# Suffolk runaway horse woman killed - charges being brought



## lachlanandmarcus (18 January 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-21082899


----------



## stacey_lou (18 January 2013)

As sad as it is we all Know with horses **** happens. It's awful so please don't think I'm being heartless but horses can spook and bolt sometimes for no reason so how can you prosecute?


----------



## Star_Chaser (18 January 2013)

It is tragic what happened but how can you possibly predict that was going to happen? 

Potentially it also means that any event where a horse is present could be compromised by impossible insurance conditions.


----------



## Rowreach (18 January 2013)

I am making assumptions here, but it may have something to do with the horse's age and lack of experience in this instance.


----------



## lachlanandmarcus (18 January 2013)

I suspect they feel they can prosecute because of some of the circumstances: the event was foreseeably a crowded public event,  the horse was less than 4 years old  (!!!) and had according to witnesses been visibly agitated prior to the incident. 

To me the age of the horse in itself would have rendered it unsuitable for an event like this, simply because it could not possibly have had time to acquire enough exposure to quieter and then progressively more busy situations, it was a youngster itself. 

So I would hope it wouldnt mark a wider catch all for anything that happens but just a reflection of alleged failures in using common sense about what a juvenile horse would be able to cope with.


----------



## JanetGeorge (18 January 2013)

lachlanandmarcus said:



			I suspect they feel they can prosecute because of some of the circumstances: the event was foreseeably a crowded public event,  the horse was less than 4 years old  (!!!) and had according to witnesses been visibly agitated prior to the incident. 

To me the age of the horse in itself would have rendered it unsuitable for an event like this,
		
Click to expand...

Correct!!  And the horse was in the charge of a young woman with VERY little driving experience (two months), she'd been given no H&S training, the bridle had been removed (while horse still harnessed up) to give it hay!

It WAS an accident waiting to happen - and it did!


----------



## Superhot (18 January 2013)

All very nasty...


----------



## diamonddogs (18 January 2013)

My understanding of the law is shaky, to say the least, but the Coroner is a qualified lawyer, who had access to all the facts, and ruled it was an accident, so surely that's an end to it?





an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury

an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause


Click to expand...

Source

I feel for the woman's family, really I do, but I don't see any benefit to anyone with this prosecution.


----------



## Amymay (18 January 2013)

The horse in question (now dead) was brought over to the UK as part of a dealing group who imported horses from overseas under the guise of 'rescue', and was (if I remember correctly) only just 4 years old at the time of the incident.  It was an extreme novice, in the hands of a novice - and was a terrible accident waiting to happen.

Nothing can bring back this poor woman, but I hope that the family will get some comfort from the fact that people are being held accountable.


----------



## JanetGeorge (18 January 2013)

diamonddogs said:



			My understanding of the law is shaky, to say the least, but the Coroner is a qualified lawyer, who had access to all the facts, and ruled it was an accident, so surely that's an end to it?
		
Click to expand...

The Coroner had some thoughts:




			Coroner Dr Peter Dean said the death had highlighted a lack of "regulation" of horse and carriage rides.

After the jury returned its verdict, Dr Dean said: "I will be writing to the Department of Transport asking them to look at the law in the light of this tragedy to draw attention to prevent further similar tragedies occurring in the future.

'Highlighted risks'

"The evidence we have heard has highlighted the risks if the activity is not regulated properly."
		
Click to expand...

Because this accident happened in a public place - at a public event - where the owner of the horse/carriage was being paid to provide a service, it's a classic case where Health & Safety Assessments should have been carried out and all precautions against an accident should have been taken!

The HSE will have investigated ALL the facts and determined there had been a failure to meet H&S requirements!  If there are serious breaches of H&S regulations that result in a nasty accident and the death of a bystander, of COURSE there should be a prosecution of those responsible.  Otherwise there will be NO incentive for anyone to take H&S seriously!


----------



## diamonddogs (18 January 2013)

Thanks for that, Janet - it's clearer now!


----------



## Caledonia (18 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			The HSE will have investigated ALL the facts and determined there had been a failure to meet H&S requirements!  If there are serious breaches of H&S regulations that result in a nasty accident and the death of a bystander, of COURSE there should be a prosecution of those responsible.  Otherwise there will be NO incentive for anyone to take H&S seriously!
		
Click to expand...

That's exactly what has happened. I wish them every success with the prosecution.


----------



## Sixteen Hands (19 January 2013)

I think it's worth remembering that The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is prosecuting both St Edmundsbury Borough Council, which ran the fair, and the horse's owner Duncan Drye, of Bishops Road in Bury.

