There have been a number of incidents recently that spring to mind - mainly the two examples below (one of which was relatively local so stuck in my mind).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64311096

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-67726095

Clearly at times cattle needs to be moved for one reason or another and giving the farmer the ability to "temporarily" restrict access to areas that could be accessed by walkers duting such activities would make sense in theory. I guess the issue arises with how/when and who monitors etc?

Changing "rights of way" is not something the law can currently accommodate in a rapid manner to suit a farmer moving their herd between fields - there is due process required of notification and enquiry especially for long standing rights. Similarly temporary stopping of a right through a particular field is mired in legislative process.

At least in the field a portable electric fence could be used to keep the herd away from humans.

OK, so let's be clear: HSE information sheets, Including Agricultural Information Sheet 17EW, are not law; they guide farmers on what they must consider regarding "Reasonably Practicable" measures to safeguard the public. Some breeds, particularly bulls and beef herds, are well known to be aggressive, so it would be difficult to show a reason for keeping them in a field with a public right of way.

For dairy herds (even with some bulls), the guidance is to "assess whether the bull or animals in the herd are generally placid and well-behaved;"

Yes, there have been a number of prosecutions for attacks on the public, but in most cases, there has been a previous history of problems that the farmer has ignored.

Successful prosecutions are easy to find; failed ones don't fit the HSE agenda and are not newsworthy to the gutter press. Last year, the Father of a friend of mine was in court charged by the HSE after his cows injured a walker.

Brief details – it was on a public right of way; he had signage on the entrance to the field warning the cows were there.

This group of walkers got into the field over a wall from private land off the right-of-way route. They had a dog with them, which was not on a lead. The dog ran in among the cattle and the calves; unsurprisingly, the cows defended their young. The family then waded in to try and rescue their dog, and one was injured.

During the HSE investigation, the inspector tried to aggravate the cows and could not get a reaction out of them even when they brought dogs (on a lead) into contact with them.

The HSE's case appeared to rest on the fact that an electric fence was not used. This was the 1 item in 17EW that was not followed.

This was a typical Yorkshire Dales farm miles from mains services and it would have cost many thousands of pounds to provide one. Plus, in an adjacent field, a neighbour was operating a campsite. It was common for children to kick a ball over the wall and then climb to collect it. The farmer argued that the cost and risk to children outweighed the benefit of an electric fence.

A jury found in favour of the farmer, and he walked away from court with full costs, but he had gone through years of hell waiting for the prosecution.

Remember, Inspectors are not always right (Trust me, I was one. We are human). I know the inspector who took this case, and from the information I had, I don't see how it ever got to court – but there may be facts I am unaware of

Guidance notes are not law – and you don't have to follow them to the absolute letter – just show you have followed them as far as you need to.

So Muddmuppet, it looks like Welsh farmers are safe unless they do something stupid. Before I got into Health and Safety, I studied Agriculture at Bangor University as part of my degree, so I met many Welsh farms, and I know they are not stupid.

Sorry for the essay – rant over.

Edited by user 14 February 2024 08:52:31(UTC)  | Reason: Sorry missread Kates post thought she was critising famers for having cows in a filed when infact it

Originally Posted by: HSSnail

This was a typical Yorkshire Dales farm miles from mains services and it would have cost many thousands of pounds to provide one.

When I mentioned electric fence I was thinking about the cables attached to a car battery in a field similar to the ones often abused as a prank when camping with Scouts.

https://www.electricfence-online.co.uk/animal-supplies/cattle/ (no affiliation just first result on the internet)

Today things have moved on with portable solar powered units.

Hi Mudmuppet

As the Snail says you should treat HSE guidance with a handful of salt.

This is about balancing up duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and its subordinate legislation, along with Rights of Way legislation and your common law duties including those under the Occupier's Liability Acts.

Starting with the last of these, the case law is very clear that usually there is no duty to protect against injury to people from an obvious hazard - in this case cattle.

See guidance at The Law and Visitor Safety - Visitor Safety Group

Unfortunately the excellent publication from what was called the Visitor Safety in the Countryside Group is no longer free to download.

