Young boy killed in pub garden

[mattg4321]

Parents of electrocuted boy, 7, sob in court watching CCTV of his final moments

THE parents of a little boy killed by an electric shock as he played in a pub garden sobbed in court today as they watched CCTV of his final moments. Harvey Tyrrell, seven, suffered a massive shock…

www.thesun.co.uk

Not sure if this has been posted before but it just goes to show that eventually someone does get hurt. We’ve all seen loads of jobs where we wonder how it didn’t kill someone.

The terminology in the article is bad, but reading between the lines it sounds like no rcd protection and no cpc at class 1 outside lights. Probably poorly fitted too no doubt. By an ‘electrician’ with 50 years experience! He should really be facing jail time imo.

It doesn’t surprise me that it was a pub. Most of them are death traps from what I’ve seen.

 

[Mike Johnson]

The HSE report will not be available until the case is resolved and the report is prepared.

 

[FatAlan]

Anyone know if the pub was a freehold or if the landlord was tied to a brewery chain and being dangled by the goulies for every penny?

 

[Mike Johnson]

According to the newspapers he bought the PH for £900,000 so presumably freehold.

 

[Myles Evans]

Parents of electrocuted boy, 7, sob in court watching CCTV of his final moments

THE parents of a little boy killed by an electric shock as he played in a pub garden sobbed in court today as they watched CCTV of his final moments. Harvey Tyrrell, seven, suffered a massive shock…

www.thesun.co.uk

Not sure if this has been posted before but it just goes to show that eventually someone does get hurt. We’ve all seen loads of jobs where we wonder how it didn’t kill someone.

The terminology in the article is bad, but reading between the lines it sounds like no rcd protection and no cpc at class 1 outside lights. Probably poorly fitted too no doubt. By an ‘electrician’ with 50 years experience! He should really be facing jail time imo.

It doesn’t surprise me that it was a pub. Most of them are death traps from what I’ve seen.

Interesting take on it in this YouTube video by DSES, with lots of references to articles.

Landlord got done, and the ‘electrician’ getting pulled up by HSE on other matters as he was acquitted of the manslaughter.
DSES talk

 

[pc1966]

Seems like the pub owner has been jailed for 9 years, and the "electrician" for one:

Harvey Tyrrell death: Pub owner jailed over boy's electrocution death

Seven-year-old Harvey Tyrrell was found unresponsive by a friend outside the King Harold pub in 2018.

www.bbc.com

 

[Dartlec]

Also some info here

Men sent to prison over death of schoolboy Harvey Tyrrell

A pub landlord and an electrician have both been jailed following the death of seven-year-old Harvey Tyrrell at a Harold Wood pub.

www.romfordrecorder.co.uk

Clearly no good outcome from something like this, but perhaps the sentence will make some pub (and house) landlords think a little bit as well as some handymen who dabble with electrics.

Hopefully in due course a full report might be published which goes into the forensic detail of what went wrong and where...

 

[James]

Naylor denied any wrongdoing and told police in an interview that he was an electrician with 50 years' experience and believed his work to be "first class".

Just because we have been doing it for years, doesn't mean we are any good at it!!

I personally enjoy working with other sparks on some jobs because it gives an impartial view about your own work and working practices.

Although nobody to date has managed to tell me and back it up, that the work i am doing is wrong or dangerous, a handful of people over the years have picked me up on a point here or there and shown me a better way of doing it.
the people that have managed to do this are people who i hold in high respect.

but the case should remind us all that what we do for a living can and will land us in jail if we don't do it correctly.

Rest in Peace, Harvey

 

[pc1966]

Naylor denied any wrongdoing and told police in an interview that he was an electrician with 50 years' experience and believed his work to be "first class".

Just because we have been doing it for years, doesn't mean we are any good at it!!

That guy's view is either hubris or an attempt to pretend he did not realise the situation the pub's electrics were in.

I have little sympathy for him, but can't comment in any detail until I can see some of the technical details of the evidence prepared for the trial.

 

[Lister1987]

I just hope this leads to EAWR getting a much needed overhaul.

 

[Dartlec]

That guy's view is either hubris or an attempt to pretend he did not realise the situation the pub's electrics were in.

I have little sympathy for him, but can't comment in any detail until I can see some of the technical details of the evidence prepared for the trial.

