Young boy killed in pub garden

[pc1966]

One aspect I don't understand, but it might come down to some legal details, is this summary of the "electrician"'s conviction:

Naylor was unanimously acquitted of manslaughter by gross negligence by a jury in February but found guilty of a breach of the Health and Safety Work Act.

It was found that Naylor, 74, had failed to 'take reasonable care to limit the risk or prevent the danger of serious injury or death' in how he had installed the garden lights.

Judge Zeidman said the evidence presented drove the conclusion that Naylor was "aware of the risk of death but chose to turn a blind eye to it".

While it is blatently obvious that he failed in his professional and moral duty to install and test that the lights were safe, I can't grasp why he was unanimously cleared of manslaughter but (as we expected/hoped) convicted of failing to comply with the Health & Safety Act.

 

[Lister1987]

One aspect I don't understand, but it might come down to some legal details, is this summary of the "electrician"'s conviction:

Naylor was unanimously acquitted of manslaughter by gross negligence by a jury in February but found guilty of a breach of the Health and Safety Work Act.

It was found that Naylor, 74, had failed to 'take reasonable care to limit the risk or prevent the danger of serious injury or death' in how he had installed the garden lights.

Judge Zeidman said the evidence presented drove the conclusion that Naylor was "aware of the risk of death but chose to turn a blind eye to it".

While it is blatently obvious that he failed in his professional and moral duty to install and test that the lights were safe, I can't grasp why he was unanimously cleared of manslaughter but (as we expected/hoped) convicted of failing to comply with the Health & Safety Act.

Possibly due to the manslaughter charge couldn't be reasonably applied. Manslaughter being the killing of a person when it was not the killers intention, in this case there was no proving that the intent to inadvertently kill (or cause death) was present, the argument being that Naylor couldn't have known (for unstated reasons) that his actions would ultimately result in a death.

 

[Dartlec]

One aspect I don't understand, but it might come down to some legal details, is this summary of the "electrician"'s conviction:

Naylor was unanimously acquitted of manslaughter by gross negligence by a jury in February but found guilty of a breach of the Health and Safety Work Act.

It was found that Naylor, 74, had failed to 'take reasonable care to limit the risk or prevent the danger of serious injury or death' in how he had installed the garden lights.

Judge Zeidman said the evidence presented drove the conclusion that Naylor was "aware of the risk of death but chose to turn a blind eye to it".

While it is blatently obvious that he failed in his professional and moral duty to install and test that the lights were safe, I can't grasp why he was unanimously cleared of manslaughter but (as we expected/hoped) convicted of failing to comply with the Health & Safety Act.

I imagine it came down to a legal definition of a clear enough connection - similar to how some people kill with cars yet don't meet the dangerous driving standard...

With an emotional case like this, if he was unanimously cleared then I suspect they were guided by the judge that legally they couldn't unless they could be sure of (something above the evidence provided).

 

[Dartlec]

Naylor denied any wrongdoing and told police in an interview that he was an electrician with 50 years' experience and believed his work to be "first class".

Just because we have been doing it for years, doesn't mean we are any good at it!!

I personally enjoy working with other sparks on some jobs because it gives an impartial view about your own work and working practices.

Although nobody to date has managed to tell me and back it up, that the work i am doing is wrong or dangerous, a handful of people over the years have picked me up on a point here or there and shown me a better way of doing it.
the people that have managed to do this are people who i hold in high respect.

but the case should remind us all that what we do for a living can and will land us in jail if we don't do it correctly.

Rest in Peace, Harvey

Outside of advertisements I'd wonder about anyone who said their work was "first class". I know my work is safe, but also know there are always things that could be done "better" with more time, better equipment, etc.

Knowing that you can always improve and learn from others (in person or online) and never losing the ability to question yourself is key to treating even the smallest job with the respect it deserves when what you do can kill someone.

 

[Julie.]

While it is blatently obvious that he failed in his professional and moral duty to install and test that the lights were safe, I can't grasp why he was unanimously cleared of manslaughter but (as we expected/hoped) convicted of failing to comply with the Health & Safety Act.

We don't know the exact details of course, but it was my understanding that he did a first fix for the lights, but didn't return for final connections - this being done by someone else (landlord?) Hence he couldn't actually be directly responsible in the death, but could be in the general dereliction of duty of care.

 

[Dartlec]

We don't know the exact details of course, but it was my understanding that he did a first fix for the lights, but didn't return for final connections - this being done by someone else (landlord?) Hence he couldn't actually be directly responsible in the death, but could be in the general dereliction of duty of care.

It will be useful to know the practical details - but I think i read that he was pressed on not doing "live tests", which suggests that he didn't just do a first fix?

It would appear the issue was with lack of earthing somewhere and the poor kid touching a fence while sitting on a light? - but there are several details that won't be covered by 'mainstream' reporting - did anything trip but not before a fatal shock - was it on a suitable OPCD etc....

Bet CED won't appreciate the picture of "their" consumer unit appearing everywhere (though make appears to have had no part to play)

 

[Pretty Mouth]

From what I can make out having read a few of the news reports: it seems the lights weren't actually switched on when the boy was electrocuted. There was no earth to the CU supplying the lighting circuit, and the fault that caused the light's casing to go live may have been elsewhere on the installation. Hard to know for sure, the reports being written by laypeople for laypeople.

