AG v Smith [2005] JRC 076 (03 June 2005)

AG v Smith [2005] JRC 076 (03 June 2005)

The fine is reduced due to specific and unusual mitigation, including costs incurred by the defendant, guilty plea, cooperation, good record, and proactive steps to arrange asbestos training for employees.

Citation
[2005] JRC 076
Parties
Defendant: Unknown Defendant (construction supervisor); Prosecution: Unknown Prosecution
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
03 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
fine imposed with imprisonment in default
Legal Topics
Asbestos, Reckless Disregard, Mitigation, Sentencing
Health and Safety Criminal Law Asbestos Reckless Disregard Mitigation Sentencing

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unknown Defendant (construction supervisor)

Defendant

Unknown Prosecution

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 reckless disregard of asbestos dangers
  2. 2 failure to brief workmen on asbestos checks
  3. 3 mitigation in sentencing

Ratio Decidendi

The fine is reduced due to specific and unusual mitigation, including costs incurred by the defendant, guilty plea, cooperation, good record, and proactive steps to arrange asbestos training for employees.

Court Disposition

fine imposed with imprisonment in default

Orders

  • Total fine of £6,000 divided as £3,000 on each count
  • 1 month's imprisonment in default, consecutive on each count