My guess (and it is just a guess) is that more than half of the fatal accidents in Great Britain involving cattle occur when people stray from rights of way and into fields that are OFF the rights of way - somewhat different in Scotland where there is a presumed right of access just about everywhere including those fields.

Ultimately you need to consider what is reasonably practicable for a farmer in Wales to be doing. As the Snail says, HSE and its Inspectors don't always make an appropriate judgement as to what is and is NOT reasonably practicable and all too often the Inspectors make the judgments with hindsight bias.

As a former Inspector, I investigated a fatal accident when a young girl nearly drowned in an artificial loch. She survivied that but died some time later from illness diagnosed as being due to ingesting microorganisms from the bottom of the "lake".

Many Scottish lochs are such that they have shelves. So people wade into e.g. Loch Lomond and find that the depth of the water suddenly increases dramatically when they come to the edge of a shelf. 

The artificial loch had been designed with shelves and my initial instinct as the investigator was to conclude that this was an entirely unnecessary feature. However we decided against enforcement action against either the operators or the designers.

However, with the benefit of thinking about this in the longer term, there was logic in the shelves. The artificial loch was designed for international open water sports so you need the depth and if you were to design it without the shelves the loch would need to take up a much larger footprint within the country park that it was built. 

So, in this scenario the balancing act is about what to do INSTEAD of avoiding the shelves - some signage warning of an invisible hazard? Some life saving equipment etc etc?

....and it IS a balancing act. Every year at least one somebody drowns in Loch Lomond, often just North of Balloch on the Eastern shore. So, every year there are demands for more signs and more life saving equipment, but every year people argue that already there are too many of each of these - which probably means that they have the balance just about right.

Thanks Holliday.

Looks like a not atypical case of HSE Inspector applying hindsight bias.

“Where possible, farmers should avoid putting cattle, especially cows with calves, in fields where members of the public have a legal right to walk.

“Had Martin Falshaw followed this advice, or effectively segregated the cattle, this incident could have been prevented.”

...and if the defendant pleads guilty (with plenty of reasons why they might do this even if they think they have done nothing wrong, not least due to the reverse burden of proof as regards what was NOT reasonably practicable), HSE can say just about what they like in a subsequent press release.

The press release comments on a warning sign being destroyed and not replaced. Whether the sign would have been sufficient to deter access into the field is debatable.

Perhaps the very small fine is illustrative as to how minor an offence the Court deemed it to be.

A woman and her friend had to climb up a tree to escape an attack by more than a dozen cows on a public right of way in North Yorkshire.

Janicke Tvedt and David Hood had set out on a popular circular walk from Masham with pet Labrador Goose, who was on his lead, on 25 July 2021. Part of their walk took them across the fields and public rights of way near Shaws Farm.

After entering a field off Foxholme Lane, the pair noticed several cattle in a field the path cut across, including cows with calves, so decided to give them a wide berth, passing through a narrow opening in a hedge. However, as they did, they then spotted a lone cow with two calves, and within seconds their dog was attacked.

Although they all managed to get away, they were soon cornered by other cows and 57-year-old Ms Tvedt was knocked to the ground and trampled. She was helped up by her friend, but at a nearby tree they found themselves surrounded by around 15 cows and had to climb a tree to escape a further attack.
Martin Falshaw of Falshaw Partners, Shaws Farm, Swinton, Ripon, North Yorkshire pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3 (2) of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was fined £770.50 and ordered to pay £4,539 in costs.

How did the prosecution get away with using HASWA Section 3? Very contentious considering the forum discussion?

This incident is driving myself to challenge the right of way act and that it's unfit for today for the following reasons:

1. There's a pattern now of landowners and farmers of cattle being prosecuted, very few winning.

2. Continued fatalities and sever injuries to walkers with cattle in fields.

Solution:

1. New law to allow landowners and cattle farmers to close a right of way to allow the use of a field for cattle grazing, and it's down to a height of grass 1500 DM/kg of grass. If less it's not farming.

Support for this action: Cattle benefit the control of bracken, brambles, long grass on footpath, allowing grazing maintenance keeps the paths open.

Negative: Rivalries of access to countryside aggressively see this as landlords taking over.

I revert back to isolation, because like in Wales farmers and landowner will be losing a fair amount of revenue, the needs of those accessing the countryside don't understand the financial pressures of the UK farming industry and apply the stereotype answer all farmers are rich.

Im not far off selling up, and I'm sure the next landowner will be rich and have the money to keep people from accessing the countryside, it's my opinion and it happens. Hence I will pursue a common sense action for local authorities to allow farmers to close a path in the interests of public safety.

When roads are closed for works, diversion routes are identified and signposted.

Are you proposing to do the same for footpaths across fields that you want to close?

Hi Mudmuppet

I fully understand that the idea that all farmers are rich is one of those myths, and that farmers have been struggling with issues such as Brexit and the pandemic, not to mention increased biosecurity risks.

However, what Kate describes may sound difficult but it's precisely what SHOULD be done when roads are temporarily closed at short notice for more than a few hours and what SHOULD be done when a road is closed for even a shorter period of time if works are planned in advance.

This doesn't always happen and when it doesn't there is often plenty of anger that it hasn't happened.

Within the last week, my daughter (on a rare trip back to Glasgow) and a friend went for a ramble up the hills. They managed to get past the fallen trees, then crossed the top of the hill and back down - only to find a sign at the end saying that the path was closed due to fallen trees. Shame that Forestry and Land Scotland had apparently forgotten to duplicate the signage where they had started!

Exactly what is proportionate for either your field or the road alongside will depend on variables such as how much traffic either usually gets OR could be expected when the diversion is put in place.

So, suppose the right of way through your field is part of a "National Trail" or "core path", then you would expect much more pedestrian traffic than on some other rights of way, and perhaps increased traffic at certain times of year. 

Would it be unreasonable for the Council to expect you to liaise with them and your neighbours to agree what diversions are needed before it is time for your cattle to graze/maintain the field AND path, and to enable suitable signage to be placed along the route of the National Trail or core path to communicate to walkers how to get from Z (a point before reaching A at the entrance to your field) to Kate's C?

As she lives far from the sea, on her recent visit , my daughter thought about a day trip away from Glasgow and was considering Dunoon. So, I thought "Puck's Glen" and looked it up to find that the FLS website had an announcement that the Gorge path was closed due to fallen trees. So, the information was out there and she found an alternative.

OK, you are not as big as Forestry and Land Scotland and your field is less popular than Puck's Glen is (even at this time of year) but what FLS puts on its website could be miniaturised with local signage, before each end of your intended path closure?

Finally, in your initial posting you wrote:

HSE Agriculture Information Sheet (AIS) No 17E (rev2) is a very good document, however its not widely known in the industry, I'm only aware of it because of my professionl qualifications. 

This implies that you don't think that most farmers would know about the HSE or similar guidance. However, my guess is that most farmers who keep an eye on what is happening in the sector are probably regularly discussing the problems with rights of way through their land.

I can't see the detailed commentary but here at the NFU website:

NFU Cultivation and Vegetation on Public Rights of Way Buisness Guide – NFUonline

Edited by user 18 February 2024 13:21:21(UTC)  | Reason: Additional text

Problem with all these events are the primary witnesses for the defence are unable to articulate to a court what has actually happened.

Instead the balance of probabilities is reliant upon one or two humans, often in a state of shock, being reliable and very importantly accurate with their recollection of how events truly unfolded.

As example anyone noted how during investigating a witnessed accident there are so many versions of events from the various humans who saw it?

Much as I despise many items of technology it would be very intersting to see one of these events unfolding from a cattle cam view and seeing how that stacks up against the human recollection.

Just to throw another spanner in the works: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68278444 - the whole debate regarding rights of way and rights to roam etc seems to be in a comlete mess south of the border. If you link the issues relating to the "need to trespass" to access the land that people have a right to roam then farmers will have even less options open to them in terms of how/where to move cattle safely?