The prosecution would have be brought in line with the HSE's Enforcement Policy Statement 

see: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse41.pdf

supported by the framework of the HSE's Enforcement Management Model

see: http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/emm.pdf

There have been some very valid and useful comment made in this thread but given that the case is due before magistrates in Bury St Edmunds on 7 February may I suggest that we wait for the legal judgement rather than pre-judging the case ourselves?  Maybe a discussion again after the outcome?

Neither the BBC or Bury Mercury who are both running the report are accepting any comments on the webpages.


----------



## FairyLights (19 January 2013)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Honeylight (20 January 2013)

Why did the horse die? Was it injured in the accident or was it destroyed due to the killing of the lady?


----------



## LittleBlackMule (20 January 2013)

Honeylight said:



			Why did the horse die? Was it injured in the accident or was it destroyed due to the killing of the lady?
		
Click to expand...

I suspect the latter.
After the bolting incident, the delightful character who shipped it over from France in the first place to make a quick ££ took it back and re-advertised it soon after as a 100% bombproof ride and drive! 

People quickly cottoned on to this and the proverbial hit the fan, and the horse disappeared, the story being that it was 'put down for medical reasons'.


----------



## Rose Folly (20 January 2013)

I'd like to pick up on one point in JanetGeorge's post, which might be read to infer that H &S prosecutions only occur when someone is being paid to provide a service.

This is not the case. There's a duty of compliance even when a service is being provided by volunteers. This is why it is years since we did pony rides at our village Mayday celebrations. The ponies' services were donated by the people who owned them, and they or friends led them. But the H & S regulations were so stringent that we (the Committee) knew we could not abide by them, and so, very sadly, we had to stop doing the rides, and also trips in a pony and trap.

I hope that the owner of the horse and carriage did have public liability insurance; ditto the organisers of the event.


----------



## JanetGeorge (20 January 2013)

Rose Folly said:



			I'd like to pick up on one point in JanetGeorge's post, which might be read to infer that H &S prosecutions only occur when someone is being paid to provide a service.

This is not the case. There's a duty of compliance even when a service is being provided by volunteers.
		
Click to expand...

Rose Folly is absolutely correct.  All responsible voluntary organisations carry full liability insurance to cover themselves AND their volunteers!


----------



## Honeylight (20 January 2013)

LittleBlackMule said:



			I suspect the latter.
After the bolting incident, the delightful character who shipped it over from France in the first place to make a quick ££ took it back and re-advertised it soon after as a 100% bombproof ride and drive! 

People quickly cottoned on to this and the proverbial hit the fan, and the horse disappeared, the story being that it was 'put down for medical reasons'.
		
Click to expand...

Poor horse, this was hardly his fault.


----------



## Sixteen Hands (20 January 2013)

Rose Folly said:



			This is why it is years since we did pony rides at our village Mayday celebrations. The ponies' services were donated by the people who owned them, and they or friends led them. But the H & S regulations were so stringent that we (the Committee) knew we could not abide by them, and so, very sadly, we had to stop doing the rides, and also trips in a pony and trap.
		
Click to expand...

This is yet another very sad case of activities being curbed because of supposed "elf and safety".  I wonder who set the stringent H&S regulations?  Sadly over the years there has been misinterpretation about what is really required.

Did you have any serious incidents before you stopped doing them?
I'll stick my head out and say probably not.  Why? Because you probably selected suitable ponies, did the rides in a suitable area and had competent people doing the leading.  We used to do them at an event once a year and never had a problem.  Oh and we found out if any events were happening in the main arena when it might be sensible to temporarily suspend the rides.  The kids loved them.

There are not any H&S reasons to stop pony rides as long as the risks are correctly assessed and properly controlled.  I'm guessing it was some jobsworth leading to risk aversion or fear of being sued.

Sorry if I'm on my high horse but I do get upset when I hear about worthwhile activities being stopped because of "H&S".  A few years ago London lost the Harness Horse Parade - which had been run there for the last 150 years due to a dispute over the "risk assessment".  What nonsense!

People have to be protected - yes - but often they can be by competent people assessing and controlling the risks associated with the activities. There is always an element of risk - we do not live in a risk free society - it's about minimising those risks.  

You may be interested in some information given in presentation in about 2005 - Principles of Sensible Risk Management: http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/speeches/tbrospacongress.pdf

In addition there was an independent review of health and safety legislation in in 2011 - "Reclaiming health and safety for all" by Professor Ragnar E Löfstedt who said in his opening remarks:

"Dear Minister,

In March 2011 you asked me to look into the scope for reducing the burden of health and safety regulation on business, whilst maintaining the progress that has been made in health and safety outcomes.

During the past six months I have sought views from a wide range of organisations, and have studied the available scientific literature to consider whether, on the basis of risk and evidence, health and safety regulations are appropriate or have gone too far.

I have concluded that, in general, there is no case for radically altering current health and safety legislation. The regulations place responsibilities primarily on those who create the risks, recognising that they are best placed to decide how to control them and allowing them to do so in a proportionate manner. There is a view across the board that the existing regulatory requirements are broadly right, and that regulation has a role to play in preventing injury and ill health in the workplace. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that proportionate risk management can make good business sense.

Nonetheless, there are a number of factors that drive businesses to go beyond what the regulations require and beyond what is proportionate and I have made recommendations to tackle those which relate to regulations. These will enable businesses to reclaim ownership of the management of health and safety and see it as a vital part of their operation rather than an unnecessary and bureaucratic paperwork exercise."

The report makes encouraging reading and areas have already been actioned.

See:http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/lofstedt-report.pdf


----------



## ester (20 January 2013)

Sixteen Hands said:



			People have to be protected - yes - but often they can be by competent people assessing and controlling the risks associated with the activities. There is always an element of risk - we do not live in a risk free society - it's about minimising those risks.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think it was being run by particularly competent people as outlined above, hence the associated risks were neither assessed or controlled.


----------



## Superhot (20 January 2013)

Although the owner advertised the horse as 100% bomb proof, I believe it ultimately went to a good and kind home, not sure how, but subsequently died due to worm infestation... absolutely tragic...


----------



## Sixteen Hands (21 January 2013)

ester said:



			I don't think it was being run by particularly competent people as outlined above, hence the associated risks were neither assessed or controlled. 

Click to expand...

Just to let you know I wasn't being specific to this case - you may have missed my earlier comment:

"There have been some very valid and useful comment made in this thread but given that the case is due before magistrates in Bury St Edmunds on 7 February may I suggest that we wait for the legal judgement rather than pre-judging the case ourselves? Maybe a discussion again after the outcome?

Neither the BBC or Bury Mercury who are both running the report are accepting any comments on the webpages."


----------



## Amymay (21 January 2013)

Superhot said:



			Although the owner advertised the horse as 100% bomb proof, I believe it ultimately went to a good and kind home, not sure how, but subsequently died due to worm infestation... absolutely tragic...
		
Click to expand...

Yep, that's about the long and the short of it.

Poor horse.


----------



## ester (21 January 2013)

sorry SH but I don't really see why that means it cannot be discussed at some level on here. It is for the most part old news anyway and has all been discussed previously on this site.

If TFC wishes to remove the post/ban discussion that is his call.


----------



## rhino (21 January 2013)

Urasio (though named Lucas at the time of the accident) was a 2008 foal and therefore only just 3 at the time of the accident.


Background for those who haven't been following the story
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/310036.html
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/389/311157.html


----------



## poniesanddogs (21 January 2013)

I believe this happened as the bridle was removed from the horse while still in carriage. The driving bridle is put on last and taken off first , anyone who has learnt the correct way would know this , sadly far too many people do not go through the correct lessons / training. Also horses get spooked , how many times do you see a loose horse at a show or event - add a carriage to the back of it and multiply the risks /danger. Society these days seems to have to blame someone , accidents do happen and no one goes out with the intention of having one , but standard rules should be followed. It is tragic what happened but horses are horses and when spooked take flight !


----------



## 1stclassalan (27 January 2013)

This is a live case so BEWARE! Everything that 16Hands says is correct; however; here's my generic opinion.

So called Health & Safety people are a curse upon the Nations and they shall surely be consumed by the firey pit on the awful day of Judgement! Ironic, really when the Devil doesn't have any of the necessary certification and works with known dangerous substances such as fire and brimstone in close proximity to lost souls.

It is a fundamental and universally appreciated fact - and that includes all of us that love them - that horses are dangerous at both ends and can be uncomfortable in th middle. If it's a responsibility of folk taking horses near the public ( which I dispute ) to guarrantee  100% safety - then this must also imply that the same public who deliberately place themselves within range of horses - entering racecourses, horse shows, events and country fairs also has a share in something similar. If you buy an airline ticket you automatically sign up to the replacement for  Warsaw Convention which is the absolute final arbiter in claims - buying any other form of ticket should do the same.

I may be in favour of some form of no-fault person insurance but not prosecution - it's only pandering to the kind of people attracted to this parasitic occupation.

