THE
APPLICABILITY OF
'CROWN IMMUNITY'
TO THE
ROYAL MINT
22. On 28 June 2001, an accident at the Royal Mint
resulted in the death of an employee. A 6.5 tonne bell annealing
furnace became detached from the hook of an overhead crane whilst
being transported between locations in the production department
and fell four metres to the floor, striking the employee and causing
fatal injuries. A subsequent investigation by the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE), which received the full cooperation of
the Royal Mint, determined that the furnace had not been properly
attached and secured to the crane lifting hook. The HSE found
that the Royal Mint had failed to perform a suitable and efficient
assessment of the risks posed by the crane operation and that
not all employees involved in the process could be shown from
written records to have received sufficient training and instruction.[34]
23. The Royal Mint told us that it had undertaken
a range of measures to address the specific findings of the HSE,
which had since confirmed that it was content with the action
taken.[35] The Deputy
Master had also given particular attention to improving health
and safety standards and staff awareness throughout the plant
in the months since the accident.[36]
24. We sought to establish whether the fact that
the Royal Mint enjoys the protection of Crown immunity had contributed
to the weaknesses and failings in health and safety procedures
uncovered by the HSE investigation. Crown immunity means that
bodies such as the Royal Mint cannot by prosecuted for offences
either created by statute or of the common law. In the case of
health and safety legislation, whilst the law applies to the Royal
Mint, the results of HSE investigations—as in this case—can
only result in Crown censure. Whilst Crown immunity does not grant
protection to individuals from prosecution, in this instance the
HSE and Police investigations concluded that no Mint director
or employee should face prosecution.
25. Crown immunity does not provide protection from
civil claims. The Royal Mint has written to the representatives
of the deceased employee to confirm its admission of liability
and asked them to provide details of the quantum of their claim,
which will be considered sympathetically by the Royal Mint.[37]
The Deputy Master gave us an absolute assurance that the applicability
of Crown immunity to the Royal Mint in no way impacted on the
attitude of the organisation to the importance of compliance with
health and safety legislation.[38]
26. In a note submitted to the Committee following
our evidence session, HM Treasury officials stated that the Government's
position on Crown immunity remains as set out by Lord Falconer
in his response to a Parliamentary Question by Lord Kennet, given
on 4 November 1999.[39]
However, recent consultation papers on corporate killing and health
and safety have proposed modifications of immunity. In the light
of responses to that consultation, officials have analysed the
options and advice is to be put to Ministers.[40]
Although recommendations on policy lie outside the remit of this
Committee, we were told by the Deputy Master that he personally
would have no problem if a policy decision were to be taken by
the Government to remove Crown immunity from the Royal Mint.[41]
28 
