1998/90 - AG v Hacquoil and Cook [1998] UR 90 (1 May 1998)

The company failed to implement required safety measures despite prior warnings, and each charge constitutes a separate offence warranting individual fines.

Citation: [1998] UR 90
Parties: Prosecutor: Attorney General; Defendant: Unnamed Company
Jurisdiction: Jersey
Judgment Date: 01 May 1998
Procedural Posture: Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome: conviction and fines imposed
Legal Topics: Workplace Safety, Employer Liability, Regulatory Offences

Health and Safety Criminal Law Workplace Safety Employer Liability Regulatory Offences

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Attorney General

Prosecutor

Unnamed Company

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

1 Whether the defendant company failed to provide adequate roof edge protection in breach of safety regulations
2 Whether separate fines should be imposed for each offence

Ratio Decidendi

The company failed to implement required safety measures despite prior warnings, and each charge constitutes a separate offence warranting individual fines.

Court Disposition

conviction and fines imposed

Orders

Fine of £2,000 on Charge 1
Fine of £2,000 on Charge 2