Case Summary: St Edmond's School
Dec 27, 2020CASE SUMMARY
A seven-year-old boy (“AA”), whose name was withheld by the Court, was one of a number of children who attended a three-day Summerfest event at St Edmond’s Independent School, St Thomas' Hill, on Friday 1 August 2014 (Hooper, 2016; Applebey, 2016; BBC News, 2016).
At around 15:00, during AA’s session in the pool, 30 children were in the pool enjoying a free swim when AA lost his float. AA lost his swimming flotation aid and struggled to reach a point of safety before falling unconscious in the water. He was spotted and recovered by poolside lifeguards three minutes later and had stopped breathing. Staff administered in-water resuscitation breaths and managed to restore AA’s breathing before he was recovered to poolside and emergency services arrived to transport him to William Harvey Hospital for further observation (Hooper, 2016; Applebey, 2016; BBC News, 2016).
AA survived the accident and was kept under observation for the next 24 hours. He developed pneumonitis (inflammation of the lung tissue) as a result of the accident, which was subsequently treated. AA has been left with a fear of water, but the accident has also impacted the health of AA’s mother, who has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder following the accident (Hooper, 2016).
Investigation
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident found that the lifeguards were not effectively managed and monitored to ensure that they were constantly vigilant. The HSE spokesman said (Applebey, 2016):
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive concluded that the lifeguards were not effectively managed by the employer to ensure that they were fulfilling their duties as lifeguards. In this instance, the employees were not properly vigilant whilst on duty, which resulted in the incident that took place. It was also discovered that two of the three lifeguards on duty at the time did not hold current, up-to-date lifeguard qualifications.
The lifeguards were not effectively managed and monitored to ensure they were constantly vigilant. Two out of the three lifeguards did not hold a current, in-date lifeguard qualification.
The HSE took the decision to charge St Edmond’s School with a single count of breaching s.3(1) HSWA 1974.
R v St Edmond’s School (2016) (Unreported, 14 September, Canterbury Crown Court)
St Edmund’s School Canterbury, of St Thomas Hill, Canterbury, pleaded guilty on 11 April 2016 at Canterbury Magistrates Court to a single charge of breaching s.3(1) HSWA 1974 (Hooper, 2016). AA’s mum sat weeping in the public gallery. The case was referred for a Newton Hearing to agree on the relevant facts before proceeding to sentence the School.
The Newton Hearing and the sentencing hearing took place on Wednesday, 14 September 2016, in front of HHJ Heather Norton. Matthew Butt, appearing for the prosecution, told the court (Hooper, 2016):
One of the events designed to entertain the children as part of the three-day festival was swimming which used the School’s heated outdoor pool.
The court has heard that AA was not a strong swimmer and had only recently learned to swim without armbands. Although the school did not know of AA’s proficiency in the water, it had made requests for the data from the child's parents but had not followed up on those requests.
AA became submerged three minutes into his swim with both his arms going up and plainly sinking into the water. He was in difficulty from that moment onward and that difficulty becomes increasing pronounced and increasingly obvious as time goes by. He struggles for several minutes becoming increasingly distressed and desperate.
It was when AA vomited underwater that one of the lifeguards realised there was an emergency and jumped into the water to rescue him. AA was pulled to the side of the pool and the CCTV clearly shows he is not conscious. He is given in-water rescue breaths by the lifeguard, around seven or eight. AA can then be seen spluttering water as his breathing restarts. Lifeguards then lift AA onto the poolside and await the arrival of the ambulance service.
The court heard that there were three lifeguards on duty at the time of the accident. Three lifeguards were on duty, two of them sixth formers and the third in his first year at university. There was clearly not a sufficient level of vigilance by lifeguards on the pool.
None of the lifeguards working at the school on the day of the accident had been asked to provide proof of their qualifications. Two of the lifeguards’ qualifications had expired and they should not have been working that day.
The incident was caught on CCTV. HHJ Norton asked if the boy’s family preferred to leave the court during it was shown, but they chose to remain to watch their son’s last moments (Hooper, 2016). The CCTV footage was then shown to the court, which set out the details of the accident.
