HSE prosecution: identifying a hazard is not enough if the control is never implemented
Gill Aggregates Limited has been fined £24,000 after a worker was fatally drawn into a conveyor through an opening in fixed guarding. HSE found the entrapment risk had been identified two months earlier but the required guarding control had not been implemented.
The prosecution
HSE reported on 29 September 2026 that Gill Aggregates Limited was fined £24,000 after production operative Manjit Kumar, 34, was drawn into a conveyor through an opening in fixed guarding and suffered fatal crush injuries.
HSE found that the company had identified the risk of entrapment two months before the incident but had failed to include the necessary guarding as a control measure. The company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of PUWER 1998 and was also ordered to pay £43,000 in costs.
The wider management lesson
Although this is a machinery-guarding case rather than a lifting prosecution, the management lesson is directly relevant to lifting operations, RAMS and site controls: identifying a hazard does not protect anyone unless the specified control is actually implemented, checked and maintained.
- Convert identified hazards into defined actions and controls.
- Assign responsibility for implementing critical controls.
- Verify controls before work starts.
- Stop work where required controls are absent.
- Record completion and retain evidence for the audit trail.
Planning protects people first
Compliance systems should primarily prevent people being harmed. A robust planning and verification process also protects organisations and individuals from enforcement and prosecution by demonstrating that foreseeable risks were identified and effective controls were actually put into practice.
LiftPlanProUK provides planning and management support. Site-specific information must be checked and every lifting operation approved by a competent person.