Blimey, wasn't this a diy job?

[empip]

Is the problem a potentially dangerous gap between installation and testing / signing off ?

...He touched the metal casing at the back of the washing machine, which was plugged into an electrical socket in which the live and earth connections had been wrongly wired.
All four electricians who had been working at the site either denied having wired the socket or said they could not remember who had...

...A jury returned a narrative verdict at the inquest at Flax Bourton after it could not be decided who had wired it...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-14844903

-0-

 

[chivers67]

Anyone I've ever worked with who signs off work at the very least checks the polarity of a socket they've worked on with one of these.

[/url]

 

[ricicle]

If it was a new socket where was the 30mA RCD providing additional protection ?

Just the other day in the new buildings at our college I had to correct a double socket where the N and E were reversed - RCD kept going out whenever anything was plugged in.

Just goes to show the state of the 'couldn't give a to$$' attitude on many sites now (with or without the complications caused by foreign labour)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

All four electricians who had been working at the site either denied having wired the socket or said they could not remember who had.

How very convenient.

A person of a cynical mind might wonder if their collective memory loss might have been deliberate, so convenient was it.


I've tried, but failed, to think of a single good reason why the principle of joint enterprise should not be extended to cover situations like that, so that when none of the four could remember who wired the socket then all four are held to be collectively responsible and all four are jointly charged with manslaughter.

 

[phatboy]

I've tried, but failed, to think of a single good reason why the principle of joint enterprise should not be extended to cover situations like that, so that when none of the four could remember who wired the socket then all four are held to be collectively responsible and all four are jointly charged with manslaughter.

Because 3 perfectly innocent people, who had done their jobs correctly, would go to prison for a crime they didn't commit?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

They did commit it.

That's what joint enterprise means.

 

[JohnW2]

I've tried, but failed, to think of a single good reason why the principle of joint enterprise should not be extended to cover situations like that, so that when none of the four could remember who wired the socket then all four are held to be collectively responsible and all four are jointly charged with manslaughter.

That might not be unreasonable for any of the four who said that they could not remember who wired the socket, admitting that it might have been themselves. However, it would IMO be totally unreasonable for those who denied that it was them (adding that they couldn't remember which of the others did it). It would be quite ridiculous if one could face charges simply because one had worked on the same installation as someone who had (independently) commited a crime!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[starspark]

It would be a bit unfair to prosecute all four though if one or even the innocent three genuinely didnt know who had connected it up and therefore genuinely couldnt help establish who was at fault.

 

[ricicle]

Whose name, I wonder, was signed on the bottom of the inspection part of the certificate to claim that they had checked for polarity ?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So when a child is found murdered at home, neither parent can say who did it and there's no evidence to show which one did it, we let then go, do we?

When a gang of people attack someone and kill him we shouldn't prosecute them for murder via joint enterprise when we can't prove just which person delivered the fatal injury?

It wasn't fair that that young man was electrocuted, it wasn't fair that nobody was held responsible because nobody could remember who was to blame.

There were 4 of them there - collectively they were responsible for the electrical work, so just like when there are two parents collectively responsible for the abuse of a child, or 6 people in a gang collectively responsible for the murder of someone, you prosecute the 4 of them.

 

[JohnW2]

So when a child is found murdered at home, neither parent can say who did it and there's no evidence to show which one did it, we let then go, do we?

I don't think we have any choice. It's quite possible that the crime was comitted by one parent without the knowledge, let alone involvement, of the other - so it would be unacceptable to presecute both, simply on the basis that they were the two people who 'had opportiunity'

When a gang of people attack someone and kill him we shouldn't prosecute them for murder via joint enterprise when we can't prove just which person delivered the fatal injury?

That's totally different and, as you know, the law does allow for them all to be prosecuted for murder. It would presumably be exactly the same with the parents if there was evidence that both parents had been involved in beating a child (with 'intent to cause GBH or death') but it could not be established who had struck the 'fatal blow'.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't think we have any choice. It's quite possible that the crime was comitted by one parent without the knowledge, let alone involvement, of the other - so it would be unacceptable to presecute both, simply on the basis that they were the two people who 'had opportiunity'

Actually we do have a choice.

I should have been clearer that I wasn't talking about a single non-accidental incident, but ones where it's indisputable that multiple injuries had been inflicted on separate occasions over a period of time.

In that situation where both parents were jointly responsible for the care of the child then both can, and have been, held jointly responsible for the injuries.

And that's wholly right and proper.

 

[JohnW2]

I should have been clearer that I wasn't talking about a single non-accidental incident, but ones where it's indisputable that multiple injuries had been inflicted on separate occasions over a period of time. In that situation where both parents were jointly responsible for the care of the child then both can, and have been, held jointly responsible for the injuries.

That's totally different. In that situation, even if one parent were totally innocent they would, as you imply, have a responsibility of care when they saw that injuries had been inflicted - so presumably would be guilty of something (certainly morally, probably legally) if they failed to respond to that situation. Whether or not they could (or reasonably should) be charged with murder in that situation is a different matter, to which I don't know the answer; on the face of it, failing to prevent a murder happening is very different from being in some way involved in bringing the murder about.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[empip]

More on the same here, fleshed out somewhat :-

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Family-anger-fatal-error-riddle/story-13296292-detail/story.html

Blimey ! A kitchen location and some sort of certificate ! Nobody to blame???

Insurance?

-0-

 

[IJWS15]

...A jury returned a narrative verdict at the inquest at Flax Bourton after it could not be decided who had wired it...

Quote from Wikipedia

In such a verdict the circumstances of a death are recorded without attributing the cause to a named individual.


This should not stop the HSE/police (or whoever the responsible body is) investigating further. It is not the result of a prosecution of the four which is still possible.

Remember one of the last men hanged in England was an accomplice and didn't pull the trigger.