Impact of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005

Falling foul of fire safety legislation can result in hefty fines, often in cases where there has been no serious injury or loss of life.

When assessing risks associated with fire, the immediate concern is often the potential loss of life. Corporate manslaughter or gross negligence charges can follow if death occurs due to corporate or individual gross negligence, also lesser injuries often result in health and safety prosecutions.

However, businesses are also discovering - to their considerable cost - that it is not injury, but the risk posed if there was to be a fire, which is triggering prosecution under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO).

Obligations imposed by the RRO

The RRO imposes duties on a defined "responsible person" to protect anyone who may be on or in the vicinity of the premises. A responsible person may be a corporate or an individual and includes employers operating from, and owners or commercial occupiers of, premises.

A responsible individual has a duty to ensure that a risk assessment is carried out to identify what needs to be done. They must also take "general fire precautions" to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of staff and others. "General fire precautions" include measures to reduce the risk or spread of fire. These include consideration of:

• the means, safety and efficacy of escape measures
• how any fire will be detected and tackled, and how warnings will be given
• arrangements for the instruction and training of employees on fire prevention and firefighting, minimising the risks and evacuation.

The RRO created a number of new offences and inspectors have power to issue enforcement and prohibition notices and prosecute for breaches.

One offence created is the failure of a responsible person to comply with fire safety duties "where that failure places one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire".

Very similar to the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, individuals may also face prosecution where a company is guilty, as a responsible person, for a breach of the RRO and that breach is, "proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer."

Where an offence has been committed due to "the act or default of some other person", that other person is also guilty of an offence and may be prosecuted regardless of whether or not there are also proceedings against the responsible person.

The offences clearly envisage, and the cases confirm, that guilt will be established simply for putting people at risk were there to be a fire, whether or not there is actually a fire. It is not a defence that an employee or someone nominated by a company has made a mistake. The only defence available is for offences where the charges include a failure to take reasonable precautions. In those cases, it is a defence that reasonable precautions and all due diligence were taken to avoid the commission of the offence.

We hope that we have been able to highlight the impact of this legislation. Should you have further questions about this subject or any other health and safety issues, then please do not hesitate to contact us via http://www.anchorhands.co.uk/