There were seven reasons why District Judge Tim Pattinson found surveyor Roderick Standing not guilty of breaching health and safety law.

After a three day trial, the 63-year-old Corsham man was acquitted of flouting laws which, it was suggested had led to a gas explosion in a Chippenham town centre building that left a young man fighting for his life.

You can read a report of the case here.

Standing faced a charge under the Health and Safety at Work Act. He was alleged to have failed as in his duty as an employer to conduct an undertaking – specifically, building refurbishment work – in a way that did not expose others to health and safety risks.

Although they only brought one charge, the Health and Safety Executive essentially levelled two accusations at him.

First, that he’d failed to ensure that a gas system to the building in Market Place had been properly removed.

Second, that there was a risk from asbestos, which was not properly managed by Standing.

In an opening note for the trial, prosecutor Michael Veal, for the Health and Safety Executive, said: “The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that LBL, through Mr Standing, had failed to properly plan, manage and monitor the construction work that it was carrying out so as to ensure that persons were not exposed to the risks associated with asbestos / gas.  In the case of both risks, that included exposure to the possibility of danger during the course of the project and, in the case of gas, there was a residual risk after the work had been completed.”

District Judge Pattinson found Standing not guilty on both the gas and asbestos elements of the case.

READ MORE: Contractor on building ripped apart by gas explosion found not guilty of breaching health and safety law

How did the judge come to his not guilty verdict on the gas element of the case?

The HSE relied on a number of key pieces of evidence.

There was a tender document by building contractors Sturland, for whom Standing then worked, in 2012 giving a price of £2,760 for adapting the gas system to serve only the ground floor business premises and to “remove the remainder”.

Second, there was a tender document prepared by Standing’s new firm, Longwood Building Limited, in 2013 that quoted the sum of £368 apparently for the same work.

Third, an interim invoice for £368 dated November 5, 2014, stating that work to “Adapt gas to serve GF only. Remove remainder” had been “100 per cent completed”.

District Judge Pattinson said: “On the face of it, the prosecution evidence of the invitation to tender, the tender from LBL and the interim invoice (valuation) of 5th November 2014 provide proof that the defendant had carried out gas work. Even though the sum of £368 is far less than the original Sturland tender of £2,760, it represented the same item of work, according to the tender and interim invoice.

“It would appear to be a strong inference, therefore, that the defendant must have carried out gas work. Accordingly, there appears to be a strong inference that Mr Standing must have had knowledge of live gas in the property at or prior to commencement of his work, especially as there was a requirement to ‘Adapt existing gas system so that only the shop is heated by the existing system’. It must follow, from straightforward English language, that there was an existing gas system which needed to be adapted. How could a gas system be adapted if it was not present and live?”

It was not, however, that simple.

In his sentencing remarks, the judge continued: “Mr Standing was emphatic: we did no work on the heating system except to remove the old boiler and radiators which were already disconnected. As Mr Williams [Standing’s lawyer] submitted, if Mr Standing and LBL did no work on the heating system, they cannot be under any legal obligation to discharge their duty under the Act to avoid exposure to risk to health. Accordingly, there would be no onus on Mr Standing to satisfy the court “that it was not practicable or not reasonably practicable to do more than what was in fact done to satisfy the duty or requirement” (section 40 of the Act).”

In law, under section 40 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, an employer must ensure people aren’t exposed to risks to their health and safety so far as is reasonably practicable. So, an employer has a legal defence if they can prove they took practical steps to address the risks.

And in running that defence, an employer must prove their case on the civil rather than criminal burden of proof. In other words, they have to make the judge sure on the balance of probabilities that they took all reasonably practicable steps – rather than convince the judge beyond reasonable doubt.

By contrast, the prosecution – in this case the Health and Safety Executive – do have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

Crucially, District Judge Pattinson concluded: “My finding is that I cannot be sure to the criminal standard that Mr Standing and LBL did any work on the heating system, other than taking out the boiler and radiators. I find that the items were already disconnected or, put another way, I cannot be sure that they were still connected at the commencement of the job.”

Swindon Advertiser:

A picture of the flats following the explosion Picture: GAZETTE AND HERALD

The four reasons for the judge's not guilty verdict on the gas case

District Judge Pattinson set out his four reasons:

“(i) The sum of money estimated and claimed (£368) is entirely consistent with Mr Standing’s evidence that the work required was minimal and did not involve any disconnection or dealing with live gas. It is highly unlikely, in my view, that full disconnection plus removal of the boiler and radiators could have been carried out for £368. This sum is consistent with Mr Standing’s evidence that 2 or 3 men were needed to carry the items down to the skip but that no other work was done.

“(ii) Whilst it might be said that the original invitation to tender (‘Adapt existing system so that only the shop is heated by the existing system etc.’) must have put Mr Standing on notice that there was a live gas supply to the property, the presence of the capped meters (according to Mr Standing’s evidence) would be sufficient, in my view, to allay concerns about a further live supply into the property and any risk of live gas being present in the upper floors.

