Introduction to Fire Safety Management

1.8
Case study
Prosecution of a fabrication company by Kent and 
Medway Fire and Rescue Authority (KMFRA) and the 
Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
A fi re in a fabrication company on 9 June 1999 
resulted in the death of an employee. In Maidstone 
Magistrates’ Court on 3 July 2000 the company pleaded 
guilty to three breaches of fi re legislation. In tandem with 
the Kent and Medway Fire and Rescue Authority investi-
gation and prosecution, the Health and Safety Executive 
also prosecuted under section 2 of the Health and Safety 
at Work etc. Act 1974. The investigation and subsequent 
prosecution was a classic example of two prosecuting 
agencies (HSE and KMFRA) working together.
The extended length of time between the fi re and 
the court case was due to the delay for an inquest into 
the fatality and the Crown Prosecution Service’s consid-
eration of securing a conviction for ‘manslaughter’.
The charges, and subsequent guilty pleas, were 
based on the following:
Kent and Medway Fire and Rescue Authority
One charge each on the basis that the company was 
found to be reckless in their failure to provide:
➤
Suitable 
fi re fi ghting and fi re detection
➤
Suitable emergency routes and exits
➤
Suitable maintenance arrangements.
Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
One charge based on the general duty of care under 
section 2 of the HSWA in that the company was negli-
gent in their duty.
The resultant fi nes awarded were as follows:
➤
Failure to comply with the Fire Regulations – a total 
of £6000 with a contribution towards the costs of 
the fi re authority of £2500
➤
Failure to comply with the duties imposed by the 
HSWA – £10 000 for the one offence with a contri-
bution of £1500 towards the costs of the authority.
A prominent feature of this case was the emphasis by 
the magistrates on the failing of a business to satisfy the 
legal and moral obligations to employees. The fact that 

---