THE jury in the trial of three Island Energy workers alleged to have unlawfully killed ten victims of the Haut du Mont explosion has retired to consider its verdicts.
Neil Armstrong (58), John Wright (60) and Lee Ward (59) each deny ten counts of gross negligence manslaughter in relation to the explosion on 10 December 2022.
The three men, who worked together on the Island Energy network operations team, are said to have made the “utterly reprehensible” decision not to conduct a pressure test on pipework leading to Haut du Mont on the day before the fatal blast.
Jurors will also consider whether to convict the fourth defendant, Island Energy, of 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.
At the Royal Court’s temporary Jubilee Wharf courtroom yesterday, Commissioner Andrew Oldland, presiding, asked jurors to retire to consider their verdicts.
The twelve jurors were given a series of legal directions by Mr Oldland, which set out how to evaluate the evidence heard throughout the trial.
The directions formed part of the judge’s “summing-up” process, and provided the panel with the proper route to verdict for each defendant.
“It is not suggested, nor has it ever been, that the first three defendants intended to cause the explosion on 10 December,” he said. “It goes without saying that, no doubt, they all deeply regret what happened.
“That is not what this case is about: it is not about intention, or even recklessness, it is about negligence.
“This type of offence is about holding people, in particular those who carry out activities which can endanger others, to account for their actions if they caused death by gross negligence in the way that I have directed you.”
Route to verdict: Negligence
Mr Oldland explained that all three men are charged with “negligently breaching an existing duty of care” to the victims of Haut du Mont by reintroducing gas into the social housing network without first performing a pressure test.
Mr Armstrong, he added, is further said to have been negligent in failing to replace “at least one plug” in the gas manifold at Block H of the flats.
Both Mr Armstrong and Mr Wright accept negligently failing to apply the pressure test, he said, but Mr Ward does not.
“You will need to consider the position that [Mr Ward] found himself in and what he knew, or did not know, at the time that gas was reintroduced”, Mr Oldland explained.
It has been said that Mr Ward, who was employed as team leader, arrived to the work site at 4pm on 9 December as a replacement for an apprentice worker, or ‘mate’.
Mr Oldland told the jury that one of the key issues to consider is whether he was required, as an “experienced gas engineer”, to insist that the pressure test was conducted.
The defence case, he said, is that Mr Ward was “entitled” to “step into the role of mate” and defer to Mr Armstrong and Mr Wright, especially given “how little he knew of the works”.
“Whether you are considering, in this case negligence or gross negligence, Ward is clearly in a different position to both Armstrong and Wright, you may think”, Mr Oldland said.
Route to verdict: Reasonable foresight of “serious and obvious” risk of death
Beyond the charge of negligently failing to conduct a pressure test, jurors will also need to decide whether – at the time gas was reintroduced to Haut du Mont – the three defendants had “reasonable foresight” of a “serious and obvious risk of death”.
“What risk would an experienced gas engineer, with all their training, have foreseen if gas was reintroduced into a pressured main without first performing a pressure test?”, the Commissioner asked.
The defence advocates for the three Island Energy gas engineers argue that there was “no serious and obvious risk of death” and that “such a risk was not reasonably foreseeable”, he said.
“They count a number of factors: the fact that this was a reconnection of a gas main, not the installation of a new main, or even the replacement of an old main.
“That there was no prior reported issue with the soon-to-be reconnected main, there was a limited number of commercial premises affected and enough steps were taken, such as closing ECVs.”
The prosecution case, he explained, is that the defence submissions “completely ignore the whole purpose of a pressure test, which is to deal with the unknown”.
“A serious leak could have happened anywhere,” Mr Oldland summarised. “Every gas engineer, the prosecution argue, knows how fundamental a pressure test is, and why it is so fundamental.
“Where there is a risk of explosion, they argue, there is always a risk of death, which is clear, serious and obvious.”
Route to verdict: Gross negligence
The Commissioner explained that, from there, jurors will need to weigh up whether the alleged breaches were “so exceptionally bad and reprehensible” as to amount to “gross” negligence and merit criminal action.
“This involves you making a qualitative judgement about the conduct of each defendant,” he explained, adding: “It is incapable of precise definition.”
The defence argue that Mr Armstrong – who supervised Mr Wright and Mr Ward – was not grossly negligent on 9 December and should therefore be found not guilty.
“It is argued,” Mr Oldland said, “that he wasn’t grossly negligent because of the position he found himself in: short-staffed, with a high workload pressure to complete the job, no supervisory support and no training.”
However, the prosecution case against Mr Armstrong is that “even if there may have been pressures at work, none of that can possibly excuse this deliberate choice by [him] to cut corners and to miss out the most fundamental safety precaution”.
Mr Wright, jurors heard the Commissioner summarise, denies gross negligence on the basis that he “was told by Armstrong not do the pressure test” and “worked in a toxic environment where it was difficult, if not impossible, to say no”.
But the Crown say Mr Wright “would clearly have understood the importance of the pressure test” and was therefore “complicit in cutting corners”.
“Even if he was told not to do the pressure test, the prosecution say that Armstrong was not on-site for a lot of the time, and that it is not an excuse to say I just had to follow orders”, Mr Oldland summarised.
He repeated that Mr Ward, on the defence case, was neither negligent nor grossly negligent – he had “very limited” knowledge of the works and it “wasn’t his role” to interfere.
But the prosecution say Mr Ward “was required” under the law to overrule his superiors and apply the test.
Route to verdict: Island Energy
Jurors were next told that, with regard to Island Energy, they would need to consider whether the company did “all that was reasonably practicable” to prevent the explosion.
The defence case, Mr Oldland summarised, is that no company could have legislated for “such a departure from their procedures, which were perfectly adequate”.
On the other hand, he said, the prosecution argue that Island Energy’s already “confusing and inadequate” safety procedures were not properly implemented before the blast.
“The prosecution argue that there is the clearest possible evidence of a lack of sufficient resources to deal with a problem that Island Energy itself had recognised”, Mr Oldland stated.
