Hi John I had something similar a while back, your right its not a work place accident rather a work place incident. It was reported to the police where we got a crime number for our records. However a full investigation was still undertaken to cover ourselves. The operative did not go off from work so what we done is over the next couple of weeks we monitored the guy and offered support when ever he needed it. What I did notice in your post was no mention of reporting the incident to the police, you must report to the police and get a crime number. Hope this helps Matt

Hi David thanks for this I have done a little research on HSE website. I still have an issue with the accident being 'work related' or do you think that simply because he at work then that in itself is enough for it to be work related. If you check out the examples on the HSE site it gives one example of an assault at work that is not RIDDOR reportable because the assault occurs arising out of a personal dispute. I am interested as to why you say 'NOT the psychological reaction to the violence alone' Thanks for replies

Some good replies here I would go with both the comments offered herein as he was at work etc. as already noted

Whilst I tend to agree... I was thinking about some work I did recently risk assessing work on an 'interesting estate' in the Midlands. As a result all guys had to work in pairs, everyone had to de-brand and all equipment had to be carried in plain bags. Staff also were given a TBT covering issues like using a mobile phone on the roadside. So if in my example a lone worker was mugged for the mobile phone he was using or his expensive calibration equipment - work related? That said if I pop to Tesco to buy a sandwich and get mugged - different story... Good question... I am sure the rewrite of RIDDOR will make this all clear... :)

The employee was at work doing his contracted job when the incident occurred, he was physically attacked/assaulted and as a result he is off work. I would categories this as a RIDDOR if the employee reaches the threshold time of absence as a result of his injuries. I would of course take into consideration what has been written into risk assessment, the policy relating to the job which will emphasis the controls. The employees contract of employment and the detail of the task he was carrying out, e.g. was he on the recognised route, was he following the companies safe system of work etc.

Hi Guys, very good discussion but consider this question. what if a driver delivering goods to a customer and had a car crash causing injuries leading to 7+ days off work?? the incident took place on road so police will be involved and the the company should have policy and risk assessment for goods delivery (activity) part of the driver's duties, hence the company need to carryout its own accident investigation and classify this as work-related accidents. Any thoughts??

RTAs are not within the scope of RIDDOR except for a few select circumstances to do with loading if memory serves me right so as described above#12 an over 7 day absence would not be reportable under RIDDOR. regards Yul

Here is my tuppence worth! As David outlined in #3 above, this could only be reportable if it is a physical injury - the ACOP to RIDDOR is quite clear about this. So the fit note from the GP that supports the employee's absence should give you a clue as to why the are off (or their self cert form), as would any discussion with the employee themselves. Again as outlined above it can only be reportable if the reason for the assault was linked to our unfortunate victim's job - ie they were recognised as carrying expensive work tools and thus identified as an easy target for a violent attack then a RIDDOR link is not unreasonable. If it was simply an opportunistic crime where no link to the employer's business can be established then it is difficult to see how this can be reportable. I guess without further detail it is difficult to arrive at a final determination, but for me the easy test to start with is why is the person off - it is not physical injury then there is no need to examine the "at work" question. Of course that should not stop a responsible employer taking forward any concerns and still providing personal safety advice to all employees. I do hope the injured party gets well soon Stuart