Smith v Gatwick Airport Ltd.

The court allowed an appeal by way of case stated against a district judge's ruling that there was no case to answer in a prosecution under section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974, contrary to section 33(1)(a). The High Court held that the district judge had failed to draw obvious and irresistible inferences from primary facts and that, on those inferences, the prosecution had established a prima facie case of exposure to risk. The court rejected reliance on res ipsa loquitur but treated the facts as permitting inference of cause: a fire door that had come off its magnetic catch, a protruding screw on the door push plate and the immediacy of the injury supported a conclusion that the screw caught the victim's ringed finger. The case was remitted to the magistrates for further proceedings. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs in the sum of £12,325.83.

Background and parties: The appellant was a health and safety inspector prosecuting Gatwick Airport Ltd following a serious degloving injury to a passenger (Mrs Patel) on an invalid luggage buggy on 9 May 2000. The respondent was charged with breaching the duty in section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974, an offence contrary to section 33(1)(a).

Nature of the application/relief sought: The appeal was by way of case stated from a decision of the Brighton Magistrates' Court (District Judge Arnold) dismissing the information after a defence submission of no case to answer. The appellant sought the High Court's opinion on whether the district judge was correct to find no evidence of exposure to risk and, if not, whether dismissal at the conclusion of the prosecution case was correct.

Facts: Mrs Patel, conveyed on a buggy, suffered a severe injury to her right middle finger whilst passing through an exit where a fire door, normally held open by a magnetic catch, began to close. Witnesses described the door coming off its catch, Mrs Patel instinctively putting her hand out and subsequently her finger being found on the floor. An inspection later that day found a bent, protruding screw on the door push plate.

Issues framed: (i) whether there was evidence of exposure to risk so as to require the respondent to answer; and (ii) if not, whether dismissal at the end of the prosecution case was correct.

Court's reasoning and decision: The court held that the district judge erred in failing to draw the obvious inferences from the primary facts. Although the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable, the proper approach was to draw inferences from witness evidence and contemporaneous inspection: the door had come off its magnetic catch when it should not have done so; the protruding screw must have been protruding at the time and caused the injury; and there was no credible alternative cause. Those inferences gave rise to a prima facie case of exposure to risk. The High Court therefore allowed the appeal, answering the primary question in the negative, and remitted the matter to the magistrates' court for further proceedings. The court did not decide the issue of reasonable practicability under section 40 in this case, noting it was not before the district judge for decision. The court ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal in the sum of £12,325.83.

Appeal allowed and remitted. The district judge erred in law by failing to draw irresistible inferences from the primary facts adduced by the prosecution; those inferences established a prima facie case that the defendant's undertaking exposed persons to risk, so there was a case to answer. The matter is remitted to the magistrates for further proceedings and consideration of any defence, including any argument on reasonable practicability and delay.

Appeal by way of case stated from a decision of District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) Arnold at Brighton Magistrates' Court on 18 June 2002 dismissing an information under the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974. The appeal was allowed by the High Court, Administrative Court, neutral citation [2003] EWHC 233 (Admin), and the case was remitted to the district judge for further proceedings.