Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:40:39.000Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk-based Regulation in the UK: Courtroom Battles Expose Ongoing Problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2020

Laurence BALL-KING Open the ORCID record for Laurence BALL-KING [Opens in a new window]
Laurence BALL-KING*
Affiliation:
King’s College London, Bush House, 30 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4BG, UK email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since 1974, the UK has followed a risk-based approach to safety that, in the event of an incident, is enforced through the courts. The legislation is intentionally non-prescriptive and thus requires duty holders and the courts to decide what control measures were reasonable in the circumstances from ex ante and ex post positions. This has proved challenging for all parties involved. This paper describes a series of cases that have shed light on the thought processes of the courts. It appears that there is some variability in decision-making that can be attributed to several factors, including understanding of the word “risk”, the acceptability of residual risk and the validity of historical data as a means of measuring risk. In the aftermath of incidents, there is a real danger that psychological factors may intervene when the prior risk is being assessed for sentencing purposes. It is argued that while the risk-based model continues to enjoy widespread support in the UK and is not challenged, its implementation could be much eased by attention to details. This would serve to simplify courtroom debates, support those practising risk-based regulation and enable risks to be better prioritised.

Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 12 , Issue 3: Special Issue on Biotechnology in International Economic Law and Human Rights , September 2021 , pp. 660 - 673
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 H Rothstein, “The institutional origins of risk: A new agenda for risk research” (2006) 8(3) Health, Risk & Society 215–21.

2 Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

3 A Robens, Safety and Health at Work: Report of the Committee 1970–72 (London, HMSO 1972).

4 An entity or person with the responsibility for the management of specified hazards.

5 T Breverton, Wales: A Historical Companion (Stroud, Amberley Publishing 2009).

6 HSE, “Reducing Risk Protecting People” (2001) <https://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/r2p2.pdf> (last accessed 18 August 2020).

7 R Löfstedt, “Reclaiming health and safety for all” (2011) <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/66790/lofstedt-report.pdf> (last accessed 10 August 2020).

8 BRTF (Better Regulation Task Force), “Risk, Responsibility and Regulation – Whose risk is it anyway?” (2006) <http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/brc/upload/assets/www.brc.gov.uk/risk_res_reg.pdf> (last accessed 5 July 2019).

9 HSE, “Thirty years on and looking forward” (2004) <https://pdf4pro.com/view/thirty-years-on-and-looking-forward-the-144d6.html> (last accessed 5 December 2019).

10 Framework Directive [1989] OJ 2 89/391.

11 The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, SI 1999/3242.

12 H Rothstein et al, “When ‘Must’ Means ‘Maybe’: Varieties of Risk Regulation and the Problem of Trade-offs in Europe” (2015) HowSAFE Working Paper No. 1.

13 H Smith, “Reasonably practicable – The ECJ Verdict” (2007) <https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5a7c1c0c-aa9f-478d-ab3f-4c761d96a549> (last accessed 28 August 2020).

14 European Risk Forum, “Policy Note 33: The EU’s administrative state: nature, scale and implications of implementing risk management law through science, regulation and guidance” (1 September 2019) <http://www.riskforum.eu/uploads/2/5/7/1/25710097/erf_-_pn_33_-_admin_state.pdf> (last accessed 28 July 2020).

15 Lord Young, “Common sense, common safety: a report by Lord Young of Graffham” (15 October 2010) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/common-sense-common-safety-a-report-by-lord-young-of-graffham> (last accessed 28 August 2020).

16 Löfstedt, supra, note 7.

17 LN Ball-King, Risk Management and Proportionality – A Synoptic View of UK Practices (self-published 2020).

18 Edwards v National Coal Board [1949] 1 CA 743 (CA) (Asquith LJ).

19 Rothstein et al, supra, note 12.

20 House of Lords, “Judgments – Tomlinson (FC) v Congleton Borough Council and others” (31 July 2003) <https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030731/tomlin-1.htm> (last accessed 18 August 2020).

21 The highest court in the UK is now the Supreme Court.

22 The Royal Society of London, Risk Assessment – A Study Group Report (London, The Royal Society 1983).

23 Eg ISO 31000, “Plain English definitions” (7 August 2018) <https://www.praxiom.com/iso-31000-terms.htm> (last accessed 20 July 2020).

24 R v Porter [2008] EWCA Crim 1271 (Moses LJ).

25 This had emerged in the case of R v Trustees of the Science Museum (1993), in which a potential exposure of the public to Legionella virus was alleged from defective cooling towers.

26 So far as is reasonably practicable (SFAIRP).

27 T Horlock QC and M Snarr, “Proving it in reverse: How has Chargot affected future prosecution practice?” (12 March 2009) <https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/proving-it-reverse> (last accessed 4 April 2020).

28 Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others [2011] 17 SC 523 (SC).

29 R Histed and C Arrand, “The future is bright, the future is Tangerine” (In House Lawyer, 1 November 2011) <https://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/legal-briefing/the-future-is-bright-the-future-is-tangerine/> (last accessed 10 May 2020).

30 P Slovic, B Fischhoff and S Lichtenstein, “Rating the risks” (1979) 21(3) Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 14–20.

31 NJ Roese and KD Vohs, “Hindsight bias” (2012) 7(5) Perspectives on Psychological Science 411–26.

32 Sentencing Council, “Health and Safety Offences” (1 February 2016). <https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Health-and-Safety-Corporate-Manslaughter-Food-Safety-and-Hygiene-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf> (last accessed 4 July 2020).

33 IOSH Magazine, “TATA Steel appeal secures A 25% off £198M fine with likelihood of harm revision” (19 June 2017) <https://www.ioshmagazine.com/tata-steel-appeal-secures-25-ps198m-fine-likelihood-harm-revision> (last accessed 4 March 2020).

34 Safety and Health Practitioner, “Warwick Castle operator fined £350,000 in moat-death trial” (19 June 2017) <https://www.shponline.co.uk/working-at-height/warwick-castle-operator-fined-350-000-in-moat-death-trial/> (last accessed 4 June 2020).

35 HSE, “Managing risks and risk assessment at work” (3 March 2015) <https://www.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/risk/index.htm> (last accessed 5 June 2020).

36 Lexology, “No duty to erect railings at heritage quayside” (10 January 2019) <https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8465da9c-ebf2-4b01-a350-3b9f90fc133e> (last accessed 5 March 2020).

37 H Rothstein, O Borraz and M Huber, “Risk and the limits of governance: Exploring varied patterns of risk-based governance across Europe” (2013) 7 Regulation & Governance 215–35.

38 Rothstein et al, supra, note 12.

39 Löfstedt, supra, note 7; Ball-King, supra, note 17.

40 JM Woodruff, “Consequence and likelihood in risk estimation: a matter of balance in UK health and safety risk assessment practice” (2005) 43 Safety Science 345–53.

41 P Slovic, The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception (London, Earthscan 2010); D Seedhouse, Using Personal Judgement in Nursing and Healthcare (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage 2020); LA Cox, “Does concern driven risk management provide a viable alternative to QRA?” (2007) 27(1) Risk Analysis 27–42.

42 Löfstedt, supra, note 7.

43 D Kahneman and G Klein, “Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree” (2009) 64(6) American Psychologist 515–26.

44 The Royal Society of London, supra, note 22.

45 The Royal Society of London, Risk – Analysis, Perception, Management (London, The Royal Society 1992).

46 HSE, The Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Stations (London, HMSO 1987 & 1992).

47 HSE, Reducing Risks, Protecting People (London, HMSO 2001).

48 ISO, “ISO 31000, Risk management guidelines” (Geneva, International Standards Organization 2018).