Can a Plant Operator Be Personally Prosecuted After a Site Accident?

by admin | Aug 24, 2026 | Health and Safety, NPORS, Slinger Signaller

Plant operators are often discussed in terms of what their employer or principal contractor should provide: training, suitable equipment, traffic routes, supervision and site rules. Those duties remain important, but operators also carry responsibilities of their own. A recent fatal telehandler case shows that an experienced, qualified operator can face personal prosecution when their actions expose someone else to serious risk. HSE Media Centre

A fatal telehandler incident has put individual responsibility in focus

On 18 August 2026, HSE reported the sentencing of a self-employed telehandler operator following the death of a lift supervisor on a construction site in Ince, Ellesmere Port.

The incident happened in June 2023. The lift supervisor was walking back from the welfare compound when he was struck and then reversed over by the telehandler. He sustained fatal injuries. HSE Media Centre

HSE found that the principal contractor had already taken steps to reduce reversing, including providing a turning circle. Importantly, HSE said that the turning circle was unobstructed when the incident occurred.

Despite this, the operator chose to reverse the telehandler without the assistance of a banksman. HSE also found that he had been using his mobile phone while in control of the machine, contrary to site rules he had signed up to. HSE Media Centre

The operator pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. He received a 12-week prison sentence suspended for 12 months, an £800 fine and an order to pay £2,000 in costs. HSE Media Centre

Read the HSE prosecution notice

There is an important point of accuracy here. This should not be reduced to a headline saying that using a mobile phone while operating plant automatically creates a specific criminal offence.

The prosecution was for the operator’s wider failure to conduct his work without exposing others to risk. His decision to reverse, the available turning arrangements, the absence of a banksman and his use of a phone contrary to site rules were relevant facts identified by HSE.

Company duties do not remove an operator’s own responsibilities

Most construction health and safety discussions rightly focus on employers, contractors and principal contractors because those organisations control many of the circumstances in which work is carried out.

That does not mean responsibility ends there.

Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act places duties on employers and relevant self-employed people to conduct their undertaking so that, so far as is reasonably practicable, people who may be affected are not exposed to health and safety risks. HSE

Construction is specifically one of the high-risk activities for which health and safety law continues to apply to self-employed people. HSE confirms that this includes work carried out on construction sites, including both commercial and domestic work. HSE

Employees also have individual duties.

Under section 7 of the Act, an employee must take reasonable care for their own health and safety and that of other people who may be affected by what they do or fail to do at work. They must also cooperate so far as necessary to enable their employer or another dutyholder to comply with relevant health and safety requirements. HSE

HSE’s enforcement guidance makes the position particularly clear: section 7 places duties on employees irrespective of the obligations placed on their employer. Personal prosecution is therefore possible in appropriate circumstances. HSE

That does not allow an employer to transfer its statutory responsibilities to an operator by writing “operator responsible for all safety” into a method statement.

The two sets of duties exist alongside one another.

A competence card is not permission to depart from the safe system

One of the most significant details in the recent case is that HSE described the telehandler driver as a qualified and experienced operator. HSE Media Centre

That matters.

Training and recognised plant certification provide important evidence that someone has been taught and assessed against an appropriate standard. They do not guarantee how that person will behave every minute they are on site.

HSE’s current workplace transport guidance distinguishes between basic training and what happens afterwards. Drivers need information about the particular workplace, routes, hazards, speed limits, loading areas, procedures and the supervision arrangements that apply. Familiarisation with the actual job and workplace remains important. HSE

In practical terms, an operator may have ten years’ experience and a valid CPCS or NPORS card but still be required to:

• follow the current traffic management plan;
• observe one-way routes;
• use designated turning areas;
• stay within speed limits;
• respect pedestrian exclusion zones;
• comply with restrictions on mobile phones;
• follow agreed signalling arrangements;
• stop if visibility is inadequate; and
• follow reasonable instructions from site management.

A qualification demonstrates a level of competence. It does not give an operator discretion to ignore a site control simply because they believe they can perform the manoeuvre without it.

This is also why competent-operator development should go beyond obtaining the initial card. All Star Safety’s NPORS plant operator training and assessments combine machine-specific training and assessment with the wider hazards operators need to recognise in real site environments. All Star Safety Ltd

Reversing should be designed out before relying on a banksman

The recent case could easily lead to another oversimplification: “telehandlers must always use a banksman when reversing.”

