Wandsworth, R (on the application of) v South Western Magistrates Court

Section 20(2)(j) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 permits an inspector to require relevant information in writing as well as through a face-to-face interview. The statutory wording does not exclude written questions and answers. The surrounding scheme supports a wide construction, particularly because inspectors’ territorial powers may make personal attendance impracticable, written answers may be necessary for complex investigations, and answers are protected from use in criminal or civil proceedings against the person answering. The bracketed words regulate the presence of others during questioning; they do not impose a face-to-face requirement.

A local authority prosecuted a health and safety manager for failing to answer questions under section 20(2)(j) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The questions had been put by correspondence during an investigation into forklift-driver training and competence. The District Judge held that the provision contemplated face-to-face questioning only and did not permit questions and answers in writing. The local authority challenged that decision after the District Judge refused to state a case, contending that the provision authorised written requests for information.

1. The Administrative Court allowed the application, quashed the District Judge’s order and directed that the summons be heard by a different tribunal. The application to state a case was not frivolous.

2. The statutory purpose of section 20(2)(j) is information gathering for the purposes of examination and investigation. Section 20(7), which prevents answers obtained under the provision from being used against the person answering in criminal or civil proceedings, supports a wide rather than restrictive interpretation.

3. The bracketed words in section 20(2)(j) envisage that an inspector may speak to the person questioned without other persons being present. They do not require questions and answers to take place face to face. The provision contains no express prohibition on written questions or written answers.

4. The wider scheme reinforces that construction. Inspectors have no power of entry outside the enforcing authority’s area and no power to compel a person to attend an interview. Relevant information may be held by persons spread across different geographical areas, and complex investigations may require enquiries and the examination of documents before a complete response can be given.

5. Section 20(2)(m), as a sweeping-up provision, also indicates that the inspector’s powers are intended to be sufficiently broad to implement the relevant statutory provisions within the authority’s field of responsibility. Taken together, these considerations establish that section 20(2)(j) permits an inspector to seek and obtain information in writing as well as face to face.

The judgment states that the matter began as a judicial-review claim challenging the District Judge’s refusal to state a case on the ground that the claim was frivolous. With permission, the challenge proceeded against the District Judge’s substantive decision. The Administrative Court quashed that decision and directed a rehearing before a different tribunal.