In May 2020, the 28-year-old was driving in Newhaven when a piece of timber fell from the company lorry and pierced his car’s windshield, instantly killing him.
‘This was a very sad case,’ Jo said. ‘A flatbed truck had just left the depot in Newhaven with six lengths of timber and other materials on board. Unfortunately, the load fell off the lorry. Some elements fell onto the road but one piece of timber penetrated the windscreen of the victims car and killed him instantly.’
The investigation
Shortly after the incident occurred, Jo’s team received a call from the Health and Safety Executive. ‘This incident involved peripatetic works – deliveries – and usually that wouldn’t be down to the local authority to investigate,’ she explained. ‘But in this particular case, because the accident had only happened a short distance from the depot, an agreement was reached that we would investigate it.’
‘Our officers attended the depot the following day. Two of my colleagues visited the site – one environmental health officer, along with another colleague who is a former police sergeant, who was able to use his background to support our health and safety investigation on site.
‘Our staff inspected the site, saw how the premises were kept, and looked to see what procedures and policies were in place. They gathered information from the site as well as other relevant information online. They also met with the head of health and safety at the site and the branch manager. ‘There is a standard rhythm when you are investigating a fatality and there are procedures that have to be followed to ensure that you look at all elements that can have an impact on that case. In total, we spent 1200 hours investigating this case and bringing it to court.
‘It’s important to also understand that there were two parts to this investigation. Because the incident involved a vehicle and might have involved dangerous driving, the police investigated that element; the health and safety aspect investigated by us was secondary. That was a reason why we had to wait four years to bring this to court – the potential dangerous driving aspect of the incident was something that the police had to resolve before we could bring our prosecution case forward.’
The findings
Being a large national company, they had faced previous prosecutions elsewhere in the country. For example, there had been another fatality case a few years earlier that involved a member of the public being fatality crushed in the company car park in Milton Keynes. That case resulted in a £2million fine at court.
‘What came to light during our investigation was that the training the company had provided its staff following that case had been compromised in the incident we investigated because the driver in the Newhaven incident was neurodiverse,’ said Jo. ‘He had struggled to understand the training, which had largely been online. So his mitigation in the dangerous driving investigation was that he didn’t totally understand what was being asked of him. ‘Regarding the load, a single strap was used to secure the load. Despite the strap being in an acceptable condition, that single strap was not sufficient nor the appropriate method of securing the load. The load had then shifted as the vehicle moved, with the timber fanning outwards due to the single strap, highlighting the fact that there was insufficient restraint of the goods. So the securing of the load was not done as per their policy. It is also possible that the vehicle hadn’t been checked by a supervisor that day, and their procedures indicated that should have taken place . Also, there was nothing on the road surface that offered a reason for the incident to happen. Our investigation concluded there was something of a lax health and safety culture at the company and practical application and implementation of procedures was not being followed.”’
The prosecution
The company pleaded guilty to three offences contrary to the Health and Safety at Work Act. Sentencing was passed in January 2025 at Hove Crown Court.
Judge Henson KC gave the company credit for its early guilty plea, and considering both the aggravating and mitigating features of the case, assessed the case in accordance with the relevant Sentencing Guidelines.
The Judge found that the company had medium culpability for the offence and that it fell into harm category ‘2’ on the basis that: the seriousness of the harm risked was ‘Level A’; and the likelihood of harm was ‘medium’. This was then then moved up to harm category ‘1’ due to the circumstances of the offence having put a significant number of road users at risk and resulted in the death of the driver.
Source – IOSH
