One aspect I don't understand, but it might come down to some legal details, is this summary of the "electrician"'s conviction:
Naylor was unanimously acquitted of manslaughter by gross negligence by a jury in February but found guilty of a breach of the Health and Safety Work Act.
It was found that Naylor, 74, had failed to 'take reasonable care to limit the risk or prevent the danger of serious injury or death' in how he had installed the garden lights.
Judge Zeidman said the evidence presented drove the conclusion that Naylor was "aware of the risk of death but chose to turn a blind eye to it".
While it is blatently obvious that he failed in his professional and moral duty to install and test that the lights were safe, I can't grasp why he was unanimously cleared of manslaughter but (as we expected/hoped) convicted of failing to comply with the Health & Safety Act.
Naylor was unanimously acquitted of manslaughter by gross negligence by a jury in February but found guilty of a breach of the Health and Safety Work Act.
It was found that Naylor, 74, had failed to 'take reasonable care to limit the risk or prevent the danger of serious injury or death' in how he had installed the garden lights.
Judge Zeidman said the evidence presented drove the conclusion that Naylor was "aware of the risk of death but chose to turn a blind eye to it".
While it is blatently obvious that he failed in his professional and moral duty to install and test that the lights were safe, I can't grasp why he was unanimously cleared of manslaughter but (as we expected/hoped) convicted of failing to comply with the Health & Safety Act.