensure the health and safety of both its employees and members of the public.
Island Energy gas engineers Neil Armstrong (58), John Wright (60) and Lee Ward (59) are separately charged with ten counts of gross negligence manslaughter for their alleged role in the explosion.
Crown Advocate Simon Thomas, prosecuting, described the fatal blast in his closing address to jurors as the “unavoidable conclusion” of Island Energy failing to implement “crucial safety measures”.
He argued that the explosion represented an example of what can happen “when work is not controlled in the way it should be, and workers start cutting corners”.
But at the Royal Court yesterday, Advocate Mike Preston, representing Island Energy, asked jurors to find the company not guilty on both alleged breaches of health and safety.
“A terrible outcome does not by itself prove criminal liability”
The court heard Advocate Preston suggest that the prosecution case against Island Energy relied on fundamentally flawed reasoning.
“The Crown’s case is effectively inviting you to reason backwards,” he said. “There was an explosion, therefore the system must have been unsafe.
“And, further to that, the system must have been unsafe for a long period of time – there was a disaster, therefore the company must have failed.”
“Well”, he added, “that’s not how the law works. A terrible outcome does not by itself prove criminal liability. The tragedy does not prove that company systems were inadequate.”
He instead argued that explosion happened because “procedures were ignored”, “instructions were ignored” and “safeguards were ignored”.
“It happened because people who knew exactly what they were required to do chose not to do it,” he said.
Advocate Preston accused the three Island Energy defendants of “passing the buck” and “blaming the company for their failings”.
The lawyer added that the company “had in place a safe system of work” with “sufficient and clear instructions, training and supervision”.
“If you find that an employee departed from that system in a way which Island Energy could not reasonably have foreseen or guarded against then that employees’ conduct does not make Island Energy guilty.”
“The Jersey way of doing things can be a very good thing”
Throughout this closing speech, Advocate Preston made frequent reference to the evidence of Island Energy’s expert witness, Christopher Clarke.
Mr Clarke, who previously held the “highest position” in the Institution of Gas Engineers and Managers (IGEM), previously explained that Island Energy had operated using a model of “direct supervision” – as opposed to “lots of paperwork and additional procedures”.
Advocate Preston suggested that Mr Clarke’s evidence proved that Island Energy workers would not have been better off before the Haut du Mont explosion had a UK-standard set of procedures known as Safe Control of Operations (SCO) been in place.
“[He] is not a quack advancing some mad theory,” the lawyer said. “He looked at Jersey and didn’t see the reason to implement SCO for this particular category of work.”
While Island Energy had incorporated “parts” of SCO, Advocate Preston said it did not require the whole suite of procedures for its standards to be adequate and efficient.
“We often hear about ‘the Jersey way’, don’t we, and it is used as a pejorative – like it is a bad thing,” he told jurors.
“In fact, ‘the Jersey way’ of doing things can be a very good thing: taking the best of what is done elsewhere and using it, but not what which does not fit our particular situation.”
“The law doesn’t require employers to expect and anticipate deliberate misconduct”
Concluding his address, Advocate Preston said that the prosecution “effectively seeks” to impose a retrospective “standard of perfection” on Island Energy.
Mr Armstong, Mr Wright and Mr Ward choosing not to apply a pressure test to pipes leading to Haut du Mont on 9 December did not make the company criminally liable for their actions, he repeated.
“The law doesn’t require employers to assume that experienced and trusted employees will deliberately ignore procedures and then falsely report compliance with those procedures,” he continued.
“[The law] doesn’t require constant surveillance of such employees – it is not the way that business works in any industry, is it?
“The law doesn’t requirer employers to expect and anticipate deliberate misconduct – it doesn’t require perfection on part of the employer.”
Additionally, he argued that the sequence of events following the gas reintroduction – including the fire service failing to identify the gas leak – were so “exceptional” that Island Energy “could not reasonably have foreseen” them happening.
He told the jury: “This was not a failure to create a safe system, members of the jury, it was a failure to follow a safe system.
“You may feel bound to the emotional weight of this tragedy – that is an entirely human reaction to the matters that are before you – but your verdict must be based on the evidence.
“We say that having stood back and considered that evidence, you cannot be sure that Island Energy committed these offences and your duty in that circumstance is clear.
“And it is, members of the jury, to return verdicts of not guilty in relation to the two counts faced by the company.”
Commissioner Andrew Oldland is presiding. The trial continues.
