Health and safety in schools – lessons from recent cases

Site supervisor fined after exposing pupils to asbestos

A construction site supervisor has recently been prosecuted and fined £6,520 after he exposed school students and staff to asbestos fibres at Holy Family Catholic Primary School in Bristol.

This is a stark reminder of the continuing presence of asbestos in school buildings and the importance of undertaking due diligence on all companies working on school sites.

Health and Safety Executive v Alan Barraclough and James Keegan

On 13 May 2023, Mr Adrian Barraclough was working as a site supervisor during refurbishment works at the school, when he released asbestos by cutting through insulating board using a circular saw. The asbestos fibres spread throughout the school hall, which was subsequently used for two days by pupils and staff.

The Health and Safety Executive (“HSE”) investigation concluded that Mr Barraclough had not followed his asbestos awareness training, including clear instructions not to disturb the wall. Following an asbestos survey, the wall was due to be checked by a licensed asbestos contractor before removal to clarify if asbestos was present. Mr Barraclough was charged under section 7(a) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (“HSWA”) which stipulates that an employee has a duty to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work.

Mr Barraclough was fined £1,800 and ordered to pay a £720 victim surcharge along with £4,000 in costs by Bristol Magistrates’ Court. After sentencing, a HSE inspector commented, “Every year around 5,000 people die from asbestos-related diseases, often taking decades to develop symptoms. In this case, wholly unacceptable exposure to asbestos fibres result of an individual employee not following instructions”.

Chesire College fined after student’s finger severed

A recent prosecution of Reaseheath College in Nantwich resulted in a £40,000 fine after a student’s fingers were severed during a woodworking class.

Reaseheath College v Health and Safety Executive

On 20 September 2023, a student was participating in a woodworking class. His tutor noticed the student using the saw improperly and corrected his technique, but he was allowed to continue using the machinery unsupervised.

The wood twisted, pulling his hand into the saw and cutting through several fingers and the thumb on his left hand. He was rushed to hospital, and underwent an extensive operation to re-attach his thumb and index finger, but the middle finger couldn’t be saved. He continues to have issues with his left hand, and has a further operation scheduled.

A HSE investigation concluded that Reaseheath College failed to ensure the safety of its students. The College also failed to produce an adequate risk assessment for the woodworking activity, and didn’t supply a written safe system of work for using the mitre saw. There were also no records of what training and instructions were given to the students, nor the supervision arrangements in place. The College was charged with breaching section 3(1) of the HSWA  which stipulates that it’s the duty of every employer to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected are not exposed to risks to their health and safety.

Reaseheath College was fined £40,000 and ordered to pay £6,106 in costs by the Chester Magistrates Court. Following the sentencing, a HSE inspector emphasised, “Places of education and workplaces must ensure that they have properly assessed the risks where young people are using dangerous machinery”.

School trust fined after member of public was hit by falling tree branch

Bishop Bewick Catholic Education Trust has been fined £20,000 after a tree branch fell on a member of the public. The gardening services provider involved narrowly escaped jail, receiving a suspended 12-week prison sentence.

Bishop Bewick Catholic Education Trust v Health and Safety Executive

On 9 August 2022, Nicolas Thepot (trading as the ‘The Green Yem’) was at St Cuthberts Catholic High School to fell two trees. Thepot was using a chainsaw, while his apprentice used a rope to pull the branches inside the school boundary as they fell. A member of the public was walking next to the grounds, when the rope holding a branch snapped and she was hit by the falling branch, suffering serious injuries.

Despite this, Thepot returned the next day and continued removing branches using the same method. Work only stopped when HSE inspectors became aware and served immediate prohibition notices on both the trust and Thepot.

The HSE investigation discovered that the school trust had failed to check Thepot’s experience, competence and qualifications. It also didn’t agree the method Thepot would use and failed to stop him from working in the same way after the incident occurred. Thepot himself had no training or qualifications in arboriculture or in the use of chainsaws and was clearly conducting this work in an inappropriate and unsafe manner. The HSE charged the school trust with breaching section 3(1) of the HSWA, and Mr Thepot with failing to discharge his duties under section 3(2).

Bishop Bewick Catholic Education Trust was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £4,344 in costs by Newcastle Upon Tyne Magistrates Court. Mr Thepot was given a 12-week prison sentence, suspended for 12 months, ordered to pay £1,000 towards prosecution costs and to undertake 100 hours of unpaid work.

What implications do these recent health and safety cases have for schools?

• If a school seeks to undertake construction or maintenance work involving independent contractors, it must ensure that adequate due diligence is done before work begins to keep school premises safe and secure throughout. Failing to properly scrutinise potential contractors, particularly regarding their health and safety policies and practices, can endanger both students and teachers, and compromise the school premises.
• When evaluating health and safety risks on school grounds, particular attention should be paid to the age range of students’ involved. Failing to implement age-appropriate control mechanisms, like door guards, or impose strict supervision requirements for higher risk activities, can lead to near-misses at best and severe physical injuries at worst.
• The duty to maintain a safe and secure school environment applies to the general community for areas of the school grounds which are adjacent to / or interact with public walkways and areas. Schools should be mindful of neighbouring areas and areas of general community access and keep the safety of all impacted individuals at the forefront.