Dominic Kay QC, representing the defendant St Edmond’s School, said (Hooper, 2016):
It is a source of significant regret that this school finds itself in court over issues of safety. It is a school which prides itself on its systems, policies and procedures.
It goes without saying that he should have been spotted before he was, but St Edmond’s does not accept he was in distress for four minutes before he was recovered. The defendant also maintains that the lifeguards on poolside were competent.
The school has an exemplary safety record and it’s head and governors wish to express their genuine remorse and regret to the court and to the boy’s family over this sorry incident.
When HHJ Norton passed the sentence, she said (Hooper, 2016; Applebey, 2016; BBC News, 2016):
The risk is that the school failed to ensure the lifeguards held the relevant qualification. Without this due diligence, the School could not be sure the lifeguards had any experience or competency at all.
In my view, this was a serious failing. The incident with this child makes it quite clear it does not take long for a child to go from being in difficulty to being in danger.
It should not take a potentially catastrophic incident to ensure high levels of vigilance around a pool with many children.
Two of the lifeguards should not have been working but of itself did not expose the child to risk or have a causative effect on what happened.
I fine you £18,000 and order you to pay £9669.19 towards the prosecution costs.
Due to £18,000 being equal to St Edmond’s profits from the last financial year, HHJ Norton allowed it to be paid over three years. A statement from St Edmond’s School said following the sentencing hearing (Hooper, 2016):
We accept in full the findings of the judge, that while there were administrative shortcomings, these in no way contributed to the incident.
The School sincerely regrets this incident and has taken the measures necessary to ensure its H&S procedures are maintained at their most effective levels.
An external assessment, policy update, (noted as excellent in the recent ISI inspection report, item 4C) and the appointment of a Health & Safety Manager have continued and enhanced the ongoing development of a proactive health and safety culture at the School.
References (8)
Note: I wish those affected all the best in their future. No part of this article purports to attribute blame. See our methodology page for further details of how these case summaries are constructed.
Applebey, L. (2016). School fined for safety failings at summer camp. (SHP Online, 15th September). Available at: https://www.shponline.co.uk/in-court/school-fined-for-safety-failings-at-summer-camp/ accessed 20th December 2020.
BBC News. (2016). Canterbury’s St Edmunds School fined for swimming scare. (15th September, 00:00). Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-37370800 accessed 20th December 2020.
Christian, S. (2016). In the spotlight – pool safety management. (20th September, 00:00). Available at: http://www.cs-compliance.co.uk/pool-safety-management/ accessed 20th December 2020.
Hooper, P. (2016). St Edmond’s school in Canterbury fined after boy nearly drowns in pool. (Kent Online, 15th September, 00:01). Available at: https://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/news/boy-7-nearly-drowns-at-102467/ accessed 20th December 2020.
HSE. (2016) Breach details - Case No. 4417147 Details for breach 01 (14th September, 00:00). Available at: https://resources.hse.gov.uk/convictions-history/breach/breach_details.asp?SF=BID&SV=4417147001 accessed 20th December 2020.
Kendon Safety (2016). Prosecution for Canterbury School – the importance of strategic approach to staff training and competency. (22nd October, 00:00). Available at: https://kendonsafety.co.uk/prosecution-for-canterbury-school-the-importance-of-strategic-approach-to-staff-training-and-competency/ accessed 20th December 2020.
One Source Health and Safety (2016). School Summer Camp lifeguards without lifeguard qualifications. (17th September, 00:00). Available at: https://www.onesourcehealthandsafety.co.uk/school-case-law accessed 20th December 2020.
Safety Synergy (2016). School fined for safety failings at summer camp. (17th September, 00:00). Available at: https://www.safetysynergy.co.uk/school-fined-safety-failings-summer-camp/ accessed 20th December 2020.
Citation: Jacklin, D. 2020. Case Summary: St Edmond's School. Water Incident Research Hub, 27 December.
