A&P Falmouth has been fined hundreds of thousands of pounds after the jib of a 59-year-old crane crashed onto the docks narrowly missing a Royal Navy ship moored alongside.

A&P Falmouth was sentenced at Truro Crown Court today after pleading guilty in 2022 to breaches of health and safety at work act sections two and three.

The crane collapsed at Falmouth docks on May 10, 2017 after the steel counter balance cables sheered leading to the jib of the crane moving vertically down over the RFA Tidespring in the dry dock next door being worked on by A&P people. 108 people were on board at the time Fining A&P £750,000, judge Judge James Adkin said the driver had turned the jib over the dock before it collapsed to the ground, “with a measure of skill”.

READ NEXT:

Crane driver did 'remarkable job' keeping people safe after jib collapsed, court told

“Fortunately no one was injured either by the crane or by mechanical debris being ejected out of the gearbox and the crane as the gearbox was destroyed following the incident.”

He said the jib weighed about 15 tonnes and the culpability of A&P came down to the following failures.

He said the lack of clarity in the reports prepared by Zurich, who were employed to service the crane, should have prompted sensible enquires by A&P. He said the reports made “cut and paste” references to a complete engineering survey on the crane and to corrosion.

He said secondly there was no adequate system in place for the maintenance of the cables of the crane and the company’s Planet FM maintenance system did not always address cable issues, so the cables were not properly lubricated or maintained.

He said on those circumstances it was medium culpability case. However he said that the agreed harm was at level A, death or serious injury.

“That makes sense, 15 tonnes of steel plunging to the earth out of control risks such harm,” he said He said the dispute was as to whether the prosecutions claim that there was high likelihood of harm occurring category 1 or as defence contended a low likelihood of harm category 3.

He said one witness for A&P had conceded that the individuals at risk were the crane driver and the banksman. He said there would have been a safety zone which prevented anyone else from walking around the area.

He said thee was no one else working in that zone but people working on the ship were painters and engineers, skippers and electricians.

“He did concede though if anyone had been in the area where the jib had exploded, those were his words, they would have been hurt,” he said.

He said another witness for A&P, who was on the main deck of the RFA Tidespring when the jib of the crane lowered quicker and louder than usual, saw the jib above him and, quoted, “at that point we both ran towards the superstructure and pressed up against it with our backs to the crane, others had done the same thing”.

“He shouted to the supervisor ‘evacuate ship’ and the ship and the adjoining building were evacuated,” said the judge.

He said a defence expert told the court yesterday that while he’d never seen anyone killed or seriously injured in a crane collapse, equipment flying out of the crane room posed a risk.

The judge said mitigating features were that there were no relevant previous convictions, an otherwise good health and safety record and evidence of steps taken to remedy after the event and a new management team.

He acknowledged the delay in the case coming to court because of an investigation into whether to prosecute Zurich, Covid as well as it being a complicated case. He made a reduction of the fine of 25% to reflect that, otherwise it would have been one million pounds.

The company was fined £750,000 for Count 1 with no separate penalty for count 2. They were also ordered to pay costs of £26,729.

HSE inspector Melissa Lai-Hung said after the verdict: “This was a very serious incident and it is fortunate nobody was injured or killed as a result of this catastrophic failure at Falmouth Docks.

“We thoroughly investigated this incident and found that A&P Falmouth Limited’s system of maintenance was not effective in preventing the collapse of the crane.

“This case not only highlights the importance of regular proactive maintenance but also the inspection of lifting equipment. Companies looking for advice in these areas can find readily-available and free guidance on the HSE website.”

The HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Vicki Hanstock and supported by HSE paralegal officer David Shore.