Pullen, R (on the application of) v Health & Safety Executive [2003] EWHC 2934 (QB) (10 December 2003)

Pullen, R (on the application of) v Health & Safety Executive [2003] EWHC 2934 (QB) (10 December 2003)

The HSE's decision not to prosecute was reasonably open to it, as it properly considered the adequacy of the maintenance systems, the evidential uncertainties regarding the door's history, and the requirements of the Code for Crown Prosecutors. There was no misdirection of law, failure to follow policy, or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 2934 (QB)
Parties
Applicant: Pullen; Respondent: Health & Safety Executive
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Prosecutorial Discretion, Judicial Review of Non Prosecution, Health and Safety at Work, Burden of Proof, Public Interest Test
Administrative Law Health and Safety Law Criminal Law Prosecutorial Discretion Judicial Review of Non Prosecution Health and Safety at Work Burden of Proof Public Interest Test

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pullen

Applicant

Health & Safety Executive

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Health and Safety Executive's decision not to prosecute Islington or Hyde for breach of section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 was lawful and reasonable
  2. 2 Whether the HSE misapplied the law regarding absolute liability and the burden of proof under section 3(1) and section 40 of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the HSE failed to follow its own policy or acted perversely in declining prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

The HSE's decision not to prosecute was reasonably open to it, as it properly considered the adequacy of the maintenance systems, the evidential uncertainties regarding the door's history, and the requirements of the Code for Crown Prosecutors. There was no misdirection of law, failure to follow policy, or perversity in the decision-making process.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review refused
  • No order for prosecution against Islington or Hyde