Journalist, SHP Online

September 15, 2016

Get the SHP newsletter

Daily health and safety news, job alerts and resources

School fined for safety failings at summer camp

A School in Canterbury, has been fined for safety failings at a summer activity camp after a seven-year-old boy had to be given CPR after coming into difficulty during a swimming lesson.

Canterbury Crown Court heard how the boy was at a summer activity camp run by St Edmunds School and was taking part in a scheduled swim when he got into difficulties and struggled for over three minutes before becoming motionless in the water.

The lifeguards noticed he was in trouble and retrieved him. He regained consciousness after CPR but did develop pneumonitis as a result of the incident.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident, which occurred on 1 August 2014, found that the lifeguards were not effectively managed and monitored to ensure that they were constantly vigilant.

It was also discovered that two out of the three lifeguards did not hold a current, in date lifeguard qualification.

St Edmunds School Canterbury, of St Thomas Hill, Canterbury, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, and was fined £18,000 and ordered to pay costs of £9669.19.

Related Topics

avatar
3 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
In the spotlight – pool safety management » Common Sense ComplianceJemAndy Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Andy
Andy

It would be nice to have a little more detail relating to this – what was the relationship between the school and the lifeguards? Were they employed by the school or by another organisation? Was the swimming lesson at the schools premises or elsewhere? Was the school’s breach for failing to manage the lifeguards or for failing to ensure the lifeguards’ employer was competent?

Jem
Jem

HSWA section 3 places general duties on employers and the self-employed to conduct their undertakings in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons other than themselves or their employees are not exposed to risks to their health or safety. * there must be a duty-holder – either an employer or a self-employed person, and * there must be a risk to the health or safety of a person who is not the employee of the duty holder or the self-employed duty holder themselves, and * that risk must arise from the conduct of… Read more »

trackback
In the spotlight – pool safety management » Common Sense Compliance

Are you aware of the Barbour EHS brand?