Informa Markets

Author Bio ▼

Safety and Health Practitioner (SHP) is first for independent health and safety news.
August 7, 2013

Get the SHP newsletter

Daily health and safety news, job alerts and resources

Farmer charged with manslaughter after bull attacks hiker

A 39-year-old man has been charged in connection with the death of a rambler who was killed by a bull.

Paul Geoffrey Waterfall, of Leake Lane, Stanford on Soar, Leicestershire, has been charged with manslaughter by gross negligence over the incident, which happened on the afternoon of 12 November 2010, near Underhill Farm.

The Crown Prosecution Service said Waterfall was responsible for the farm and its livestock at the time of the attack. He received bail and will appear before magistrates later this month.

Roger Freeman was walking with his wife Glenis along a public footpath through the farm when the bull struck.

The 63-year-old, from Glen Parva in Leicestershire, died at the scene from multiple injuries. His wife, who was aged 67 at the time, was seriously injured and spent three weeks in hospital.

Alison Norton, specialist prosecutor handling special crime in the Crown Prosecution Service, said: “Roger Freeman was tragically killed on 12 November 2010 after being attacked by a bull while walking on a public right of way through Underhill Farm, at Stanford-on-Soar, in Leicestershire.

“I have concluded there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to charge Paul Waterfall, who was responsible for Underhill Farm and its livestock at the time of the incident, with gross-negligence manslaughter.”

Extending her sympathies to Mr Freeman’s family, she added: “Paul Waterfall has been bailed to appear at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court on 21 August 2013. Criminal proceedings are now under way and Mr Waterfall has a right to a fair trial.”

Related Topics

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

13 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Andrew The Taxpayer
Andrew The Taxpayer
10 years ago

As a rural-living runner and dog owner and former BOAT user; it’s fair to say that landowners/farmers and ‘the walking community’ have been at each other since the the 1930s.

In this instance the CPS has decided that there is sufficient evidence to bring a charge to court. Now the court must decide on guilt.

aud
aud
10 years ago

There is a well-known, quite established requirement to only keep certain livestock in fields with public access. Quite what difference a sign makes I don’t know. The police are clear that this incident was in complete breach of the standards. Things are more tricky when the livestock is NOT legislated and yet can still be dangerous – cows with calves which often ‘attack’ walkers. The farm yard has got little to do with this, and you would have to create new paths to get round. Not likely!

Dave McGhie
Dave McGhie
10 years ago

Problem, as ever, is with farmers and ramblers choosing which elements of the countryside act/code they adhere to. In my experience, few farmers reinstate RofW after ploughing or protect the public after spraying (despite RoW only being 1m wide). What we need is proper policing of dog foulers (my council have a policy of non involvement despite it being a illegal to allow a dog to foul.) and proper policing of RofW. If you are responsible… you should be.

Gary Bootz
Gary Bootz
10 years ago

Farmers must realize that ‘rights of way’ are Public Access Areas and therefor they must protect the public from their undertakings be it a dog, tractors or over-spray from crop treatments. This is a cost of being in business and not just an inconvenient problem.

Jonathan Green
Jonathan Green
10 years ago

In response to the comment left by Stuart Robertson, he may be right that a review should take place. However, I do wonder if there were any warning signs in place. These would be in place around a construction site, but should also be in place around entrances to an area where a dangerous animal is kept – regardless of whether or not it would be acceptable to obstruct a right of way.

Mark Jewell
Mark Jewell
10 years ago

I believe it would be unreasonable to require a farmer to make sure that bulls/cattle were kept from fields with a PRW crossing it. This would be restrictive & difficult to administer due to the 1000’s of PRW’s which cross farmland and to suggest fencing or re-routing of PRW’s is also unreasonable. Whilst this is not an isolated incident. However farming must take a wiser attitude towards safety & must ourselves remember when crossing Via PRW’s that Farming is a hazardous living industry 24/7.

Mr B J Mann
Mr B J Mann
10 years ago

Re the rights of way issue? How come there used to be, I think it was, 5,000 miles of green highway compared to hundreds of thousands of miles of foot and bridlepath, yet they’ve managed to ban vehicles from them? Can you walk, never mind drive, along the routes of roads covered by a shopping centre? Or drive on a pedestrianised road? And if there was an old right of way through a high risk factory, could you claim the right to walk it? Probably not. So why farms? Why not reroute to boundaries?

Neil Poulton
Neil Poulton
10 years ago

Basically the farmer knows where the paths are and of all the uncontrolled risks a bull has to be pretty near the top.Whether the route should be there is irelevant it is obvious to anyone that a bull and people is not a good mix. Anyone could have been killed.Fundamental lack of thought hence prosecution.

paul smith
paul smith
10 years ago

coming from the inner city and spent many years walking the hills around the lakes. you do not see a lot of farmers but when you do and your on a public footpath we seem never to get a warm welcome from them, we walked trough a open gate over to a pub with the dogs only to be chased out by a big bull. its only the fact we could run that we got away.. they laughed in the pub at the evening the locals, scary stuff..

Stuart Robertson
Stuart Robertson
10 years ago

A review on public access to the countryside is needed, footpaths that go right through a farm yard are not fit for purpose and should be removed from the maps free of charge. You would not allow public onto a construction site? Hoarding and barriers are put up.

Please be aware that not all farms receive public money in subsidies, the management of the countryside has been broken up with the split up of the UK into it’s individual countries.

Stuart Robertson
Stuart Robertson
10 years ago

Yes, I understand fully – Wildlife &Countryside Act 1981 section 59.

My challenge is on public rights of way through a farm yard.

Stuart Robertson
Stuart Robertson
10 years ago

In response to Gary and Tom, I accept your points of view.

Gary- sprays and diesel cost money I would not like to think I’m wasting money on land that is in set as side as I know there is a public footpath, I support wildlife.

Tom – The 2nd paragraph is stigmatising the industry, there are many angles to a story, what do the public do to protect the farmers income, do they allow their animal to drop their faeces and leave it. The best one I have seen is bagged collections in the hedge

Tom
Tom
10 years ago

It matters not a jot if the farm is funded by subsidies. The issue is that if the field has a public right of way through it, Mr. Waterfall should have ensured that the right of way safe to use by members of the public. It is clearly foreseeable that a public right of way may well be used by a member of the public is it not?

The farming industry in general has a laissez faire attitude towards safety and especially towards members of the public using rights of way through their land.

Topics: