Shock Likelihood at Switch.

John Peckham:

"So Mr Z we have heard from the learned pathologist that the cause of death was electric shock caused by water from a wallpaper steamer dripping in to the light switch have we not? We have also heard from our expert witness Mr P he found that the metal light switch was un-earthed and the special shock protection device known as an RCD was not working. We also heard from Mr P that in his view your report showed the electrical installation was "satisfactory for continued service" as stated in the recognised electrical safety standard was not correct and in his expert view your report should have concluded that the installation was in fact in an un-satisfactory condition for continued service. Mr P also produced as part of his evidence documentary evidence a document from the acknowledge electrical safety body know as Electrical Safety First that clearly indicates that an un-earthed light switch to be potentially dangerous and further more the document says this type of dangerous defect should have lead to the outcome of the report as being un-satisfactory. You said in your evidence in chief that it was your opinion that the electric installation was in satisfactory condition, are you seriously telling this court that you know better than the expert witness and the Electrical Safety First? Or is the case that you took money from the landlord, who needed a satisfactory report, and getting payment for your services would have been more difficult so you gilded the lily to please him? 


I sat in the well of a court in the Emma Shaw case where the electricians mate confessed when challenged about his entries on a test certificate said "I would not have done it if I had known" . 

John Peckham:

"So Mr Z we have heard from the learned pathologist that the cause of death was electric shock caused by water from a wallpaper steamer dripping in to the light switch have we not? We have also heard from our expert witness Mr P he found that the metal light switch was un-earthed and the special shock protection device known as an RCD was not working. We also heard from Mr P that in his view your report showed the electrical installation was "satisfactory for continued service" as stated in the recognised electrical safety standard was not correct and in his expert view your report should have concluded that the installation was in fact in an un-satisfactory condition for continued service. Mr P also produced as part of his evidence documentary evidence a document from the acknowledge electrical safety body know as Electrical Safety First that clearly indicates that an un-earthed light switch to be potentially dangerous and further more the document says this type of dangerous defect should have lead to the outcome of the report as being un-satisfactory. You said in your evidence in chief that it was your opinion that the electric installation was in satisfactory condition, are you seriously telling this court that you know better than the expert witness and the Electrical Safety First? Or is the case that you took money from the landlord, who needed a satisfactory report, and getting payment for your services would have been more difficult so you gilded the lily to please him? 


I sat in the well of a court in the Emma Shaw case where the electricians mate confessed when challenged about his entries on a test certificate said "I would not have done it if I had known" .