P, R. v
The trial judge's requirement that the prosecution prove the defendant actually knew the material facts was too restrictive; liability for neglect under section 37 can arise where the officer ought to have been aware of the facts requiring action, not only where there is actual knowledge.
- Parties
- Appellant: Regina; Respondent: P
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 11 July 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Preliminary Ruling at Preparatory Hearing
- Outcome
- appeal allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Corporate Liability, Secondary Liability, Neglect Under Health and Safety at Work Act, Preliminary Rulings, Interpretation of Statutory Terms
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina
Appellant
P
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Preliminary Ruling at Preparatory Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 What is the correct interpretation of 'neglect' under section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974?
- 2 Did the trial judge err in requiring proof that the defendant actually knew the material facts for liability under section 37?
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge's requirement that the prosecution prove the defendant actually knew the material facts was too restrictive; liability for neglect under section 37 can arise where the officer ought to have been aware of the facts requiring action, not only where there is actual knowledge.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed in part
Orders
- Judge's ruling amended to remove requirement of actual knowledge of material facts for neglect under section 37.
- Reporting restrictions lifted, subject to identification by initials.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment