One of the things that makes Vincent Theobald-Vega different from a lot of other experts is his breadth of experience. Expert witnesses tend to be specialists in one, narrow area, but Vincent has worked in: agriculture, forestry, construction, asbestos, fire issues, chemical issues, laboratories, even genetically modified organisms.
Vincent says: “My huge range of expertise allows me to lift tools and techniques from one discipline and work with them in another.
This makes life so much simpler when trying to find solutions to problems, as you can lift certain aspects and apply them to another situation. That is what health and safety is all about, finding solutions to problems.”
Below, Vincent touches on how his field has changed over the years and working as an expert.
How do you keep on top of all these different areas you specialise in?
Read a whole bunch of stuff, talk to an awful lot of people and never, ever assume you got the answer. You must constantly research things and for every single case you go back to basics and search for the answer. You can’t have the mindset that: “This is the answer, as it was the answer last week” because things change.
How would you say health and safety has changed over the years of experience working in the field?
Well I started nearly 30 years ago so it's changed quite a lot. The accident rate in general has halved. Principally, this is because people are now focusing on the health and safety side of things; there has been an increased focus on ‘planning’ and management. The other big change we are seeing, is that industries are finally focusing on the ‘health’ aspect of health and safety. Health is a big issue; there has been a significant increase of serious illnesses from health issues.
How would you say that affects the cases that you see in regard to health?
Health issues are not filtering through to disputes much yet; certainly at the moment, most of the cases are still very traditional, either safety or asbestos related. Nonetheless, stress has recently been published as number two on health-related agendas and so it will not be long before we start seeing cases related to the issue. The Walker v Northumberland County Council case was not so long ago, and the world is changing quite quickly.
What are the common aspects of your role as an expert witness that the legal profession may underestimate during a case?
As expected, solicitors concentrate on legal definitions and don’t have the technical competency to always understand the on-site issues. As a result, you get an awful lot of important facts being missed as they have not undergone an adequate investigation of the facts; of course, I am not undermining their intelligence, but they can’t always decipher which parts of the huge bundle of facts matter.
I often get handed this huge bundle of work with no differentiation of what matters to the case. I sympathise with the fact that you can't be an expert in everything, but the lack of investigative approach certainly does cause more problems.
Another issue is how practicable decisions and conclusions change day by day. You can attend a case which is drawn to a specific conclusion, but a similar case the following day could reach a different verdict.
Lawyers often refer to past verdicts and cases to demonstrate their point, but in this instance, it does not count because the boards easily move on; the technology has already changed, the practice is different and thus sparks a new outcome. Lawyers may have a feeling of “the story” their case will follow, but it will not go anywhere without the evidence, and that is where I come in. It can be very difficult, but my role is turning mountains of technical jargon into plain English, to produce a clear story that helps people understand the case that they're looking at and how it fits into the wider picture.
How do you strengthen your case / or work around the issue, when an Expert on the opposition may have an alternate conclusion?
If you're looking at any kind of court case or pre-court case between two safety experts, you will get a minimum of three opinions as everything is based on judgement and experience.
In terms of building your “story” you need to look at that breadth. In my experience, an awful lot of experts actually have a fairly narrow base area of expertise, so they might recognise everything there is to know about the widget machine, but not necessarily about a factory in which the widget machine works.
What I do is devise a story around all the evidence, and all the possible outcomes and arguments, as this story makes plausible sense with all these different opinions.
Therefore, when you have difference in opinion you can refer to this database of outcomes and differentiate between weak and strong arguments.
In instances where a member of the public – technically classified as a trespasser - was injured on a construction site, the officer expert may state: “We will not fight health and safety for a person that shouldn't be there.”
But when you look at the level of protection that they were providing, it wasn't good enough for fire brigade or the police officers who may need to come on site, so therefore, their general duty of care had not been fulfilled even if the person was a trespasser. All in all, you must take that step back and look at the wider, bigger picture.
So, what was the most challenging part when you first instructed to the Crown Court?
When I had my first Crown Court case I was up against inspectors, some of which I knew.
Because I used to be an inspector, I know an awful lot on how they should behave, and it was very intimidating being on the other side. What you have to remember is that you are really there for the evidence. It doesn't really matter how intimidating it is with all these people claiming the opposite. You must focus on what the Court needs; and it needs to understand the story of the incident.
From my point of view an expert ought to explain the evidence in plain English to a barrister who then gives the story to the jury. It is important to get things into plain, simple, straightforward terms so that people can make sense of it, because I'm not there to fight.
Are there any changes you are hoping to see, or are seeing, in your industry that will benefit clients?
Technology has made a huge impact and has changed management. For example, you have a mobile phone with an app allowing you can keep records, preferably photographs of what you're doing as you go along and you can demonstrate that you've done the thinking, and demonstrate you have done the risk assessments.
From previously relying on statements, we now have an electronic footprint, including videos, photos and a range of evidence the Court will accept.
You can now forensically build a better picture of the actual incident and demonstrate the state of knowledge at the time of the incident. This will help people to think in advance, in order to avoid any accidents in the first place.
Vincent Theobald-Vega
FIIRSM, FRSPH, CMIOSH, MISTR, EurOSHM, BSc, MSc, PgDip, Cert Ed (LLS)
Partner / Director
Safety 4 HEd LLP
T 07940 564 889
E vincent@safety4hed.co.uk
W www.safety4hed.co.uk
Vincent Theobald-Vega joined the HSE in 1989, upon completing his BSc and MSc. He was based in “Area Offices”, assigned to agriculture and construction teams. During his 10 years there he was a prosecutor presenting his own cases, and involved in landmark cases. Later, he moved onto Newcastle University, where he was Head of Safety for 10 years. In 2012 he decided to launch Safety4HEd and left university, although he still lectures at Northumbria.
Safety 4 HEd is an LLP (a Limited Liability Partnership) that provides specialist Health and Safety consultancy services, principally for the University and Research sectors, but also deals with any companies with a real challenge (from technology, or because of work in a specialised sector). Vincent Theobald-Vega is an experienced, qualified and vetted health and safety professional, and is the main health and safety consultant with the partnership.
