Old 26th Sep 2016, 16:42
  #15 (permalink)  
PDR1
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,196
Originally Posted by langleybaston View Post
I suppose the most favourable outcome now would be for the fine detail of the problem/ cause to be understood and acted on [although we would hope that was done days after the tragedy], and that any fine was transferred without delay to the victim's family.
In this context a fine is just that - a fine taken into government coffers. It's not damages and so won't go to any relatives of the deceased. A criminal conviction may (or may not) open the door to a civil suite for damages by the deceased's family, but under English law they don't tend to be that lucrative so it's quite rare.

From the way this has emerged it would seem that the HSE have found something specific which MB allegedly did or omitted to do that was directly related to the hazard. If there was a technical thing which was known to be needed but not done for commercial reasons that would make prosecution of the directors (who have the duties of care in this respect) would seem the appropriate thing to do to remind them of their actual obligations.

PDR

Last edited by PDR1; 26th Sep 2016 at 16:46. Reason: Inserted context as when I posted it was no longer referring to the post immediately above
PDR1 is offline