Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Organisers and officials of downhill mountain bike event cleared of charges relating to spectator’s death

British Cycling had also been charged with health and safety breaches after Judith Garrett was killed in 2014

Organisers and officials at a downhill mountain bike event in Wales have been cleared of health and safety charges relating to the death of a spectator in August 2014 when she was hit by a competitor who had lost control of his bike after landing a jump.

Judith Garrett, aged 29, attended the Borderline UK DH Series event at Tan y Craig Farm near Llangollen, Denbighshire to watch her boyfriend Peter Walton compete.

She sustained head injuries when she was struck by competitor Andrew Cody, the impact throwing her backwards against a tree, and was airlifted to the University Hospital of North Staffordshire in Stoke-on-Trent but died there the following day.

Event organiser Michael Marsden had been charged under health and safety legislation of failing to conduct the event in such a way that people were not exposed to risk, reports BBC News.

He said he had carried out a course inspection to identify possible hazards, and said that in places where someone might come off their bike the course was widened so they would remain on it.

Meanwhile, British Cycling was charged with failing to conduct its undertaking in such a way as to ensure the health and safety of people attending.

In its defence, the organisation said that it had no responsibility for the event, with the paperwork being handled by Welsh Cycling which operates as an independent and distinct entity.

Both were found not guilty by a jury at Mold Crown Court on Tuesday.

Their acquittal follows a not guilty verdict last week for marshal Kevin Duckworth, who had been charged with failing to take reasonable care to ensure the health and safety of others.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

9 comments

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
1 like

were there are fixed barriers and speccies, should the riders not get so close to the barriers? Read this all the time, barriers to blame, not enough barriers, barriers too small/big, barriers sticking out at the foot, speccies leaning over barriers, stuff from speccies hanging from barrier.

Well yes because that's what spectators have done for thousands of years, this is nothing new. Maybe if riders took note of the fact there are things that make you crash if you get too close/make contact with, they'd crash less often?

Avatar
STATO | 6 years ago
0 likes

Its a huge challenge running an event that people want to enter, compete and also spectate. Even more so in a public space where you cant 100% keep people away.

Ive been to many events where spectators have either been injured or close to being injured, ive also run events and then raced events where ive been injured.  In the case where i was hurt race traffic (cyclocross) went opposite directions either side of some tape, and both I and another rider crashed head on where we both 'leant' on the tape from opposit sides. No injuries but it changed how i tape courses now when i help at events. 

Of course then i go to road races and there is only a single barrier between the riders and general public, lean out and you get clipped by racers hugging barriers (how many pro-tour races have we seen that happen!). I dont think anyone can disagree that a road race sprint finish has a chance of a crash and bikes flying about, spectators should be at least a bike length from the barriers, does that happen?.

Safety actions must keep risk as low as practicable, but deciding (even identifying in some cases) what actually is a risk is a challenging and incredibly difficult task.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
0 likes

Health and Safety executive of a LA decided they had a strong case to get a conviction, was that before or after consulting with the expert barristers? Genuine question.

ATEOTD  a jury decided the charges were not proven.

I'm interested in your "that happens" comment Finkfloyd, it comes across that you think that's a 'you win some you lose some' so, do you think the jury is incorrect and if so why?

We've seen too many cases where people on bikes have been killed/seriously injured, the evidence seems clear cut, supposed experts from the CPS appear to fail, time and time again to pursuade jurists that motorists are guilty of the charges. Almost as bad is when judges hand out overtly lenient sentences seemingly contrary to law/guidelines and this happens regularly such that cycling UK have taken the government to task over it.

In the case of Michael Mason, a man who was mown down from behind doing absolutely nothing wrong the jury took a scant 17 minutes to decide a not guilty verdict. This was only after the police and CPS had decided that it was actually the fault of Michael Mason for his death/collision for having had the temerity of wearing a dark jacket and by not wearing a helmet, both which would not have ben provable to have changed the outcome, niether were they legal requirments and the fact that despite having correct/legal lights in a very well lit street where pedestrians saw him there was no case to answer so police did not charge his killer. it took a private prosecution to get to the end result. http://road.cc/content/news/220521-breaking-news-driver-mick-mason-case-... If only this was the only miscarriage of justice for people on bikes!

So despite evidence and a very strong case outcomes will not always go the way one thinks they should. In the case of people on bikes there is most definitely an inherrent bias/discrimination going on and is provable to be so.

Avatar
ktache | 6 years ago
3 likes

Well done Finkfloyd, what a concise well made arguement, I would like to hear more of what you have to say, please contribute more.

Avatar
Finkfloyd | 6 years ago
10 likes

Yorkshie Whippet: If you were betting that it was brought by a "half arsed accident lawyer" you'd have lost all your money.

It was a health and safety prosecution brought by Denbighshire County Council, who considered that it was in the public interest to prosecute given that there had been a fatality and on the basis of the evidence they had.  They instructed two very experienced barristers (one of whom was a QC specialising in this area) to prosecute it.  Applications to dismiss the charges summarily by the defendants were dismissed.  The judge found that there was a case to answer but the jury weren't satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that British Cycling or the organiser was guilty (after a three-week trial). 

That happens.  That's due process.  There is a yawning chasm between cases which result in convictions and cases which 'should never have been brought', as it is currently fashionable to declare upon being acquitted of a charge.  Bullshit.  It was decided by a responsible public body that the evidence was there and that it was in the public interest to proceed.  They aren't wrong in that assessment just because there's been an acquittal. 

Your little summary suggests that you think this is all very simple.  Several lawyers - all of whom will have forgotten more about this area of law than you know - thought otherwise.  Not everything is about some grubby little compensation claim, but your willingness to attribute it to that speaks volumes.

Avatar
Yorkshie Whippet | 6 years ago
2 likes

Who is betting this was brought by some half arsed accident lawyer?

1. Anything involving humans is inherently dangerous either to them or others.

2. Spectators go to see people push themselves/machinery to the limit.

3. Once the limits have been exceeded all hell can break loose.

4. H&S laws state “as so far as reasonably praticatable”.

5. Everyone attending such events either accepts the above points or is a bloody idiot.

Case closed.

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
2 likes

Seems like a sensible outcome. Motorsport events carry notes on tickets stating that motorsport is a dangerous activity and that spectators should remember this. Spectators have responsibility to spectate responsibly.
Not a pleasant experience for anyone involved.
But the correct outcome.
I would ask for the legal pov, but I don't think we've got any legally trained peeps here.

Avatar
davel replied to don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
4 likes

don simon wrote:

I would ask for the legal pov, but I don't think we've got any legally trained peeps here.

There is one guy... nice guy, reasonable - interesting posts on legal matters and bikes.

 

But I haven't seen DanS in a while.

 

Sure the troll(s) will be along at some point with their 'degrees' and bullshit, anyhow.

Avatar
aegisdesign replied to don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
3 likes

don simon wrote:

I would ask for the legal pov, but I don't think we've got any legally trained peeps here.

Surely the "legal pov" is implicit in this case. ie. the jury found that the organisers had not been negligent and had done what they were supposed to do under health & safety legislation.

 

 

Latest Comments