That is not what HSE guidance says.

The stronger control is to remove or reduce the need to reverse in the first place.

HSE’s current construction traffic-management guidance recommends planning vehicle movements so that reversing is avoided where possible. One-way systems and turning circles are specifically identified as ways of achieving this. HSE

This is significant because the site in the recent prosecution apparently had exactly that type of control available: HSE said an unobstructed turning circle had been provided. HSE Media Centre

Where reversing cannot reasonably be eliminated, the remaining risks need to be controlled.

That can include separating pedestrians, improving visibility, using mirrors or CCTV, providing adequate lighting and, where appropriate, using a suitably trained plant or vehicle marshaller. HSE

HSE’s wider workplace transport guidance cautions against treating a banksman as the automatic answer. Putting a signaller close to a reversing vehicle creates its own risk. The preferred approach is first to improve layout, segregation and driver visibility. HSE

Where a signaller is required, the arrangement needs to work properly. Driver and signaller should agree the signals, the signaller must remain visible and stand in a safe position, and the driver should stop if visual contact is lost. HSE

For experienced movement guides who need formal recognition of their occupational competence, All Star Safety also provides the Level 2 NVQ Certificate in Plant Operations – Movement Guide, assessed through actual workplace activity. All Star Safety Ltd

Site rules only work when they are monitored

The individual prosecution does not reduce the importance of management and supervision.

HSE says construction traffic must be effectively managed throughout the construction process. Sites should be organised so that vehicles and pedestrians can move safely, with particular attention to segregation, vehicle movements, turning arrangements, visibility, signs and instructions. HSE

Operators and other workers should understand those arrangements through induction and appropriate site-specific instruction.

But having a rule and enforcing a rule are different things.

If the traffic management plan says vehicles must use a turning circle, supervisors need to notice when operators routinely reverse instead.

If site rules prohibit using a mobile phone while operating plant, a supervisor who repeatedly sees the practice and ignores it is allowing the written system and the actual system to diverge.

HSE’s workplace transport checklist specifically asks whether managers and supervisors routinely challenge and investigate unsafe behaviour. It also expects supervisors to set the correct example themselves. HSE

That does not mean every minor error should immediately result in disciplinary action.

It means unsafe practices need a proportionate response. Depending on the circumstances, that might involve stopping the activity, clarifying the procedure, additional familiarisation, reassessment, refresher training, formal warning or withdrawal of the person’s authorisation to operate the machine.

Repeated unsafe behaviour by an otherwise technically capable operator is still a competence problem.

What should you do now?

Principal contractors and employers should review whether site traffic arrangements are genuinely being followed rather than relying on the existence of a traffic management drawing.

Start with the physical site. Look for opportunities to eliminate reversing, improve turning areas and strengthen pedestrian segregation. Then observe what drivers actually do during normal production, deliveries and busy periods.

Check that operators receive site-specific information as well as holding the appropriate training or competency evidence. Make restrictions on phones, reversing, speed, pedestrian areas and manoeuvring arrangements unambiguous.

Where movement guides are required, confirm that they are trained, authorised and clear about the signalling system being used.

Operators should also understand that signing an induction or receiving a plant authorisation carries responsibilities of its own. If the planned route, signalling arrangement or exclusion zone cannot be followed, stop and raise the issue rather than improvising a less safe alternative.

The safest operator is not necessarily the person who can manoeuvre a machine through the tightest space. It is the person who recognises when the planned control cannot be maintained and stops before somebody is placed at risk.

Our professional view

This prosecution is useful because it challenges two unhelpful assumptions at the same time.

The first is that everything that happens on a construction site is automatically the principal contractor’s fault.

The second is that a qualified and experienced operator can be left entirely to their own judgement because they have already demonstrated competence.

Neither is a sound way to manage risk.

A competent organisation provides suitable routes, procedures, equipment, information and supervision. A competent operator then uses their knowledge and experience within those arrangements, challenges anything that is unsafe and does not deliberately bypass the controls provided.

That is what genuine competence looks like in practice.

For contractors wanting an independent review of plant controls, traffic management, supervision or wider site arrangements, All Star Safety’s health and safety consultancy service includes construction site audits, risk assessment and project-based safety support.