Media and Press

Prosecution of fire alarm contractor abandoned at Crown Court
Mon 21st Mar 11 - 14:50

A prosecution of a fire alarm contractor which followed a fatal fire in an HMO was dropped last week before it was due to be tried at Preston Crown Court.

Anthony Towey – the landlord of the premises in Preston where a fire in July 2009 claimed the life of a 91 year old man – was also prosecuted by Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service. Last July, Mr Towey pleaded guilty at Preston Magistrates Court to several breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and was ordered to pay a total of just under £5000 in fines and costs.

Mawtec Systems Ltd, however, pleaded not guilty to charges alleging contravention of Articles 13 and 17 of the Fire Safety Order, and elected for jury trial at Preston Crown Court.

But last week, the prosecution told the court that following an expert witness report they would not be offering any evidence in the case. As a result, Mawtec Systems Ltd were formally found not guilty of both charges and were awarded all defence costs from public funds.

The expert witness report, commissioned by the defendant's lawyers, national law firm Ralli, advised on numerous technical aspects of the alleged contraventions, with specific reference to the recommendations of BS 5839-1 for maintenance of fire alarm systems.

Craige Southern, managing director of Mawtec Systems, said:

"As a responsible contractor with over 20 years experience in fire alarm systems, we support the enforcement of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order and, in cases of serious breach, we acknowledge the public interest served by prosecution for contraventions by Responsible Persons and contractors. However, there is a need for fire and rescue authorities, in their role as prosecutors, to better understand technical standards, such as BS 5839-1.

"In this case, we were entirely confident that we had properly inspected the fire alarm system and that the charges against us were unfounded. Our position is vindicated by the decision of the prosecution, which was taken only after we were put to a great deal of cost, trouble and anguish, and only after we had engaged an expert witness, Colin Todd. Another smaller firm might not have been able to do so and could have suffered serious harm as a consequence."

Colin Todd of CS Todd and Associates Ltd would not comment on specific cases. But he said: "An expert witness produces reports for the court and is required by law to be completely impartial, regardless of whether instructed by the prosecution or the defence."

A spokesperson for Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service (LFRS) said it felt justified in bringing the case to the attention of the court in the interests of public safety.

"During the case LFRS has relied heavily upon the British Standards that are applicable to fire alarms, and these are the only guidance documents which are available. With the benefit of reviewing the expert report, it would now be inappropriate to continue with the prosecution."