The Haut du Mont explosion occurred because procedures, instructions and safeguards were “ignored” by Island Energy gas engineers now seeking to “deflect responsibility” and “blame the company for their failings”, a defence lawyer has said.
Neil Armstrong (58), John Wright (60) and Lee Ward (59) each deny ten counts of gross-negligence manslaughter relating to the blast on 10 December 2022.
Jersey Gas, which trades as Island Energy, denies two alleged breaches of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989 for allegedly failing to ensure the health and safety of both members of the public and its own employees.
The prosecution says the fatal blast was the “unavoidable conclusion” of Island Energy refusing to implement “crucial safety measures”.
Is also alleged that the three Island Energy employees – Mr Armstrong, Mr Wright and Mr Ward – were not sufficiently trained or supervised.
Crown Advocate Simon Thomas, prosecuting, said that none of the men had recourse to a safety management system known as Safe Control of Operations (SCO) when completing the work said to have caused the explosion.
But Advocate Mike Preston, defending Island Energy, yesterday asked jurors during his closing speech to find the gas company not guilty of both alleged health and safety breaches.
“A terrible outcome does not by itself prove criminal liability”
Advocate Preston maintained throughout his submission that Island Energy could not be held liable for the defendants’ actions on 9 December.
The explosion happened, he told the jury, because “procedures were ignored”, “instructions were ignored” and “safeguards were ignored”.
The contravention of “adequate” safety procedures in place at Island Energy resulted, he said, in the three men failing to apply a crucial pressure test on pipework leading to Haut du Mont – a test that would have alerted the men to a significant gas leak.
“The explosion happened,” he surmised, “because people who knew exactly what they were required to do chose not to do it.”
Advocate Preston said the three Island Energy defendants were now “passing the buck” and seeking to “blame the company for their failings”.
“A terrible outcome does not by itself prove criminal liability,” he added. “The tragedy does not prove that the company systems were inadequate.”
Advocate Preston said: “If you find that an employee departed from that system in a way which Island Energy could not reasonably have foreseen or guarded against, then that employee’s conduct does not make Island Energy guilty.”
“The Jersey way of doing things can be a very good thing”
Advocate Preston defended Island Energy from accusations that it was not up-to-date with industry-standard safety protocols before the explosion.
He said that Island Energy had relied on a model of “direct supervision” – a model that befitted the scale and scope of Jersey’s gas network.
Island Energy expert witness Chris Clarke – a retired Chartered Safety Professional – previously told jurors that the company operated using a “very back to basics style” that didn’t require certain SCO procedures.
“[Mr Clarke] is not a quack advancing some mad theory,” Advocate Preston said. “He looked at Jersey and didn’t see the reason to implement SCO for this particular category of work.”
“We often hear about the Jersey way, don’t we? And it is used as a pejorative, like it is a bad thing,” he continued.
“In fact, the Jersey way of doing things can be a very good thing: taking the best of what is done elsewhere and using it, but not that which does not fit our particular situation”.
“It was a failure to follow a safe system”
Advocate Preston told jurors that the prosecution “effectively seeks” to impose a “standard of perfection” on Island Energy through the lens of hindsight.
He said the company could not “reasonably” legislate for the three defendants not applying a pressure test, and then Mr Armstrong lying to senior management about it.
The law, he argued, does not require employers “to assume that experienced and trusted employees will deliberately ignore procedures and then falsely report compliance with those procedures.
“The law doesn’t require employers to expect and anticipate deliberate misconduct.”
Advocate Preston concluded: “This was not a failure to create a safe system, members of the jury, it was a failure to follow a safe system.
“You may feel bound to the emotional weight of this tragedy – that is an entirely human reaction to the matters that are before you – but your verdict must be based on the evidence.
“We say that having stood back and considered that evidence, you cannot be sure that Island Energy committed these offences, and your duty in that circumstance is clear.
“And it is, members of the jury, to return verdicts of not guilty in relation to the two counts faced by the company.”
The jury has now retired to consider its verdicts. Commissioner Andrew Oldland, presiding, told the 12 jurors that they are “under no pressure of time” to reach a conclusion.
