ISLAND Energy staff who stopped a job over safety concerns risked being labelled a “trouble causer”, a former employee has told the Royal Court trial into the Haut du Month explosion.
Luke Le Brocq appeared at the Royal Court’s temporary Jubilee Wharf courtroom yesterday to give evidence as the trial of Island Energy and three of its employees entered its second week.
He said that workers began receiving “regular supervision” only after the Haut du Mont explosion, adding that prior to the disaster there was not the same level of oversight.
The jury heard that Mr Le Brocq worked as what he described as an “inexperienced and unqualified” assistant alongside the gas engineers involved in the work at Commercial Buildings the day before the blast.
Giving evidence, he said that external supervisors from the UK were brought in following the incident to oversee the work of Island Energy’s employees.
“There was regular supervision after the explosion. Before [the explosion] there wasn’t,” he told jurors.
Neil Armstrong (58), John Wright (60) and Lee Ward (59) each deny ten counts of gross-negligence manslaughter – one for each of those who died following the blast on Saturday 10 December 2022.
Jersey Gas, which trades as Island Energy, also denies two alleged breaches of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989.
Crown Advocate Simon Thomas, prosecuting, last week made the case that the explosion occurred after efforts to cut the gas supply to Haut du Mont was completed “exceptionally badly” by the three defendants the day before the blast.
A wrongly cut gas pipe, a crucial safety test allegedly skipped in a rush to restore supply to the St Helier Yacht Club after it was cut off, and an emergency valve left open and unplugged were among a “series of mistakes” which culminated in the flats’ collapse, according to Advocate Thomas.
But the Advocate has also argued that the problems went beyond the actions of the three men and that Island Energy had failed over a number of years to properly train, supervise and check its staff.
He last week described “systemic failings” within the company and alleged that a lack of controls and up-to-date safety procedures meant “corners were cut, and health and safety was ignored”.
The work carried out at Commercial Buildings the day before the incident showed what could happen when “proper controls” were not in place, Advocate Thomas alleged.
He added that written plans and independent checks were among the safeguards that the company should have had in place.
Responding to questions about changes made after the explosion, Mr Le Brocq said workers began receiving detailed written instructions that set out how a particular job should be carried out.
These documents, which would be signed off by an authorised engineer, had not been seen by Mr Le Brocq in his four-month-long tenure as an assistant before the explosion – describing their introduction as “quite a significant change”.
The court also heard last week that the company had a ‘red card’ system in place that employees could use to stop work if they felt unsafe or if asked to do something that they did not agree with.
But yesterday, Mr Le Brocq described the system as “a paper policy rather than being successful in practice”.
He said those who used a red card could be labelled “a bit of a trouble causer” and told the court that he did not feel employees would be listened to if they raised concerns.
Mr Le Brocq was also asked about his experience of working with each of the defendants.
Mr Armstrong, the network officer in charge of the job, was described as “aggressive” and “a bit of a bully”.
Mr Le Brocq said he ‘”got along well with” team leader Mr Wright – the man who cut the pipe that morning and that he “felt safe” with him.
Mr Ward, who was the duty worker who arrived later to take over the job, was described as “especially cautious” and “meticulous” with “very high standards”.
The trial, which is expected to last two months, continues.
