In last week’s episode, we saw building contractor, Chris Woodford, answer questions from the defence attorney about the incident as well as his relationship with fellow witness, Mark Bowers.
This week, Woodford is, once more, put under the spotlight, this time at the hand of the relentless prosecution.
Prosecution barrister, David Campbell’s main line of questioning revolved around the fact that Woodford didn’t tell Wanley to get off the scaffold once he knew he was there. Woodford’s only defence seemed to be: “because I was busy.”
Campbell continued his tirade of questions, demanding answers regarding the victim, the unsuccessful site induction and the lack of a permit to work.
“For those few seconds of you not thinking, of you not being aware of your responsibilities, he’s not been able to walk for two years.”
Woodford refused the responsibility of producing a safe work environment, permit to work or the correct health and safety documentation because “it’s not my site, it’s not my property, it’s not my premises. Why should I produce that?”
The evidence ends with Woodford’s questioning and Campbell addresses the audience to explain legal practises it had just witnessed.
Next week, the defence and prosecution barristers explain in further detail the practices that ought to have been in place to prevent the accident from occurring and the defendants from being prosecuted.
To keep up-to-date with the latest news, subscribe to our newsletter.
Join 15,000 + #eventprofs and get our e-newsletters direct to your inbox