08/04/2026
In a judgment handed down on 23 March 2026, the Administrative Court refused the HSE’s application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings in relation to a substantial costs order made in favour of Falcon Tower Crane Services Limited.
In R (on the application of the Health and Safety Executive) v Chester Crown Court and Falcon Tower Crane Services Limited [2026] EWHC 688 (Admin), the Court upheld the earlier decision of Chester Crown Court that the HSE should pay Falcon’s costs of £587,382.76 following the collapse of their prosecution during trial.
Appointed Person
The prosecution arose from the tragic deaths of three Falcon employees following the collapse of a crane at a construction project at Dunwoody Way, Crewe. The HSE had prosecuted Falcon for alleged breaches of sections 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. A central plank of the prosecution case was the allegation that Falcon had failed properly to appoint an Appointed Person to oversee the preparation of the relevant method statement.
Not Guilty Verdicts
That case unravelled during the trial. The prosecution’s principal witness had initially maintained that he was not the Appointed Person for the project. However, under cross-examination, he accepted that he was. The HSE then offered no further evidence and the jury was directed to return not guilty verdicts.
Costs
Falcon subsequently applied for a defendant’s costs order under section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and Regulation 3 of the Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986.
In a detailed ruling dated 12 May 2025, HHJ Everett concluded that the HSE’s conduct in bringing and maintaining the prosecution involved unnecessary or improper acts or omissions. In particular, the Judge found that documentary material already available to the HSE, together with evidence which could and should have been obtained, clearly demonstrated that an Appointed Person had in fact been appointed.
Key Material
The Judge was critical of the prosecution’s failure properly to read and assess key material, including the Appointed Person’s contract of employment, Falcon’s quality control documentation, witness evidence, and documents relating to the site inspection and method statement. He concluded that any reasonable prosecutor would have recognised that the evidence pointed away from Falcon’s guilt rather than towards it. He awarded Falcon its full costs in the sum of £587,382.76.
Judicial Review
The HSE sought to challenge that costs order by way of judicial review, arguing that the Crown Court had acted irrationally in finding that the decision to prosecute amounted to “unnecessary or improper conduct” for the purposes of section 19 and Regulation 3 of the Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986, and that the level of costs awarded was unreasonable.
Permission was refused on the papers by HHJ Stephen Davies (sitting as a High Court Judge) on 24 September 2025. The HSE renewed its application, which was heard by Deputy High Court Judge Karen Ridge.
Rejected
The Administrative Court rejected the HSE’s arguments. It held that the Crown Court had correctly directed itself as to the applicable legal principles and had undertaken a careful and holistic assessment of both the evidence available to the HSE at the time of the charging decision and the evidence which could and should have been obtained. The Judge’s reasoning was described as methodical, logical, comprehensive and cogent, and the conclusions reached were plainly open to him. It was therefore not arguable that the costs order was irrational or that the amount awarded was unreasonable.
High Standards
This judgment is a significant reminder of the high standards expected of prosecuting authorities, particularly in serious health and safety cases. While costs orders against prosecutors remain rare and are reserved for exceptional circumstances, the decision demonstrates that where a prosecuting authority fails to pursue reasonable lines of inquiry or critically assess the available evidence before commencing and continuing a prosecution, the courts are prepared to make—and uphold—substantial costs orders under section 19 of the 1985 Act and Regulation 3.
Robust Defence
For businesses and individuals facing investigation or prosecution, the case underlines the importance of early strategic analysis of the evidence and robust defence preparation.
Falcon Tower Crane Services Limited was represented by Richard Crockford and Susan Cha of FSW Law.
For advice on health and safety investigations, regulatory enforcement and criminal proceedings, please contact Richard Crockford or Susan Cha at FSW Law.