Safeware
Worry not, this is not evidence as such, however it does however fit in with Haddon-Caves findings Re The Safety Case. Also with regard to the age of the document, it was written in August 2000 not to be reviewed until 2010 therefore it is current. Remember also that the Safety Case was compiled during the period 2001-2005.
The Secretary of State requires: “t
hat the airworthiness arrangements for military aircraft should be at least as effective as those for civil aircraft contained in the [Air Navigation Orders], and should comply with the [Health
& Safety at Work Act 1974] where relevant.
Also
The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 (H&SWA) lays down duties which employers owe to employees.
Section 2 provides:
“2. (1) It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/CC4F4.../0/leaf_47.pdf
HEALTH AND SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES OF MOD EMPLOYEES
In general, however, the HSE have made it clear that they have no intention of prosecuting an individual Crown servant in substitution for his Department. There is moreover no question of the HS prosecuting individuals because of defects in management organisation. Prosecutions of individual Crown servants would only be pursued in circumstances where the HSE would normally prosecute an individual employee or manager outside the Civil Service or Armed Services, e.g. if there were a wilful or reckless disregard of H&S requirements and a consequential contravention of the HSWA. As a rule,
though, the HSE have tended to regard the criminal law as a weapon of last resort.
But the bottom line is it is up to the HSE to investigate and decide if they failed to comply with The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and the subordinate regulations.