The defendant sought leave to appeal against its conviction for failing so to conduct its swimming pool as to avoid exposing visitors to risk to health or safety. A boy had gone to the pool with his father and brother. Notices said that a child of his age (under eight) should be accompanied by an adult. He could not swim and had no armbands. He almost drowned. The defendant said that his father should have supervised him.
Held: Leave was refused. The failure of parental supervision did not absolve the defendant from responsibility. The father’s duties were concurrent with those of the pool owners but were not the same and did not displace the pool’s duty. The duty imposed on it by the Act was not delegable. ‘making all . . allowances, the applicant had to recognise and anticipate — and appears to have recognised and anticipated in its policy — the reality that on occasions small children do escape not only when parental supervision is lax, but even when parental supervision is very close. That is what children do.’
Lord Judge CJ, Roderick Evans, Griffith Williams JJ
[2010] EWCA Crim 495, [2010] WLR (D) 60
Bailii, WLRD
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 3(1) 33(1)(a)
England and Wales
Crime, Negligence, Health and Safety
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.403321
