Targeting:

The enforcement action should be focused on those who are responsible for creating risks or
failing to control them adequately. Since both Packagenics and ECL had duties under health
and safety law as employers and clients/contractors, respectively, they were both liable for
enforcement action. Targeting both parties would ensure that all aspects of health and safety
management were addressed and improved.

The local health and safety enforcement authority has decided to

prosecute both Packagenics and ECL after investigating the accident. They
used the principles in the ‘Enforcement Policy Statement’ produced by the
British Health and Safety Executive (HSE) when deciding on this
enforcement action. Here are the considerations that the enforcement
authority might have made based on these principles:

1.

In alignment with the 'Enforcement Policy Statement' of the British Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the
targeting of inspections and enforcement actions adheres to multiple considerations, designed to optimise
resource allocation while maximising impact on health and safety.

2. Risk-Based Approach: As per clause 6.1, the selection of duty holders for proactive inspection is
significantly influenced by a risk-based approach. Factors like the size of the organisation, type of
activities they engage in, and industry sector play crucial roles. The enforcement authority would,
therefore, look into the record of incidents related to Packagenics and ECL, such as the reported
fatality, to gauge the associated death and injury rates.
3. Sectoral Strategies: Point 6.2 mentions that more details on targeting inspections can be found in
sector strategies. For instance, if Packagenics and ECL operate in an industry sector with higher health
 and safety risks, like construction, they would more likely be targeted for proactive inspection.
Publications like 'Safety Management in Major Hazard Industries' could offer further insights on how
targeting is done.
4. Criteria for Incident Investigation: According to provision 6.3, there are proportionate and
outcome-based criteria that decide which incidents under RIDDOR need investigation. Given that a
fatality occurred at Packagenics, it would automatically prompt investigation due to the seriousness of
the outcome.
5. Prioritisation of Serious Risks: Clause 6.4 states that resources for inspection and investigation will
primarily focus on those activities giving rise to the most serious risks. The fatal accident at
Packagenics would likely put them high on the list for targeted enforcement action, especially if the
hazards were poorly controlled.
6. Focus on Most Responsible Parties: Provision 6.5 outlines that enforcement activity will focus on
those best placed to control risks. This would mean both Packagenics and ECL could be targeted for
failing to enforce safety protocols effectively and for delegating high-risk activities to inadequately
trained personnel like the apprentice.
7. Multiple Duty Holder Accountability: According to clause 6.7, when several duty holders have
responsibilities, actions may be taken against more than one. In this scenario, Packagenics' failure to
vet ECL properly and ECL's violation of several safety protocols would make both companies eligible
targets for enforcement action.

Thus, these considerations serve as the bedrock for the enforcement authority's targeting strategy, meticulously
balancing risk factors with the severity of non-compliance to ensure optimal use of resources and maximised
safety outcomes.

Consistency: The enforcement action should be consistent with similar circumstances in

terms of outcome, process, and attitude. Both Packagenics and ECL were subjected to
similar legal requirements and standards, they were treated equally by the enforcement
authority. Prosecution was consistent with previous cases where fatal accidents occurred
due to negligence or incompetence

The concept of 'Consistency' in the HSE's Enforcement Policy Statement underscores the intricate balancing
act of applying the law equitably across diverse industries while accounting for myriad contextual variables.
Adeptly woven into the fabric of health and safety regulations, this concept harbours significant
considerations.

8. Fair Treatment Across Industries: In line with provision 7.1, the enforcement authority strives for
consistency to ensure fair treatment across different sectors. If Packagenics and ECL were to argue
that similar incidents in other industries did not lead to prosecution, the enforcement authority would
have to justify its actions to avoid allegations of bias or unfairness.
9. Flexible Uniformity: As stated in clause 7.2, a consistent approach doesn't mean uniform action but
rather equitability in responding to similar circumstances. Packagenics and ECL could expect
comparable treatment to other companies within the same industry that have faced similar health and
safety issues. This nuanced approach allows for industry-specific considerations.
10. Variables and Circumstances: Point 7.3 elucidates the complexity of achieving consistency, as every
situation varies due to factors such as management systems, risk profiles, and previous enforcement
actions. The enforcement authority would thus consider Packagenics' and ECL's risk management
history, among other factors, when making their decision to ensure it aligns with previous cases
involving similar variables.
11. Professional Judgment and Discretion: Clause 7.4 emphasizes the need for inspectors to exercise
professional judgement and discretion. Given the unique variables at play in the case of Packagenics
 and ECL, the enforcement decision must be rooted in sound professional judgement to maintain
consistency with previous decisions while accommodating the specific circumstances.
12. Enforcement Management Model (EMM): As per provision 7.5, the EMM serves as a robust
framework to ensure consistent enforcement decisions. The enforcement authority would likely apply
this model to the Packagenics and ECL case, cross-referencing it with similar instances to ensure
uniformity in decision-making.
13. Inter-Regulatory Consistency: Clause 7.6 points out that if enforcement action conflicts with the
requirements of other regulators, coordination will ensue to resolve these differences. If either
Packagenics or ECL were also under the jurisdiction of another regulatory body, the enforcement
authority would liaise with that body to harmonise actions, thus maintaining overall regulatory
consistency.

In summary, consistency in enforcement isn't a monolithic concept but rather a fluid, multifaceted principle
that engages various layers of regulatory nuance, professional discretion, and contextual specificity. This
commitment to a nuanced yet balanced approach ensures that the law’s arm is both fair and effective, a
testament to the sophisticated orchestration of modern health and safety go