![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Porter, R. v [2008] EWCA Crim 1271 (19 May 2008) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/1271.html Cite as: [2008] ICR 1259, [2008] EWCA Crim 1271 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Buy ICLR report: [2008] ICR 1259]
[Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
The Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE BEATSON
and
SIR RICHARD CURTIS
____________________
R E G I N A | ||
- v - | ||
JAMES GODFREY JOSEPH ![]() |
____________________
Wordwave International Ltd (a Merrill Communications Company)
190 Fleet Street, London EC4
Telephone 020-7421 4040
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr T Horlock QC and Mr N D Jones appeared on behalf of the Crown
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
LORD JUSTICE MOSES:
"(1) It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that persons not in his employment, who may be affected thereby, are not thereby exposed to risks to their health orsafety."
The Act creates offences for breach of that duty and further provides that the burden is upon a defendant to establish the limits of what is practicable. Where a provision imposes a duty to ensure safety
so far as reasonably practicable, it shall be for the accused to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done to satisfy the duty (section 40).
"The flight of steps to which children aged 3 and 4 years could gain unsupervised access during break times fell within the ambit of the defendant's conduct of his undertaking."
It was also alleged that the appellant exposed such a child to a risk by reason of falling from the flight of steps. The prosecution alleged that they could support their case by reason of the appellant designating the steps as being out of bounds. In fact, the evidence subsequently showed that that was in order to segregate one group of children from another. The younger children (amongst whom Kian could be numbered) wished to be nearer a teacher and the toilets.
"What you must decide is whether there was an unacceptable risk. The trivial risks of everyday life are not unacceptable. They are simply a fact of life, are they not?"
_________________________