We don't know the exact details of course, but it was my understanding that he did a first fix for the lights, but didn't return for final connections - this being done by someone else (landlord?) Hence he couldn't actually be directly responsible in the death, but could be in the general dereliction of duty of care.

Very worrying if this is the case. You could find yourself doing time for something you had left disconnected.

 

[Julie.]

Very worrying if this is the case. You could find yourself doing time for something you had left disconnected.

I think that's really the point why he wasn't found guilty - his defence was as he had not actually finished the work, and the final connection was done by others, that's the time when he would have found any issues if there were any.

He wasn't found guilty in direct relation to this work, so being able to prove he left it disconnected saved him really.

The guilty conviction was in relation to other aspects.

 

[pc1966]

Very worrying if this is the case. You could find yourself doing time for something you had left disconnected.

I think this case is about far more than the light that was the trigger for the tragic death.

From what Julie said it is likely that the manslaughter charge was unsuccessful on the technical point that he did not complete the work that lead to the death, but the HSE violation would be from the knowledge he had (or should have had, given his purported skills and the norms of the industry to check such matters) that the electrics were is a dangerous state but that he did nothing.

I think the analogy would be uncovering a C1 during an EICR and simply ignoring it.

 

[Rockingit]

Apart from the tragic situation, loss and bodgery of all of this, I think the largest lesson that I'm taking away from it is absolutely the need for all of us to ensure that paperwork - so often that thing we like least - is bang on and able to cover your arse should the need, sadly, arise.

 

[Julie.]

Apart from the tragic situation, loss and bodgery of all of this, I think the largest lesson that I'm taking away from it is absolutely the need for all of us to ensure that paperwork - so often that thing we like least - is bang on and able to cover your arse should the need, sadly, arise.

It's often said, but frequently missed, "it's not whether you have done it or not, it's whether you can prove it or not!"

 

[Mike Johnson]

I always worked on the adage that if something is not in writing it was not said, that way you don't get into the "he said, they said" it is so easy for someone to say "I don't remember that conversation", having it in writing dispels that immediately, used to take copious notes at meetings and always disputed the minutes taken by the project manager (Architect normally) if at odds with my notes, it always seemed they issued minutes in accordance with what they wished they'd said, not what was said, I used to fill an A4 note book about once every two months, all telephone conversations where always noted down on the information card for that company.

 

[Julie.]

I always worked on the adage that if something is not in writing it was not said, that way you don't get into the "he said, they said" it is so easy for someone to say "I don't remember that conversation", having it in writing dispels that immediately, used to take copious notes at meetings and always disputed the minutes taken by the project manager (Architect normally) if at odds with my notes, it always seemed they issued minutes in accordance with what they wished they'd said, not what was said, I used to fill an A4 note book about once every two months, all telephone conversations where always noted down on the information card for that company.

When dealing with contractors and consultants "If they said good morning, I would want it in writing before I confirmed it in return..."

... best line I ever heard spoken (that was a long time ago, before I was a contractor, now I are one!!!)

 

[Mike Johnson]

My guys used to always have a duplicate book with them, any consultant that gave instructions to then had to sign the book to that effect and was given a copy, equally they would give instructions to any sub-contractor in writing, saved or supported any claims made by either party.

 

[Zerax]

My guys used to always have a duplicate book with them, any consultant that gave instructions to then had to sign the book to that effect and was given a copy, equally they would give instructions to any sub-contractor in writing, saved or supported any claims made by either party.

Sensible system... I might start using that routine with the wife... would avoid a lot of arguments.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Avoid arguments, but not necessarily black eye's.

I should not have said your bum looks big in everything.

 

[Rockingit]

Avoid arguments, but not necessarily black eye's.

I should not have said your bum looks big in everything.

Yeah. My other half is a 6' red-haired Australian, I've learned to duck quickly. Very, quickly.

 

[brianmoooore]

Sign the Petition

Make Pubs Safe - Enforcement of Electrical Inspections, Testing and Certification of Pubs

www.change.org

 

[Deleted account]

Sign the Petition

Make Pubs Safe - Enforcement of Electrical Inspections, Testing and Certification of Pubs

www.change.org

Just put my name to that petition.

 

[DMElec.1]

Parents of electrocuted boy, 7, sob in court watching CCTV of his final moments

THE parents of a little boy killed by an electric shock as he played in a pub garden sobbed in court today as they watched CCTV of his final moments. Harvey Tyrrell, seven, suffered a massive shock…

www.thesun.co.uk

Not sure if this has been posted before but it just goes to show that eventually someone does get hurt. We’ve all seen loads of jobs where we wonder how it didn’t kill someone.

The terminology in the article is bad, but reading between the lines it sounds like no rcd protection and no cpc at class 1 outside lights. Probably poorly fitted too no doubt. By an ‘electrician’ with 50 years experience! He should really be facing jail time imo.

It doesn’t surprise me that it was a pub. Most of them are death traps from what I’ve seen.

Bottom line: 12 months sentence for killing a child. AND he asked for a reduction in sentence (which was denied). I'd say that sums up the laws view and the man's character in one.