The comments came at the Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) into the incident, which occurred on December 22 2014.
The Inquiry is being headed by John Beckett QC at Glasgow Sheriff Court, and has also heard that the driver of the vehicle is being pursued in a private prosecution by at least one of the victim’s families.
Giving evidence yesterday (August 18), Barry Baker, an inspector for the Health & Safety Executive (HSE), told the inquiry that the tragedy was a road traffic matter that was investigated by police. He said that on December 23 it was agreed it was not a health and safety issue.
Mark Stewart QC, representing the family of Jack and Lorraine Sweeney and their granddaughter, said: “Within 24 hours this has been categorised as a road traffic accident and people are already walking away.”
Mr Baker answered: “It has been categorised as a road traffic accident investigated by the police.”
It was suggested that the HSE “ought” to have investigated it.
Mr Stewart asked: “In this incident on December 22 if a member of crew had been killed would that have triggered health and safety executive interest?”
The witness answered: “No.”
The QC asked: “Still no interest?” and was told “It’s a road traffic accident.”
Reference was made to an incident in 2012 when the HSE investigated a fatality in Holm Street, Glasgow when a man was killed by a reversing bin lorry.
Glasgow city council was fined £20,000 for breaching health and safety regulations as a result of the incident.
Mr Baker said in his evidence that on that occasion if the bin lorry had been driving forward, it would not be investigated by HSE.
Mr Stewart asked: “If we take the exact same circumstances in Holm Street and simply turned the vehicle round, the health and safety stops having an active interest in that fatality?”
The witness replied: “It does, yes.”
Private prosecution
[testimonial id = “264” align=”right”]
HSE’s evidence was presented to the inquiry after the QC acting on behalf of the family of one of the victims revealed her client’s intentions of pursuing Harry Clarke in a private prosecution.
Dorothy Bain, acting for Jacqueline Morton’s family said: “I seek an adjournment of this FAI in order that the family can present a bill of criminal letters to the High Court to seek authority to bring a private prosecution.”
The representative for Gillian Ewing’s family, Alistair Forsyth, backed the motion made for the adjournment and the private prosecution.
Solicitor advocate Ronald Conway, for Stephanie Tait’s family opposed the motion and said: “They will not be involved in any private prosecution.”
The inquiry at Glasgow Sheriff Court into the deaths of six people who died on December 22 last year, days before Christmas, started on July 22, exactly seven months after the crash.
The six were killed when a bin lorry careered into them on Glasgow’s Queen Street.
Jack Sweeney, 68, his wife Lorraine, 69, and their 18-year-old granddaughter Erin McQuade, all from Dumbarton, were among them.
Gillian Ewing, 52, from Edinburgh, Jacqueline Morton, 51, and 29-year-old Stephenie Tait from Glasgow also tragically lost their lives.
The cause of death for all six was “multiple injuries due to a road traffic collision” which was read to the court as part of a joint minute.
Warning
The motion was made before Mr Clarke is called to give evidence.
If he is potentially to face criminal charges he requires to be given a warning that he does not have to answer any questions that might incriminate him.
Miss Bain said: “From the Morton family perspective the motion that is made this morning is most regrettable but they feel they are in an impossible situation.”
She added: “If the inquiry proceeds now and Mr Clarke does not answer questions they will feel deeply frustrated and genuinely feel justice has not served them well.”
Miss Bain gave an indication of a three month adjournment with the hope that after that period she would be able to update the court with the private prosecution process.
Mark Stewart QC indicated that his clients “seek to reserve the right” to privately prosecute.
He added that they disagree with the Crown’s decision to charge Mr Clarke adding that they “welcome the opportunity to make that plain for the first time in a public court”.
It is understood they plan to raise an action at some point.
Miss Tait’s family opposed the motion. Mr Conway said: “On behalf of the Taits, they will not be involved in any private prosecution whilst the fully the right of others who take steps if they so wish.”
Ronnie Clancy QC for Mr Clarke said “He supports the motion for the following reason, he wants to answer all the questions which are put to him at this inquiry.”
He added that Mr Clarke was entitled to the warning from the sheriff if he gives evidence saying: “If there is, as there clearly appears to be, a real possibility he will be prosecuted as a result of his involvement in this tragic accident, however remote that possibility may be.”
No decision yet
Sheriff John Beckett QC said: “I’m not going to make a decision on the motion at this stage, I think it appropriate that we continue to hear evidence other than evidence of Mr Clarke in the meantime.”
[testimonial id = “265” align=”right”]
He said that after all evidence Miss Bain can review her motion and all other parties will have an opportunity to give their views.
The inquiry then heard from Iain Buick former transportation and logistics manager with Glasgow City Council in 2010.
He told the inquiry he interviewed Mr Clarke in September 2010 although said he didn’t deal with references.
Solicitor general Lesley Thomson QC asked: “What would you be looking for from a Glasgow city council perspective?”
He replied that he would look at the absence record as well as general conduct and ability to do the job.
References
An email sent from him in March 28, 2011, after Mr Clarke had started his job as a mini bus driver transporting children with special needs was shown to the inquiry.
It said: “I can confirm I am satisfied with the content of all the references.”
Mr Buick told the court: “It appears obvious I have seen the reference and I was satisfied with all of them as mentioned, I don’t recall seeing them, I certainly don’t recall the content of Harry Clarke’s.”
He added: “The fact I replied to say they are satisfactory I’m quite clear I must’ve seen them and I was happy with that.”
The witness claimed that he received a reference with a lot of absences or that he resigned under suspension he would have contacted First Bus.
It was suggested to him that he sent the email “merely to complete a process and was without looking at the form”.
He replied: “No, I must’ve seen the reference to say that they were satisfactory, there’s no way I would have sent that back without having seen them.”
The inquiry before sheriff John Beckett QC continues.
Register for free to comment