Workman who died from electrocution ‘was let down by Health and Safety Executive’

Martin Shipton

The Health and Safety Executive has partially upheld a complaint brought against it by the sister of a workman who was electrocuted while repairing a malfunctioning lamppost.

It took 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 South Wales Police’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.”

In his ruling on Ms Thomas’s complaint, Michael Bone, Director of the HSE’s Inspection Division, said: “A Memorandum of Understanding document between SWP and HSE was produced specifically for the joint investigation into the work-related death of Anthony. This was based on the framework of the Work-Related Death Protocol and was signed at the start of the investigation by senior representatives of both organisations. Both parties agreed to carry out a joint and parallel investigation into manslaughter and health and safety offences, considering both individual and organisational failures. As part of this agreement, lines of enquiry would be taken forward either jointly where applicable, or independently by the identified authority following relevant senior agreement. HSE would assist in identifying relevant corporate material/documentation.

“Despite this signed agreement, our records show that SWP requested HSE not to pursue separate lines of enquiry relating to potential corporate failings until primacy was handed over, and that HSE followed this instruction. Under such circumstances, it would be expected that HSE would inform the Police that this course of action could prejudice any subsequent legal proceedings under health and safety legislation.

“Having examined all the relevant paperwork I can find no record of HSE informing SWP of this and no explanation of why this was not done. I therefore agree that we should have escalated our concerns regarding the potential impact of this on our investigation to a senior level within SWP. On this occasion, we appear to have fallen short of the standards expected of us and I sincerely apologise for this omission.

“You have requested confirmation that HSE, the Coroner, South Wales Police and the CPS have all complied with the agreed Memorandum of Understanding between these public authorities and/or all current agreements. I am sure you understand that I am only able to answer this on behalf of HSE. My review has found that HSE has followed the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) we have with The Chief Coroner of England and Wales.

“At the time of the inquest, SWP had primacy and had completed its investigation. Whilst it is rarely necessary to proceed with an inquest whilst a related criminal investigation is ongoing, it is for the Coroner to decide whether an inquest should be suspended pending completion of the criminal investigation.

“HSE, the Police and the CPS are signatories to the Work-Related Death Protocol (WRDP). The protocol provides a framework for effective liaison and is based on best practice. The WRDP determines which body has the investigative lead following a work-related death. The Protocol refers to investigations being conducted jointly, with one of the parties taking the lead, or having primacy. This does not mean the Police should investigate alone, or that only manslaughter, or other serious offences (other than health and safety offences) should be investigated. All parties should work jointly to ensure their own investigations progress in parallel. Normally it will be appropriate for the investigation to consider individual and organisational failures at the same time.

“As described above, whilst the Police have primacy they are responsible for the management of the overall investigation. HSE should remain actively involved in key decisions and the investigation of any health and safety offences should proceed in parallel with the Police investigation of manslaughter. Whilst SWP had primacy, HSE was prevented from pursuing any independent lines of enquiry, so we were prevented from meeting the expectations within the WRDP.”

Considered

Mr Bone concluded: “Having considered the matter fully I have decided to partially uphold your Tier 2 complaint. I have made this decision for the following reasons:

* HSE should have challenged and escalated our concerns within South Wales Police regarding the potential impact on our investigation and any potential legal proceedings following their instruction not to pursue separate lines enquiry until primacy had been handed to HSE. I am sincerely sorry for any additional distress this failure to follow investigative best practice may cause you. I have forwarded a copy of this letter and a summary of my findings to the Senior Leadership Team of our Investigation Division to ensure they learn the lessons of this experience. I recognise that this will be of little comfort to you but I hope you understand that it is critical that within HSE we do learn any potential lessons to ensure errors are not repeated and I thank you for raising these matters.

“With respect to the other matters you have raised, I am content that HSE and all relevant colleagues have acted in accordance with our published policies and procedures. I hope you understand that in my position as Director of Inspection within HSE, I am unable to comment on the acts or omissions of other agencies involved in this investigation.”

Grief

Ms Thomas said: “It will be 10 years in September that Anthony died and my family’s grief has been exacerbated by the failures of South Wales Police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Coroner and the HSE to adequately investigate Anthony’s death.

“Although I am grateful that the HSE has partly upheld my complaint, it clearly demonstrates that the joint criminal investigation by SWP and the HSE failed to secure all the relevant evidence to fully consider criminal charges. It also exposes the inadequacies of the so called Memorandum of Understanding between these public bodies.

“There has been no justice for Anthony and both my parents have died while waiting for answers regarding Anthony’s tragic death.”