Having a guilty mind is something we are all well, guilty of at some time or another. Some people are guilty of leaving a towel on the bathroom floor and pretending they did not see it slip back off the rail as they turned and headed for the door. Are we unaware of the damage it does to our relationships at home? Only if our partners allow us to be negligent, but after three or four times of picking a towel up from the floor, we are not likely to get away with it for long. There is a substantial difference between being careless in the home and being careless in the workplace. Ask any barrister instructed to write an opinion for £200 and they will tell you, just do not expect any change from them.
Nailing Down the Barriers
In most cases of criminal negligence, there has to be a basis for liability. This can be either, through recklessness or intentional avoidance of responsible action. Either way, mens rea is still difficult to prove, especially when there is more than one person involved or contributing to the problem that brought about legal action. A factory manager may ultimately be responsible for the safety of the people in his employ, but where someone has temporarily removed a safety barrier, they could be the person who has committed the actus reus. If they intentionally removed the barrier so that someone else was put at risk, then surely they have mens rea as well. The question is whether the dangerous machinery that caused injury should have been able to work without the barriers in place? Should there have been automatic power cut offs to remove any chance of accidents occurring?
Every Case on its Merits
Each and every case is different and that is why they each deserve our full attention. If there are a hundred cases about someone slipping on a wet floor, we should not always assume they are the same as each other. In fact, we would not be serving justice if we did not investigate the evidence presented to us. The case of the injured person, whose manager could be facing criminal negligence charges, may not be as clear as it would appear at first glance through the statements. The manager could well have ensured their health and safety representatives were well trained and they in turn had made the necessary modifications to the dangerous machine.
The problem is that factories often run on targets and employees need to produce a certain amount. When a machine needs to be shut down to rectify a problem, it can hamper efforts to meet targets. It is precisely these situations, that cause employees to cut corners and in this instance, a safety stop had been wedged so that even when the barriers were not closed, the machine was still operable. Who is the person acting with mens rea in this situation? Who are the people aware of the problem? Should the person who lost their fingers to the machine receive compensation?
Passing Judgement on to Someone Else
There are times when we would all be judge jury and executioner, but most of the time, we understand that there is nothing per-determinable about many of the situations we here of in the court. This is why we have our procedures and we need to be learned people before we represent those who are in need of defense or require justice to be done. Although the personal injury industry is still relatively young compared too many areas of our law in the UK, we have developed a very good system of applying proven methods to determine guilt and liability. We have adopted our experience and knowledge so that the law is applied in a fair manner.
Further Reform Bringing More Justice
Those of us, who are involved in personal injury, are in a period of transition thanks mainly to Lord Justice Jackson. Ultimately, the transition should lead to a fairer court system where more people are able to seek justice and see justice done. Will the reforms lead to fewer cases of injury claims? That remains to be seen, but many believe it is doubtful that more cases proven in court, or more cases brought to court will do anything to improve the health and safety issues that are responsible for the claims.