He lost any possible sympathy when he claimed that "it was the responsibility of the National Inspection Council to test any work (organised by the pub management)"

 

[pc1966]

One aspect I don't understand, but it might come down to some legal details, is this summary of the "electrician"'s conviction:

Naylor was unanimously acquitted of manslaughter by gross negligence by a jury in February but found guilty of a breach of the Health and Safety Work Act.

It was found that Naylor, 74, had failed to 'take reasonable care to limit the risk or prevent the danger of serious injury or death' in how he had installed the garden lights.

Judge Zeidman said the evidence presented drove the conclusion that Naylor was "aware of the risk of death but chose to turn a blind eye to it".

While it is blatently obvious that he failed in his professional and moral duty to install and test that the lights were safe, I can't grasp why he was unanimously cleared of manslaughter but (as we expected/hoped) convicted of failing to comply with the Health & Safety Act.

 

[Lister1987]

One aspect I don't understand, but it might come down to some legal details, is this summary of the "electrician"'s conviction:

Naylor was unanimously acquitted of manslaughter by gross negligence by a jury in February but found guilty of a breach of the Health and Safety Work Act.

It was found that Naylor, 74, had failed to 'take reasonable care to limit the risk or prevent the danger of serious injury or death' in how he had installed the garden lights.

Judge Zeidman said the evidence presented drove the conclusion that Naylor was "aware of the risk of death but chose to turn a blind eye to it".

While it is blatently obvious that he failed in his professional and moral duty to install and test that the lights were safe, I can't grasp why he was unanimously cleared of manslaughter but (as we expected/hoped) convicted of failing to comply with the Health & Safety Act.

Possibly due to the manslaughter charge couldn't be reasonably applied. Manslaughter being the killing of a person when it was not the killers intention, in this case there was no proving that the intent to inadvertently kill (or cause death) was present, the argument being that Naylor couldn't have known (for unstated reasons) that his actions would ultimately result in a death.

 

[Dartlec]

One aspect I don't understand, but it might come down to some legal details, is this summary of the "electrician"'s conviction:

Naylor was unanimously acquitted of manslaughter by gross negligence by a jury in February but found guilty of a breach of the Health and Safety Work Act.

It was found that Naylor, 74, had failed to 'take reasonable care to limit the risk or prevent the danger of serious injury or death' in how he had installed the garden lights.

Judge Zeidman said the evidence presented drove the conclusion that Naylor was "aware of the risk of death but chose to turn a blind eye to it".

While it is blatently obvious that he failed in his professional and moral duty to install and test that the lights were safe, I can't grasp why he was unanimously cleared of manslaughter but (as we expected/hoped) convicted of failing to comply with the Health & Safety Act.

I imagine it came down to a legal definition of a clear enough connection - similar to how some people kill with cars yet don't meet the dangerous driving standard...

With an emotional case like this, if he was unanimously cleared then I suspect they were guided by the judge that legally they couldn't unless they could be sure of (something above the evidence provided).

 

[Dartlec]

Naylor denied any wrongdoing and told police in an interview that he was an electrician with 50 years' experience and believed his work to be "first class".

Just because we have been doing it for years, doesn't mean we are any good at it!!

I personally enjoy working with other sparks on some jobs because it gives an impartial view about your own work and working practices.

Although nobody to date has managed to tell me and back it up, that the work i am doing is wrong or dangerous, a handful of people over the years have picked me up on a point here or there and shown me a better way of doing it.
the people that have managed to do this are people who i hold in high respect.

but the case should remind us all that what we do for a living can and will land us in jail if we don't do it correctly.

Rest in Peace, Harvey

Outside of advertisements I'd wonder about anyone who said their work was "first class". I know my work is safe, but also know there are always things that could be done "better" with more time, better equipment, etc.

Knowing that you can always improve and learn from others (in person or online) and never losing the ability to question yourself is key to treating even the smallest job with the respect it deserves when what you do can kill someone.

 

[Julie.]

While it is blatently obvious that he failed in his professional and moral duty to install and test that the lights were safe, I can't grasp why he was unanimously cleared of manslaughter but (as we expected/hoped) convicted of failing to comply with the Health & Safety Act.

We don't know the exact details of course, but it was my understanding that he did a first fix for the lights, but didn't return for final connections - this being done by someone else (landlord?) Hence he couldn't actually be directly responsible in the death, but could be in the general dereliction of duty of care.