“(iii) Can I accept Mr Standing’s evidence on this? My finding is that he was an entirely honest and reliable witness. I listened to him and watched him carefully while he gave his evidence and, in particular, when he was subjected to detailed and skilful cross-examination by Mr Veal. There was no suggestion, in my view, that he was anything other than truthful. He was prepared to accept what steps might have been taken with the benefit of hindsight. He was never evasive. He demonstrated a detailed knowledge of all relevant regulations. He is a qualified chartered surveyor, with a wealth of experience in construction. In short, he was an impressive witness.

“(iv) I remind myself that the evidence of David Tidball of Wales and West Utilities is not unequivocal confirmation of the fact that there was only one meter at the property. His words were (in his email of 8th May 2018) that we ‘can only find one record for 68 Market Place’ (page 294). This is different from saying that there is only one meter. It does not remove the possibility of there being the two obsolete meters which are, presumably, the ones to which Mr Standing refers.”

What did the judge say about the asbestos?

He said: “As regards asbestos, I find that Mr Standing did do work which gave rise to a potential risk to health and safety. The main risk was to those working on the site. The prosecution allege risk to ‘persons not in his employment’. The flats were not occupied until 2017. However, this does not mean that there was no risk to persons not in the defendant’s employment until then. Potential release of asbestos fibres must have created a risk to a number of people who would have visited the site during the course of the work, including estate agents and letting agents and the occupiers and customers of the ground floor shop.

“Mr Standing’s duty was not only to avoid risk, so far as was reasonably practicable, but also to make enquiry into the possibility of danger, whether the risks were obvious or not, and then take steps to avert the risk. Mr Standing very fairly accepted (in cross examination) that it would have been reasonably practicable for him to have asked to see the asbestos report obtained by Mr Long. 

“Accordingly, I find that Mr Standing did fail to ensure that persons not in his employment were not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety from the presence of asbestos in the property.”

Asbestos defence

However, the judge said he had to factor in Standing’s claims that it “was not practicable or not reasonably practicable for him to do more than what was in fact done”.

During the trial, the court heard that Julian Long, the project manager appointed by building owner Lady Ferris, had obtained an asbestos report in 2014.

Standing claimed that Mr Long, a qualified surveyor whom he knew from previous projects, told him that the survey had found there was no asbestos in the building.

It wasn’t until the carcinogenic material was found by a site worker in summer 2014 that it emerged Mr Long had obtained the wrong type of report – and he should have commissioned a more detailed demolition and refurbishment report.

District Judge Pattinson summarised: “Mr Standing’s evidence was that he had been given a categoric assurance by Mr [Julian] Long [project manager, an employee of Humberts] that there was no asbestos in the building. Was Mr Standing’s evidence on this reliable? If so, was it reasonable for him to rely on Mr Long’s assurance?

“My finding on the first question is that Mr Standing’s evidence was reliable and that he was given a categoric assurance by Mr Long. For the reasons set out above, I find Mr Standing to be an honest and reliable witness.

“Was it reasonable for him to rely on this assurance or should he have insisted upon seeing the report, or even have commissioned his own report? In many circumstances, it might well be risky for a building contractor to rely on an oral assurance from a third party that there was no asbestos in a building, especially in an older building where the likelihood of asbestos presence was higher than in a more modern building. 

“However, I must consider all the circumstances. Mr Standing had had a long working relationship with Mr Long. He had worked on many building projects for him. He trusted him. Mr Long was a professional building surveyor, working for a substantial and reputable company. He was very experienced. As soon as the risk was discovered, Mr Standing closed the site, in accordance with good practice. This must have caused him real inconvenience and financial loss. There can be no question that, with the benefit of hindsight, Mr Standing should have insisted upon seeing the asbestos report which would have alerted him to the fact that it did reveal the presence of asbestos. It would also have revealed that it was the wrong type of report.

“My finding, based upon all the evidence, is that Mr Standing has satisfied me to the civil standard, that it was not practicable, or not reasonably practicable, to have done more than what he did to avert risk from asbestos.”

What happened to Humberts?

Humberts went into liquidation in 2018. Now known as Prestige EA Ltd, it admitted breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act at a court hearing in 2019, but it wasn’t until after the conclusion of Standing’s trial that the sentencing hearing could take place.

That proved to be significant. The company’s lawyer, Dominic Adamson QC, argued that Prestige could not be sentenced in relation to the gas explosion.

“The work that Mr Long was doing was as in effect a project manager of the work being done by Mr Standing,” Mr Adamson said.

“Since Mr Standing’s work did not involve gas work you cannot be satisfied that there was any failing in relation to Mr Long’s project management of Mr Standing’s operation, because that did not form part of the scope of his undertaking on your finding.”

Both the judge and the prosecutor agreed with that assessment. The company was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £3,000 in costs and a £120 victim surcharge.

The result for Kyle Roe and his family, who were present in court on Monday morning, is that no one has been convicted of criminal charges over the explosion that left him with burns on up to 90 per cent of his body. Mr Roe, now in his early 20s, was left in a coma for more than a month.

The Roe family is understood to be bringing a case in the civil courts. 

Swindon Advertiser:

Mr Roe suffered extensive burns in the wake of the explosion Picture: SUBMITTED