The building industry is now completely hamstrung by this nonsense - it puts millions on the bill each year for hardly any benefit - I'm very glad that I no longer have to deal with the meally mouthed; jumped up; limp wristed little Hitlers that seem to thrive in these jobs. Though I must admit to having some fun with them - on a couple of occassions when running quite big jobs - H&SE were becoming a problem - instead of rubbing them up the wrong way, I asked them for assistance - "oh, we're very pleased, don't get that reaction usually when we turn up"...... but then I'd say "come and give me your opinion at the top of the tower crane!"  Hahahah.... I only had one inspection for the whole contract.


----------



## Goldenstar (27 January 2013)

poniesanddogs said:



			I believe this happened as the bridle was removed from the horse while still in carriage. The driving bridle is put on last and taken off first , anyone who has learnt the correct way would know this , sadly far too many people do not go through the correct lessons / training. Also horses get spooked , how many times do you see a loose horse at a show or event - add a carriage to the back of it and multiply the risks /danger. Society these days seems to have to blame someone , accidents do happen and no one goes out with the intention of having one , but standard rules should be followed. It is tragic what happened but horses are horses and when spooked take flight !
		
Click to expand...

I think your post Is a bit misleading you put the bridle on last and remove first of the harness BUT always after you have removed the carriage.
And you put the bridle on before the horse is put to the carriage.


----------



## Rollin (27 January 2013)

A comment on public liability insurance for carriage driving.

I have been insured for years with Carriage House for ride and drive but only if people ride in my carriage for free.

I wanted to help at a local fete but could not obtain insurance for a day for giving rides for charity.  I would have had to take out a full year's insurance for an afternoon's work.

Insurer's said, if it is for a day the horse isn't used to the work.  Actually THE horse now 34 was a musketeer's horse in Disney version of Three Musketeers and spent a week filming for a Julia Roberts film on location in central Edinburgh.  When they re-shot the ending of this film he worked on the set at Pinewood Studios.

I could not insure him for a day.


----------



## Suffolkangel (27 January 2013)

Since this court hearing Bury council have now Cancelled Nowton Country fair...  They say its cost of putting it on, but its such a popular fair I wouldnt be surprised if the above is the main reason...  Such a shame... :-(


----------



## Sixteen Hands (27 January 2013)

Suffolkangel said:



			Since this court hearing Bury council have now Cancelled Nowton Country fair...  They say its cost of putting it on, but its such a popular fair I wouldnt be surprised if the above is the main reason...  Such a shame... :-(
		
Click to expand...

Many large shows - some which have been held for over a 100 years have sadly disappeared over the last few years.  We are now in a triple dip recession.  The blame for the losses is often cited as increasing costs and dwindling attendence numbers.  Shows have been making huge losses.  With savage local autority budget cuts, councils have to be very careful where they put their money. Shows being supported by  rate payers' money are probably difficult to justify with so many services being cut.  I can qute believe their reasons.


----------



## Sixteen Hands (27 January 2013)

1stclassalan said:



			So called Health & Safety people are a curse upon the Nations and they shall surely be consumed by the firey pit on the awful day of Judgement! Ironic, really when the Devil doesn't have any of the necessary certification and works with known dangerous substances such as fire and brimstone in close proximity to lost souls.
		
Click to expand...

Parts of your post are very witty and entertaining - do I take it that you have been a victim of "elf and safety officer" abuse?


----------



## 1stclassalan (29 January 2013)

Sixteen Hands said:



			Parts of your post are very witty and entertaining - do I take it that you have been a victim of "elf and safety officer" abuse?
		
Click to expand...

Ah, bless - I do try to be "witty and entertaining" all the time but some posters have said different!

And yes, Elf & safety was just coming in when I left large construction - I did office high rises, new and remodelling - some safety is commonsense but these jobsworths take it all to ridiculous lengths and we've had some outrageous events - court cases with criminal conviction which are complete tosh! But luckily I left while all you needed to comply was a little book in the draw marked "Accidents" which you trusted would remain empty.


----------



## onemorehorse (30 January 2013)

Goldenstar said:



			I think your post Is a bit misleading you put the bridle on last and remove first of the harness BUT always after you have removed the carriage.
And you put the bridle on before the horse is put to the carriage.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with this.  You would never ever leave a horse attached to the carriage and remove the bridle.  I worked with carriage horses and even after a couple of years of driving, I still wasn't allowed to drive the young novice horses on public jobs and rightly so.


----------



## Sugar_and_Spice (31 January 2013)

People saying H&S doesn't limit things, it does, because it's H&S that means people are liable of negligence if they haven't followed guidelines and insuring against the possibility of someone accidentally being negligent is what makes events too expensive to run. None of this is bad as such, because its about safeguarding people. The bad part is that it's sometimes more costly for insurers to fight a claim than to pay out, making insurance premiums expensive because even where there's no negligence they might end up paying out.


----------

