MSP demands public inquiry into care home tragedy

May 21 2009 by Alastair McNeill, Hamilton Advertiser

A LANARKSHIRE MSP this week called for a public inquiry into the Rosepark tragedy after charges against the family who ran the nursing home were once again dismissed.

Fourteen elderly residents died after fire took hold in the Viewpark home in January, 2004.

But a judge this week threw out the case against Thomas Balmer (61), his wife Anne (60) and son Thomas (34) after legal arguments at the High Court in Glasgow.

Victims' relatives stormed off after the decision. One man shouted that it was "a disgrace" and a "legal loophole".

The Balmers, of Royal Gardens, Bothwell, made no comment as they left court and were driven off by a female friend.

The decision came following a fresh attempt to prosecute the trio after a previous case against them collapsed in 2007.

Hamilton North and Bellshill MSP Michael McMahon is now pressing for a public inquiry into the fire, and described the Crown Office’s prosecution as “incompetent.”

Mr McMahon commented: “I have been talking to the families affected for some time now.

“They are not seeking retribution. What they are looking for is justice and answers.

“We need some sort of inquiry which answers the questions required by the victims’ families, and to ensure that we do not have a repeat of such a tragedy again.

“I have discussed the matter of an inquiry with the Solicitor General Frank Mulholland, and I will be raising it with the First Minister in the Scottish Parliament.

“A public inquiry is a political decision as much as it is a judicial one.”

At the time of the fire the Balmers had two Lanarkshire care homes, Rosepark and Croftbank House, both in Uddingston.

Lord Matthews this week dismissed 17 charges relating to Rosepark, adding it was "fatal" that the Balmers had been indicted as the surviving partners of the now-dissolved Rosepark Care Home.

He said: “That is only intelligible as being yet another attempt to indict the dissolved firm.

“The prosecutor was driven to accept that was the case and he was right to do so. That is fatal to this indictment.

“Even if that concession was wrong and this is truly an attempt somehow to convene the partners, it is, in my opinion, inept."

“The surviving partners are not in law liable for the criminal acts of the firm, assuming there were any, which is a matter I cannot comment on."

Lord Matthews said it was in the public interest for the Crown to attempt to prosecute if they can, but the law does not allow them to do so in the form chosen in this case.

However, he granted the Crown the right to appeal his decision.

A Crown Office spokesman said this week that Crown Counsel was currently examining Lord Matthews’ ruling, and a decision will be made soon as to whether to appeal.

He added: “In the meantime we remain in contact with the families of the deceased and we will keep them advised of developments."

The Balmers could have each have faced up to two years in jail had they been convicted of the health and safety breaches.

The charges they faced ran from between April 1, 1996, to the day of the fire on January 31, 2004.

It includes allegations that there was a failure to maintain an "adequate or effective system or strategy for fire safety" at Rosepark.

Thomas Balmer's QC Mike Jones claimed during a hearing last month that the charges were "oppressive, incompetent or irrelevant".

In February 2007, charges against the Balmers were thrown out on a legal technicality.

A second attempt to indict the wealthy trio was dismissed last July after a ruling that a case against Rosepark Care Home - the name of the family-run company at the time of the incident - could not proceed because the firm had since been dissolved.

Croftbank House Limited - formerly known as Balmer Care Homes Limited - still faces 14 breaches of health, safety and fire regulations. The charges relate to the Balmer’s Croftbank House care home and run from between April 6, 1997, and October 11, 2006.

They include allegations that employees were not trained adequately in fire safety and that fire drills were not carried out on a regular basis.

The case against the company will call again next month.