AG v Bidmead [2021] JRC 239 (24 September 2021)

AG v Bidmead [2021] JRC 239 (24 September 2021)

The defendant, as managing director, was solely responsible for the safety failures, which were serious and exposed employees to substantial risk. The fine imposed reflects the seriousness of the breach, the defendant's means, and the need for deterrence and punishment.

Citation
[2021] JRC 239
Parties
Defendant: Timothy Bidmead; Prosecutor: Crown
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
24 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
convicted and fined
Legal Topics
Workplace Safety, Sentencing, Employer Liability
Criminal Law Health and Safety Law Workplace Safety Sentencing Employer Liability

Case Brief

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy Bidmead

Defendant

Crown

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached health and safety regulations as managing director of T Bidmead Building Contractors Ltd
  2. 2 Appropriate sentence for serious breaches of health and safety regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant, as managing director, was solely responsible for the safety failures, which were serious and exposed employees to substantial risk. The fine imposed reflects the seriousness of the breach, the defendant's means, and the need for deterrence and punishment.

Court Disposition

convicted and fined

Orders

  • Fine of £20,000 on the first charge
  • Fine of £20,000 on the second charge