Island Energy had a 'toxic culture' in the lead up to the fatal Haut du Mont explosion, a court has heard as defence lawyers for three former employees asked the jury to find their clients not guilty of causing the deaths of ten people.
Jersey's Royal Court has heard the closing statements of defence advocates representing Neil Armstrong, John Wright and Lee Ward, the three gas workers charged with gross negligence manslaughter following the blast in December 2022, which killed ten residents.
Representing Mr Wright, Advocate Mark Boothman alleged a 'catalogue of failures' by Island Energy, many of which he said developed years before the incident, made life very difficult for the likes of his client.
Advocate Boothman referred to witnesses' criticism of the company during the trial - including Island Energy being described as having an 'unprofessional culture', a place where managers didn't respond appropriately, health and safety not being taken seriously, a distinct lack of paperwork being kept by senior staff, a lack of training, and severe financial constraints, with money found for more training for staff after the explosion.
He claimed that Island Energy will put forward that the explosion was caused 'by three rogue employees', and it will 'look to blame anyone to avoid accepting responsibility'.
Mr Wright is accused of not carrying out a crucial pressure test, which would have identified any gas leak at Haut du Mont in the hours before the blast.
Advocate Boothman said Mr Wright was junior to Mr Armstrong, he was following his supervisor's instructions by not doing the test, and that there's ample evidence to conclude that he didn't want to stand up to Mr Armstrong.
The defence lawyer also claimed that the red card system, for employees to ask for work to be stopped if they had safety concerns, was ineffective in the situation Mr Wright found himself in, and asked the jury to carefully consider his failure to stand up 'in the moment', rather than in hindsight.
Advocate Boothman asked the jury to consider the evidence of those who worked underneath Mr Armstrong - with Luke Le Brocq, an apprentice who worked on the excavation site the day before the explosion, previously telling the trial that Mr Armstrong came across aggressively, and could be a bully at work.
Mr Le Brocq previously told the court that he was aware that people who used the red card system were labelled 'trouble-causers' by seniors at the company.
The flats at Haut du Mont and St Helier Yacht club (far right)
On Tuesday, the court also heard from Advocate Rui Tremaceiro, representing Neil Armstrong, who said there was a lack of training provided to his client in particular areas - and that he was dealing with an excessive workload.
Mr Armstrong is accused of failing to close and plug all valves at Haut du Mont before reintroducing gas to the network, and failing to carry out a pressure test.
During the first week of the trial, the prosecution provided the jury with pictures showing plugs were missing from three of the valves.
However, Advocate Tremoceiro said there was no reason for Mr Armstrong to have remove three plugs from valves, or even two, as one would suffice to do the required task of checking for any pressure behind them.
He added that there was no forensic evidence of who removed the plugs, and claimed a third party could have opened one or more valves if they had access to the cupboard.
Advocate Tremoceiro then pointed to evidence given by Carl Mavity from Andium Homes earlier in the trial, in which he said that over years, hundreds of keys were issued by the company.
In regard to the decision taken by Mr Armstrong to reconnect gas to the Yacht Club on 9 December 2022, after a pipe was cut in the wrong place, Advocate Tremoceiro said he was under the impression that a big booking was made for that evening, and that swift reinstatement of gas was important, given it was a busy trading period for the company in the approach to Christmas.
Advocate Tremoceiro added:
"The evidence is there was a genuine and continuing demand to restore supply to an important customer. It's one thing for an expert to assess calmly after the fact and conclude that there was no emergency, but I suggest it's an entirely different thing to make decisions in the heat of the moment.
"The fact is that no-one stopped him. The fact that no-one suggested he was doing the wrong thing must have reinforced in his mind the urgency of reconnection to the Yacht Club.
"Not so a few people could have their meals, (as the prosecution said), but so a commercial customer didn't suffer reputational and financial damage because of an error by Island Energy. Consider the situation from Mr Armstrong's perspective."
It's accepted that Mr Armstrong lied to managers about doing a pressure test after reintroducing gas supply, but Advocate Tremoceiro said the question for the jury is what significance they should attach to that lie.
"The jury should not allow, I suggest, understandable criticism of that act of dishonesty to distract from the question.
"The issue is not whether he behaved perfectly - plainly he did not.
He said the issue was whether the Crown can prove that Mr Armstrong foresaw a serious and obvious risk of death.
When a smell of gas was reported later that day outside Haut du Mont, Mr Armstrong attended the excavation site.
Advocate Tremoceiro added:
"If Mr Armstrong cared enough to attend when he got the call of a gas smell, if he had known, or was in any doubt as to whether any ECVs were open or plugs were missing, why did he not care enough to take the small additional step and check them?
"I suggest this is strong evidence that at around 9pm on 9 December, he had no doubts that he had closed all the valves and plugged all the pipe openings.
"If you (the jury) accept that, you may have little difficulty in concluding he had the same knowledge when gas was reintroduced."
The court previously head that Mr Armstrong didn't carry out a pressure test, instructed others to 'f*** it, get the gas back on', and then lied to management to say the test had been done.
Advocate Tremoceiro said the jury may conclude that the prosecution's assertion - that not doing so is a serious and obvious risk of death - is wrong.
"The Crown invites you to take leaps that the evidence does not permit. It seeks to equate the absence of a test with an obvious and serious risk of death, but they aren't the same thing.
"Between the omission and the tragic outcome lie a number of steps, and each must be established before criminal liability can rise.
"The test would have revealed no more than the existence of a gas escape, but an escape does not necessarily cause an explosion.
"The evidence in this case demonstrates that gas escapes occur with such frequency, and the overwhelming majority don't result in explosions - they are found and remedied.
"The Crown's reasoning depends on a chain of assumptions."
In concluding his case, Advocate Tremoceiro added:
"He (Mr Armstrong) made mistakes, he accepts that. He should have ensured a test was carried out. He should not have said one was done, and he can be criticised for those failures, but there's a significant difference between negligence and gross negligence.
"When you apply the law carefully, dispassionately, without hindsight, there's one safe and just verdict, and that is not guilty."
The trial continues.
Read our full coverage of the trial here:
Haut du Mont trial: 'Risk' taken not to do pressure test 'utterly reprehensible'
Haut Du Mont trial: Workers 'clearly' not following Island Energy procedures, court hears
Haut Du Mont trial: Supervisor 'felt really responsible' when told of explosion
Haut du Mont trial: Island Energy ‘wouldn’t spend the money’ on vital safety training, court hears
Haut Du Mont trial: Safety Officer ‘would’ve stopped the job’ if told truth about test
Haut Du Mont trial: Worker told colleague he 'didn't test' gas main
Haut du Mont trial: Island Energy 'placed health and safety at risk'
Haut Du Mont Trial: 'It could explode', jury hears 999 calls
Haut Du Mont Trial: Worker checking gas valves spent almost 'entire' time on his phone
Haut Du Mont Trial: Gas works were 'sloppy, unsafe, and cut corners', allege prosecutors
Haut du Mont trial: Explosion 'an incident waiting to happen'
Man allegedly attacked after separate 'physical confrontation'
Haut du Mont trial: 'Risk' taken not to do pressure test 'utterly reprehensible'
Make your mark at town gallery
Tiktok star Leo Olsson from Jersey unveiled as new Blue Peter presenter
Police step up speed checks with weekend of patrols
JCG partners with charity to raise awareness of stalking
'Biggest' Book Sale for Guide Dogs underway in Trinity
Two tax deadlines extended
