Introduction to Fire Safety Management

1.5.2 Prosecutions
In addition to issuing notices, enforcement authorities 
may also seek prosecution for breaches of legislation. 
Enforcing authorities may prosecute any persons who 
hold a legal duty for fi re, health and safety, e.g. respon-
sible persons, employers and individuals. It is now doc-
umented that on occasions the enforcement authorities 
Figure 1.25
Powers of enforcement authorities

---

Introduction to Fire Safety Management
24
from both fi re and health and safety seek joint prosecu-
tions for breaches that result in deaths as a result of fi res 
and explosions.
While there appears to be little information regarding 
the number of prosecutions taken in relation to fi re safety, 
the HSE produces summaries of prosecutions which are 
made available on their website. Table 1.5 shows the 
number and nature of prosecutions taken by the HSE over 
a fi ve year period. The fi gures shown are merely the fi nes 
imposed on employers under the HSWA. They do not 
include the indirect costs incurred by organisations who 
are prosecuted, in terms of bad publicity and legal fees.
Where a safety breach is committed by a body 
corporate and is proven to have been committed 
with the:
➤
consent 
or
➤
connivance 
of
➤
or to be attributable to any neglect
on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other 
similar offi cer of the body corporate (or any person pur-
porting to act in any such capacity) they, as well as the 
body corporate, are guilty of that offence, and are liable 
to be prosecuted and punished accordingly.
1.5.3 Financial
In addition to the fi nes imposed as a result of success-
ful prosecutions, the fi nancial ramifi cations of failing to 
manage safety effectively, as discussed previously, can 
impact considerably upon an organisation. It is clear, 
given a variety of surveys undertaken over past years, 
that many organisations do not fully appreciate the true 
consequences of an incident and believe that the insur-
ance premiums that they pay cover the costs.
Over recent years insurance companies have begun 
to infl uence the management of safety by rewarding 
organisations that have an effective management safety 
record (low claims history) by maintaining premiums 
and excess; alternatively they have raised the poorer 
safety performers’ premiums and excess and on some 
occasions refused to cover them at all.
Insurance infl uences in relation to fi re, given the 
fi nancial impact that even a small fi re can have, are even 
more prominent, with specifi c codes being produced 
such as ‘Fire Prevention on Construction Sites’, the 
joint code of practice on the protection from fi re on 
construction sites and buildings undergoing renova-
tion
. Published by the Construction Confederation and 
the Fire Prevention Association with the support of the 
Association of British Insurers, the Chief and Assistant 
Chief Fire Offi cers Association (now CFOA) and the 
London Fire Brigade, the joint code provides clear 
guidance on minimum standards for the construction 
industry relating to fi re safety management.
Compliance with the code for insurance purposes 
is often included as part of contract terms to secure 
insurance cover. Therefore if the code is not followed it 
may result in a breach of contract and thus could result 
in insurance ceasing to be available or in certain circum-
stances it may result in a breach of legislation requiring 
the provision of insurance.
The organisation SIESO (Sharing Information and 
Experience for Safer Operations) has identifi ed that over 
50% of businesses that have been involved with a major 
incident have ceased trading within 12 months of the