The improper use of machinery had resulted in the death of an employee, and the applicant was prosecuted under the 1974 Act, but complained that the prosecution should have been under the Regulations. The directive required member states to apply its regulations in replacement of any earlier legislation. The 1974 Act, it said was therefore outdated.
Held: The employer could be prosecuted either under the 1974 Act or under the machinery regulations. The Regulations were designed to implement the Directive by working alongside the 1974 Act, rather than by replacing it, and the Regulations explicitly preserved the power to prosecute under the 1974 Act. However, the Secretary had failed to notify the EC of the prohibition of the machinery, and therefore the prosecution must in any event fail.
Judges:
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett
Citations:
[2002] UKHL 55, Times 24-Oct-2003, Gazette 20-Nov-2003, [2004] 2 All ER 555, [2004] Eu LR 134, [2003] ICR 1475
Links:
Statutes:
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 6, Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 29(2), Directive 98/37/EC
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Criminal proceedings against X ECJ 12-Dec-1996
(Judgment) Criminal proceedings may not be brought in respect of conduct not clearly defined as culpable. . .
Appeal from – Regina (on the application of Junttan Oy) v Bristol Magistrates’ Court QBD 2002
‘I have found this issue one of considerable difficulty and finely balanced. However, I have come to the conclusion that it is inappropriate and wrong for the Health and Safety Executive to prosecute for an offence under section 6 of the 1974 Act . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Regina (on the application of Junttan Oy) v Bristol Magistrates’ Court QBD 2002
‘I have found this issue one of considerable difficulty and finely balanced. However, I have come to the conclusion that it is inappropriate and wrong for the Health and Safety Executive to prosecute for an offence under section 6 of the 1974 Act . .
Cited – Vibixa Ltd, Polestar Jowetts Ltd v Komori UK Ltd and Another, Spectral Technology Ltd CA 9-May-2006
The claimants sought damages for damage to property alleging breach of statutory duty. The defendant said that the regulations were made under European not English law, and that the Secretary of State did not have power to make regulations under the . .
Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v Slee EAT 19-Jul-2007
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissal
Maternity Rights and Parental Leave – Sex discrimination
The Claimant was employed as a Magistrates’ Clerk and she brought successful claims to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health and Safety, European
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187097