Important Note: the core facts about the original fire have been retained in this question: dilapidated stand; void below seats filled with flammable rubbish; locked fire exits, together with the very rapid spread and 56 deaths. But the fire happened long before much of the currently-relevant legislation was in force, and I have added a number of shortcomings by the Club which have been ‘made up’ to serve the purposes of the Exercise. Question 1 In relation to: The Health and Safety at Work Etc (HSW) Act 1974, The Management of Health and Safety at Work (MHSW) Regulations 1999 and The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 and the errors and omissions associated with the activities of: Bradford City Football Club (the ‘employer’), The Directors, and Employees of the Club Identify the prospective breaches of law committed by each of the parties, explaining WHY in each case. Specify also the breaches that you judge to be most serious. [80%] Question 2 Estimate, with reasons and supporting evidence of the fines imposed in broadly similar cases, the likely fine that Bradford City might have incurred if they had been found Guilty of breaching section 3(1) of The HSW Act 1974. [20%] Assumptions i) The fire happened in “May 2008”. ii) The football stand was structurally unsound, and built substantially of wood. iii) Large quantities of flammable rubbish filled the void beneath the seats. Smoking was permitted (but ignore recent smoking-ban legislation). iv) Fire exits at the rear of the stand were locked. v) Crowd marshals were untrained (and some were less than 18 years old). vi) Risk assessments had not been carried out. vii) Bradford City had no safety management system and did not employ anyone with fire/safety expertise. viii) The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 was in force at the time of the fire, but not recently-introduced fire safety legislation. ix) The H & S Enforcement Authority had issued an Improvement Notice requiring the stand to be cleared of rubbish and risk assessments to be performed. The Notice was not complied with. Bradford Directors took the decision that the match should nonetheless take place (without any additional safeguards). A Director had written a memorandum stating that the Inspector was over-zealous, and the Improvement Notice was an example of safety ‘gone mad’. x) Make any other reasonable assumptions typical of the above. Note: please do not do a ‘blunderbuss’ answer, citing every section/regulation that might conceivably be relevant without any real justification. The ‘good’ parts of your answer might be undermined by references to irrelevant material. PLEASE WORK ON YOUR OWN. COLLUSION is easy to spot in a question of this kind – PARTICULARLY IN A REFERRED EXAM