Cameron House Hotel: explaining the sentences

The owners of Cameron House Hotel were fined £500,000 for serious safety breaches that led to the fatal fire in December 2017.

Christopher O’Malley, a night porter who put ash inside a cupboard that was deemed the cause of the fire, has been handed an 18 month supervision order and 300 hours of community service.

But what was the reasoning behind those sentences?

HMA v O'Malley

While sentencing 35-year old Christopher O'Malley in Dumbarton Sheriff Court on Friday, Sheriff William Gallacher explained that it was clear his actions caused the fire - but he also accepted that he had no intention of causing the fire and didn't think his actions would lead to the incident which followed.

Sheriff Gallacher said: "I accept that you had not been given adequate training in relation to the procedures which should be taken in relation to disposing of the ash and any other materials which were produced by the open fire.

"You did however have responsibility for the cleaning and safe disposal of it."

He also said he gathered that O'Malley was in the habit of using the outside bins designed and prepared for the purpose, but was aware the bins were full and hadn't been emptied for some weeks prior to the incident.

Sheriff Gallacher also explained he accepted that there was no written instruction available as to what should be done with the materials and there was no guidance offered by managers on the appropriate course of action which should have been followed.

On sentencing, Sheriff William Gallacher said: "In considering the appropriate penalty which I must impose I have regard to provisions of the statute which indicates that, for the offence to which you have pled guilty, the maximum sentence may be a period of imprisonment not exceeding two years.

"Had it been that you had been given specific instructions and were failing to comply with them, had it been that you had taken a course of action which deliberately disregarded the safety of others, had it been that you had a history of criminal offending and particularly offending showing disregard for others, I would have considered it inevitable that a custodial sentence would be imposed.

"I have also had regard to the guidelines produced by the English Sentencing Counsel in respect of offences of this type to which I was today referred by your counsel and which assist me in determining the appropriate sentence."

Sheriff Gallacher said in court during sentencing that taking account of O'Malley's personal circumstances, his lack of criminal history and all that he had read about O'Malley in the social work report - as well as considering he accepted responsibility and pled guilty to this offence at the earliest opportunity that was available, imposing a custodial sentence could be avoided.

HMA v Cameron House Resort

Sheriff William Gallacher said in a statement while sentencing on Friday, that in 2016 fire risk assessors who were instructed by the company to make an assessment of the fire risks observed there was no written policy covering the emptying of the open fires.

A recommendation was made that a written policy should be developed and made available to all employees.

Sheriff Gallacher was told the resort manager of the company delegated the recommendation to the deputy general manager, but that person didn't delegate the preparation of a written procedure to anyone else due to his understanding that there was no issue involved in relation to the removal of hot ashes.

At a further assessment in 2017, the same fire assessors highlighted that the written procedure, which they had recommended, still hadn't been implemented. This was challenged by the resort manager and a risk and safety manager. The fire safety assessors succumbed and produced a revised report.

Sheriff Gallacher says he was told that the situation proceeded on the basis that the resort manager had made a wrong assumption that such a procedure was properly in place, but says he doesn't understtand why the obvious course of action was not the course of action taken rather than a senior member of staff making assumptions.

Sheriff Gallacher said in the absence of any formal procedure, individual members of staff had no option but to deal with matters as they thought best.

The indictment, in addition to the events of 18 December leading to the fire, make reference also to events of 15 December when night porters, removed ash and embers from fires and put these into polythene bags containing water.

Sheriff Gallacher says this was not an appropriate course of action. A more senior member of staff castigated these members of staff for acting in this way, but no additional instructions were given to staff at that stage nor was the absence of any written set of instructions highlighted.

Sheriff Gallacher said in his statement that the issue around fire safety was specifically raised again in November 2017 in a letter addressed to the resort manager by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service which included the full findings of the audit in 2017. The task of dealing with combustibles in the cupboard was again delegated to the general manager of the premises who examined the cupboard and noticed combustible materials.

The general manager took photographs of this and conveyed these with an email to staff with the instruction “can you make safe and speak to team, highlighted previously by fire safety inspection and evidently still an issue.”

When confirming the sentence, Sheriff William Gallacher said: "As I have indicated I do not consider that the deaths which arose, the harm which affected significant people then and still, the passage of time over which these identifiable failure of fire safety had arisen in circumstances where the company were alerted by two separate expert advisers, would justify me in simply leaving the matter in the range of penalties set out for medium culpability with level 2 harm category.

"I do not, however, completely discount submissions made by counsel as to the overall extent of the company’s arrangement in relation to fire safety as part of health and safety provision.

"I also specifically take account of the absence of any aggravating features as described in the Sentencing Guidelines and the inclusion of all the mitigating features. I include in my assessment the financial information given to me in terms of turnover and profit. I also have regard to the fact that the company had appropriate fire insurance to allow the rebuilding of the hotel, that they had occupier liability insurance which will deal with any civil action which might arise from these tragic events and also had profit insurance, the result of which is likely to be that the company will not have sustained the significant losses in relation to their income which might otherwise have happened.

"In these circumstances the obligation of making any fine sufficiently substantial to have real economic impact in my view requires that the penalty move up rather than down.

"In all of these circumstances therefore I consider that the appropriate penalty which I ought to impose in relation to both charges would have been a fine of £750,000.

"Since the plea was tendered by section 76 procedure and accepted by the advocate depute as being a plea tendered in line with discussions from an early point and where, had the matter proceeded to trial, this would, in all likelihood, have been a lengthy and potentially complex trial involving many witnesses, from a variety of locations and many expert witnesses, I consider that it is appropriate to afford the company a discount in the order of one third from that penalty. I will therefore impose a fine of £500,000."

Hear the latest news on Clyde 1 on FM, DAB, smart speaker or the Rayo app.