‘No justice’ for family of electrocuted worker after nine-year police inquiry

Martin Shipton

A breakdown in communication between South Wales Police and the Health and Safety Executive has deprived a workman’s family of justice nine years after he was electrocuted while repairing a malfunctioning lamppost.

Anthony Thomas, 42, from Neath, was working on the Heads of the Valleys road near Merthyr Tydfil in September 2016 when he inadvertently touched a life wire and was killed.

It has taken until 2025 for his family to learn that no prosecution will take place in connection with his death.

In a complaint to the HSE, Mr Thomas’s sister Karen Thomas stated: “The conclusion of SWP’s and the HSE’s joint criminal investigation and the HSE’s subsequent criminal investigations have taken an unacceptable period of nine years to conclude by which time our parents have sadly died.

“During the initial joint investigation the HSE failed to ensure that all relevant statements and evidence was secured to ensure that a full consideration of all the facts would be available, as and when, the HSE was given primacy to investigate.

“As I understand it the HSE did not object to SWP’s decision to close the investigation without providing the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] with a full file of evidence to consider a charging decision. If it is the HSE’s position that they were unaware of this, it is my opinion, based on it being a joint investigation, that they should have been fully aware of all the facts, evidence and conclusions.

“I see no point in having joint criminal investigations if the HSE is not aware of the full facts. This also appears contrary to the agreed ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ between the police, CPS and HSE.

“At a meeting with SWP and the CPS, following SWP’s decision to close the investigation, my parents were informed that there had been an extensive and thorough investigation. The HSE did not attend this meeting.

“It should be noted that SWP misled my parents by claiming that a full file of evidence had been provided to the CPS and that it had been the CPS’ subsequent decision that there was insufficient evidence to initiate a criminal prosecution. The acknowledged reason as to why the joint criminal investigation was closed was that SWP decided to do so without seeking advice from the CPS. The CPS assisted SWP in this deception until my parents exercised their ‘Right to Review’ the CPS’s decision, which the CPS could not do, because they had not made a charging decision.

“When SWP concluded their first investigation the HSE did not ensure that immediate primacy was handed over to the HSE so that they could investigate any relevant outstanding matters not investigated by SWP in relation to their consideration of a criminal prosecution.

“The HSE refused to support my parents’ application to adjourn the inquest with the knowledge that the subsequent criminal investigation by the HSE could also be prejudiced in the very same way that applied to SWP’s criminal investigation. As the HSE is aware, Anthony’s inquest was opened and adjourned by the Coroner pending the conclusion of SWP’s criminal investigation. Please note that the Coroner’s decision not to adjourn the inquest, following my parents’ request to do so, was influenced by the fact that the HSE had not requested an adjournment. The Coroner communicated this in writing to my parents.”

Criminal investigation

Ms Thomas went on to state that a criminal investigation was pursued after her mother was told by her brother’s supervising electrician at the inquest that he had crossed the earth and the neutral wires in the luminaire.

She continued: “This was a continuation of the joint criminal investigation by SWP and the HSE. However, the HSE again failed to ensure that all relevant statements and evidence were secured to ensure that a full consideration of all the facts would be available, as and when, the HSE was given primacy to investigate Anthony’s death.

“The second joint criminal investigation took longer to conclude than the first joint investigation notwithstanding the previous claims that there had already been a robust criminal investigation following Anthony’s death. My understanding of the main focus of the reopened investigation was to re-arrest [the supervising electrician] and question him about what he had told my mother at the inquest.

“I was surprised to learn that SWP had directed the HSE not to follow any sole lines of inquiry during the re-opened investigation.

“The result of the re-opened investigation was that the CPS had taken the view that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. My attempt to exercise my ‘Right to Review’ was unsuccessful.

“It wasn’t until June 2022 that SWP eventually gave the HSE primacy of the investigation. It then took the HSE three years to complete their further investigations that should have been addressed, in my view, during the two joint investigations.

“It is clear from the HSE’s decision letter of 27th August 2025 that the failure of the HSE and SWP, to ensure that all the relevant statements and evidence, close to the event, were secured. This unacceptable failure has resulted in both an individual and/or public body evading prosecution.”

‘Not acceptable’

Responding to Ms Thomas’s complaint, HSE Inspector Helen Turner said: “I agree that the length of this investigation is not acceptable, and no reasons will ever detract from how difficult this must be for you, particularly knowing that your parents did not get to hear the outcome of the investigation.

“HSE was unable to conclude its investigation and reach an enforcement decision until it had received primacy from South Wales Police. This was in June 2022, therefore I can only speak with authority about the last three years of the 9 years of the investigation.

“There was a very significant delay after the inquest until SWP eventually passed primacy to HSE following CPS’s second review of the file. I am not aware of the reasons for this as this is something only SWP can account for. However, our records show that during that time HSE was proactive in contacting SWP at regular intervals.

“The investigation was complex and a large amount of documentary material was considered which was handed over by the Police to HSE in June 2022. This needed thorough review to establish further lines of enquiry HSE needed to follow to establish offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act. Lines of enquiry, including tracing and contacting witnesses to enable further witness statements to be taken was difficult given the lapse of time since the incident.

“Whilst I accept that the 2.5 years HSE had primacy for the investigation added to the already significant length of time the matter had been investigated by the Police, I am satisfied that this time was required to ensure the investigation was given every opportunity to establish the evidence required to prove a criminal offence. However as has explained the evidence did not meet that threshold, but without the additional HSE work after primacy handover we would not have been in a position to even consider a prosecution.”

Ms Turner added: “You are correct that the initial investigation failed to gather potential evidence around corporate failings by the public authority. [This] was because we were not the lead investigator – the Police were and we can only continue our investigation with agreement of the police which we did not have. HSE took steps after receiving primacy to identify what it needed but given the time elapsed the evidence was not deemed to be credible and therefore would not be capable of being relied upon, as communicated to you in the prosecution decision outcome letter dated 27 Aug 2025.

3. The decisions of SWP and CPS are independent, though they may seek HSE’s opinion. Whilst there is provision for a joint investigation under the terms of the Work Related Protocol, this is not a statutory requirement and HSE always defers to the police homicide investigation when asked to do so. The MoU you referred to is supportive of a joint investigation and in many cases we work closely with the police to pursue lines of enquiry to suit both agencies. However, this was not the case in this investigation at the request of the Police.

“I understand that the SWP investigation following the inquest was limited in scope. HSE did not have primacy at that time and in my view reasonably relied upon the evidence being made available to HSE at point of handover. As set out above, HSE did not have primacy and as such required authorisation from the Police to pursue any lines of enquiry independently which we did not have at that point in time.

“HSE can only do a limited amount without police agreement when we do not have primacy for the investigation. This is because the police criminal investigation takes precedence, to look firstly at the more serious criminal offences of manslaughter. Where possible we work with the police to ensure a joint investigation can meet both agency’s needs, but we rely on the police to allow us to be able to work in that way.

“It is accepted and acknowledged that HSE’s decision on whether there would be a realistic likelihood of conviction in this case had to reasonably take account of the length of time the investigation took and the reliability of evidence as a result.”

Ms Thomas, who is considering appealing against the outcome of her complaint, said: “I am disappointed that South Wales Police, the CPSand the HSE have taken nine years to investigate Anthony’s death and that there will be no prosecutions.

“Both my parents have died waiting for answers.”