Haut du Mont trial: 'Procedures, instructions, and safeguards were ignored'

Wednesday, 14 October 2026 15:20

By Harry Booth

The fatal explosion at Haut du Mont happened because people who knew exactly what they were required to do chose not to do it, a court has heard.

The defence advocate for Island Energy is giving his closing remarks in the trial of the company, and three gas workers, in connection with the blast in December 2022, which killed ten residents.

Representing the company, Advocate Mike Preston said the prosecution is asking the jury to reason backwards - there was an explosion, therefore the system must have been unsafe, and therefore the company must have failed.

But he said that's not how the law works - and the tragedy happened because procedures, instructions and safeguards were ignored.

Advocate Preston said Island Energy had a safe system of work in place with clear instructions and supervision - and if an employee departed from that system, that does not make Island Energy guilty.

Advocate Mark Boothman, representing John Wright, said Island Energy would put forward that the explosion was caused 'by three rogue employees', and it will 'look to blame anyone to avoid accepting responsibility'.

But Advocate Preston insisted it is not about passing the buck or throwing individual defendants under the bus, it's a case of examining the evidence and drawing the proper conclusions from that evidence.

He called the work done on 9 December 2022 to disconnect and then reconnect the supply 'straightforward and low-risk', and that it has never once been suggested that the gas workers didn't know how to do the job - adding they knew what they were required to do, they just didn't do it.

The company has been accused during the trial of having a poor working culture, with health and safety not being taken seriously.

However, Advocate Preston said Island Energy was entitled to trust that its experienced employees would follow procedures, carry out proper tests, and report honestly what they had done.

Advocate Preston added:

"The case against Island Energy comes down to one question - did the company do all that was reasonably practical to ensure the safety of the public and its employees? We say the evidence shows that it did.

"The company had adequate training of employees, supervision... the managing director was involved in giving instructions for what was routine work.

"The company had safeguards, it had the very safeguard that would've prevented this disaster - the pressure test. One that everyone knew about, and how to perform it.

"Had the procedure been followed, the instruction given been followed, there would've been no (gas) leak. It would've been detected within a matter of minutes.

"Had there been no leak, there would've been no explosion, and none of us would be here (in this courtroom)."

The company denies breaches of the health and safety law, while Neil Armstrong, John Wright, and Lee Ward deny gross negligence manslaughter.

The judge is summing the case up this afternoon (Wednesday 14 October), with the jury expected to retire to consider its verdicts tomorrow morning (Thursday 15 October).

The trial continues.

Read our full coverage of the trial here:

Haut du Mont trial: Island Energy had 'toxic culture' leading up to explosion

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