14/05/2025
In a recent and sobering decision, the Crown Court has awarded Falcon Tower Crane Services Ltd costs exceeding £580,000, to be paid by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), following the collapse of a high-profile prosecution. The ruling serves as a cautionary tale about the responsibilities of public prosecutors and the consequences of section 19(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 in relation to Defence costs.
A Tragic Context
This case arose from a devastating incident in June 2017 at a construction site in Crewe, where three men tragically lost their lives in the collapse of a tower crane. The human cost of this tragedy cannot be overstated, and the families of those who died continue to deserve the utmost respect and sympathy.
Against this profoundly sensitive backdrop, Falcon faced criminal charges brought by the HSE under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The case turned on whether the company had failed to appoint a suitably qualified "Appointed Person" to oversee the erection of the crane, an omission the HSE claimed was central to the fatal collapse.
Prosecution and Collapse of the Case
Despite the existence of extensive internal documentation, including Falcon’s Quality Control procedures and employment records, the prosecution heavily relied on one individual’s testimony: a former Falcon employee. His evidence was later shown to be demonstrably unreliable under cross-examination, leading the HSE to concede that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.
Section 19: The Legal Threshold for Defence Costs
Under section 19(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, the Crown Court has discretion to award costs against a prosecuting body if the defendant’s costs were incurred due to an “unnecessary or improper act or omission.” Importantly, case law makes clear that:
-
The threshold for such an award is exceptionally high;
-
Mere failure of a prosecution is not, in itself, sufficient;
-
There must be evidence of stark impropriety, requiring little by way of factual analysis to establish;
-
Section 19 must not become a vehicle for collateral attacks on charging decisions.
In this case, the Court found that the HSE had indeed acted improperly by relying on one unreliable witness in particular, despite holding, at the time of charge, material that clearly contradicted his account. The company’s comprehensive systems and the employee’s own employment contract identified him as the Appointed Person, a fact corroborated by multiple sources including impartial third-party witnesses.
The judge held that the prosecution's failure to engage with this material, coupled with its reliance on a witness known to have given misleading statements, justified the exceptional award of costs.
Reflections on Responsibility
This decision is not just a technical ruling; it touches upon broader issues of prosecutorial accountability. Public bodies such as the HSE carry a heavy burden when pursuing criminal charges, particularly in cases involving fatalities. That responsibility must be exercised with scrupulous fairness and sound evidential judgement.
For corporate defendants, the judgment affirms that while successful cost recovery remains rare, there is recourse where the decision to prosecute crosses the line from questionable to improper.
Conclusion
The ruling in The King v Falcon Tower Crane Services Ltd serves as both a cautionary and instructive example. It underscores the exceptional standard required to justify a defence costs order and the importance of prosecutorial diligence. Most importantly, it reminds us that even in cases fraught with grief and consequence, justice must be pursued not just zealously, but justly.
Falcon Tower Crane Services were represented by Richard Crockford, Prashant Popat KC and Christopher Adams