Case Scrapped Against Blaze Home Accused

Criminal charges against the owners of a care home where 14 elderly residents died in a fire have been dropped due to a legal loophole. Relatives of the dead pensioners have expressed their fury over the debacle.

Thomas Balmer, 59, his wife Anne, 59, and their 33-year-old son Alan Balmer were due to stand trial over alleged safety breaches at Rosepark Care Home in Uddingston in January 2004.

Fourteen residents died and several others were injured when the care home went up in flames. Mr and Mrs Balmer and their son were accused, as partners of the firm running the home, of a total of 12 charges.

These included breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, and of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989.

But at Glasgow High Court yesterday, judge Lord Hardie dismissed the charges because of the way they had been framed by prosecutors.

Lord Hardie was told by three of Scotland’s top QCs, Mike Jones, Valerie Stacey and Ian Duguid, that the indictment against the Balmers had to be scrapped because they were charged as partners of the business which ran the care home.

Thirteen months after the tragedy on January 2004, however, the partnership was dissolved and the next day a limited company was formed.

Lord Hardie agreed that any prosecution against the Balmers as individuals was legally incompetent and scrapped the indictment against them.

Last night a relative of one of the victims hit out at the decision. John Lappin’s mother Margaret perished in the inferno along with 13 others.

Choking back tears, he said: “For three years we have been waiting for this to come to court. I can’t believe this has happened – and I’m finding it very difficult.

“The 14 people killed in the fire, including my mum Margaret, deserve better than this.”

Lord Hardie said: “In all the circumstances, I have reached the conclusion that the indictment as framed against the first three accused is irrelevant because the Crown acknowledges the individuals were not party to the contracts of employment of the employees at Rosepark and were therefore not employers. Accordingly I shall dismiss the charges against each of the first three accused as irrelevant.”

Alternative charges may be brought in future however.

The judge said: “The dissolution of the firm does not necessarily end the prospect of proceedings against individual partners.

While it may seem inappropriate to permit people to escape criminal liability,

I wish to emphasise for the benefit of the relatives of those residents who perished in the fire this decision does not signal an end of proceedings.”

A Crown Office spokesman said: “The Crown has sought leave to appeal this decision and this was granted by the court.”