Hi Kim There were a couple of threads on a similar topic recently - a quick search came up wioth this one: http://forum.iosh.co.uk/...spx?g=posts&t=107094 There was one relating to the case too, but I couldn't find it. Hope this helps. Nick

I am paraphrasing here but I understand the level of fine given was partly due to the refusal of the Zoo Management to voluntarily close the park after the incident, (they expected/waited for the Council to order it to be closed). Also there was a failure to take previous advice given about the tree(s) and area of the park in question and there had apparently been failures over a number of years prior to the incident to manage the risks to the paying public. (Source: Workplace Law).

I heard it on Radio Two. The HSE only ever prosecuted once before for a tree incident. At that case (B'Ham Council) the lack of an inspection regime was seen as a primary failing. There was recent case (Fellbrigg) but that was a civil case and that was rejected by the courts as being unforseeable. Generally the HSE and courts have considered the risk to be low and have only expected a reasonable level of managament planning, inspections and obviously records. It has been firmly expressed by all that trees are preferable to no trees and therefore a small level of risk is inherent. As others have said Zoning inspection regimes based on usage is expected. So I was suprised by the ruling in the Zoo case. Initally my thoughts were that it was a harsh conviction. However, the facts are rarely reported accurately and I don't expect Anna Ryder Richardson to have given a fair reflection of the prosecutions case against her! Like I said I was suprised by the verdict so I have to assume that there were strong aggravating factors involved that we were not told on the radio. Presumably something to do with the fact that it was high pedestrian usage zone. As to the level of fine. That is reduced by a percentage for pleading guilty, so if they defended as not guilty then they wouldn't have received that reduction. Other than that it would have been based on financial information given to the court about the business. So I guess the business is doing better than Anna Ryder Richardson was alluding to in her little speech on the radio about living in a hut.

Another tree had fallen down only 4 months before in this same enclosure as this 25 metre beech tree that fell on to the mother and child, and 5 more dangerous trees were cut down soon after the accident. Clearly the Court felt a heavy fine was appropriate for failing to address the risk of dangerous trees, some of which had been identified as such, in a place where the public was encouraged to visit and where people were employed ... http://www.walesonline.c...d-70-000-91466-32288470/

One word then...forseeability - in this particular case on this particualr site. I seem to recall in the dim and distant past that the Crown Estates receiving some form of Notice on trees in Windsor Great Park

As an aside to this thread I think Sadlass's concluding comment at #13 that "emotion seems to have unduly influenced the outcome" also applied to HSE's decision some years ago to prosecute the headteacher of a private school in Wales where a 3 year old boy had suffered injury through jumping down steps. Tragically the boy died a month later after contracting pneumonia and MRSA while in hospital. Though the prosecution led to the headteacher (James Porter) being convicted, the conviction was overturned by a Court of Appeal hearing in Sept 2008. Further details of the case and discussions of its implications regarding risk in terms of i) reasonable foreseeability and ii) controllability can be seen on the following 2 web articles picked from the internet: http://www.walkermorris....93-risk-light-r-v-porter http://www.cfs-law.com/r-v-porter.html Though the second article mentioned that the prosecution (HSE?) intended to respond to the Appeal Court judgement by taking the case to the House of Lords, I'm not aware that the case was so taken. If so, it seems that the prosecution either 1) analysed the case in the light of the judgement and decided to abandon its intention or 2) could not gain consent to pursue its intention. I guess that many OS&H professionals, especially ones like myself working with schools at the time, thought that the grounds for the original prosecution were flawed and therefore were relieved to see that reasonable practicability and common sense prevailed and led to the Court of Appeal judgement.

What the employees did was pure muppetry but the employer should have known that if they had not arranged for proper waste disposal then the employees would have improvised some sort of stupid solution. In this case the staff were the hazard and it was foreseeable that they would do something daft.