Freight firm bosses banned after unlicensed, uninsured driver killed cyclist

RedfishUK wrote:

What is the betting Mrs Drummond is a company director of a firm by now, nothing to do with her husband of course

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/09181650/HCD-LONDON-LTD/directors-secr...

DanThomasCyclist is right that, although Alan and Colin Drummond have lost their rights to operate a lorry business, neither of them have had to give any kind of account of themselves to a court, nor face the possibility of criminal sanctions.

Similarly, Monty Dog and Gazza_D both ask about the possibility of corporate manslaughter charges. As far as we can tell, Alan Drummond wasn't a corporation, so that almost certainly wouldn't be possible. Gross negligence manslaughter might be a possible charge though, or there are other options under Health and Safety law.

Suffice to say that we are looking at whether more could and should be done to bring Alan and/or Colin Drummond to account in criminal law.

Similarly, CTC is also looking at whether more could and should be done about the lorry operator who's driver killed Andrew McMenigall and Toby Wallace in Cornwall, soon after they had set off on a Lands End to John O'Groats charity ride - see http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/rhiaweston/lorry-driver-sentenced-spotlight-n.... The driver had been working illegally long hours repairing lorries as well as driving them. Moreover, after killing McMenigall and Wallace, he was involved in a second collision before the case came to trial.

The operator was Frys Logistics. Arthur Charles Fry had come to the Traffic Commissioners' attention once before, causing his previous firm (A C Fry Transport) to loose its operators' licence in 2010. When a subsequent application was made to set up Frys Logistics with A C Fry as its transport manager, the Traffic Commissioner specifically excluded him from playing any role in managing the business. Its transport manager is now Mark Fry.

Like Alan Drummond, Frys Logistics made an application to move its operating base within weeks of the fatal collision (ironically these applications were made two days apart, but in different Traffic Commisssioners' regions).

More recently though, Mark Fry was fined by Bodmin magistrates for himself working illegally long hours, and for failures to document vehicle safety checks. These offences were picked up as part of a Traffic Commissioner's investigation launched in the wake of the deaths of McMenigall and Wallace (see http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/Mark-Fry-31-Frys-Logistics-Launceston-f...). However, the Traffic Commissioners have taken no action against him or Frys Logistics in relation to their deaths.

The whole situation highlights the need for lorry operators (not just the drivers) to be held to account when their vehicles are involved in fatal or serious collisions. For more on this, see http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/20150608-reining-rogue-goods-vehicle-operators.

Of course, fatalities can sometimes involve a fully-reputable safety-conscious operator, and the process should be even-handed to reflect this. However it is unacceptable that Alan Drummond was able to carry on operating for 2 years after Alan Neve's death, till the identity of the operator became apparent after the convicted driver was found to have been driving without a licence. Only then was the London Traffic Commissioner (Nick Denton) even notified.

Denton has since done his job very diligently. However CTC believes there needs to be a much better process for alerting the TC's of lorry operators involved in fatal and serious collisions - and to make public the information which organisations who offer contracts for lorry services (e.g. supermarkets) to avoid operators with poor safety records.

gazza_d wrote:

Why not charge with corporate manslaughter? Surely the failure of responsibility actually falls that far?

I imagine its incredibly hard to get a corporate manslaughter charge, and the sentencing isn't necessarily what you might imagine. Search for Mobile Sweeper Reading for an example - found guilty but only given an £8000 fine.

Probably much more effective to send in the HSE. In the case above the HSE fined the company director nearly £200,000 for safety breaches, 25 times as much as the manslaughter sentence.

I've always thought that all freight operators should be subject to HSE regulation while out on public roads, and any injury caused by a freight operator on the public roads should automatically be investigated by the HSE. Obviously this would cost money, but overall the savings to the country would be huge and it would rid the roads of the cowboy operators.

qwerky wrote:

I imagine its incredibly hard to get a corporate manslaughter charge, and the sentencing isn't necessarily what you might imagine. Search for Mobile Sweeper Reading for an example - found guilty but only given an £8000 fine.

To be fair, according to wikipedia there have so far been twelve convictions under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 with fines up to £500,000. The £8000 Mobile Sweepers fine seems to be a bit of an outlier.

IANAL, but I suspect the issue is whether the freight company have a "relevant duty of care" to the general public. You would hope they should, but legalities are rarely that simple. Section 2 of the Act defines "relevant duty of care", but it seems to focus on employees and people in custody/care.

qwerky wrote:

I've always thought that all freight operators should be subject to HSE regulation while out on public roads

Agreed. HGVs and other large vehicles are subject to HSE while they are on a work site, so they limit speed and often use Banksmen on foot to allow them to manoeuvre safely.

But as soon as they leave the gates that disappears and they can freely mix with busy city traffic, cyclists and pedestrians. That seems a bit crazy. Surely they should be required to take as much care around the public as they take around employees?

GrahamSt wrote:

IANAL, but I suspect the issue is whether the freight company have a "relevant duty of care" to the general public. You would hope they should, but legalities are rarely that simple. Section 2 of the Act defines "relevant duty of care", but it seems to focus on employees and people in custody/care.

Agreed. HGVs and other large vehicles are subject to HSE while they are on a work site, so they limit speed and often use Banksmen on foot to allow them to manoeuvre safely.

But as soon as they leave the gates that disappears and they can freely mix with busy city traffic, cyclists and pedestrians. That seems a bit crazy. Surely they should be required to take as much care around the public as they take around employees?

Exactly this! Define the working environment as the public highway and extend the duty of care to the public, not just employees. That would give HSE the necessary power.

gazza_d wrote:

Why not charge with corporate manslaughter? Surely the failure of responsibility actually falls that far?

This goes far beyond this case, the great and the good of this country have ensured that the Corporate Manslaughter laws of effectively unenforceable, because it might come back on them.