An affront to the public conscience
7th Jul 2025
On 4th July 2025 HHJ Hurst at Cambridge Crown Court ruled that the prosecution of Claydon Horse Exercisers Limited, represented by Mark Balysz KC, was “an affront to the public conscience” and stayed the proceedings for an abuse of process. On 7th July the prosecution notified the Court that it would not be appealing. In 1996 and 1999 HSE inspectors, on the invitation of the defendant’s directors, inspected a horse walker to advise them as to whether the machine was safe. Comprehensive advice was given as to additional safety measures required and the HSE inspectors made it “crystal clear”, according to unchallenged evidence, that the machine was otherwise safe. The HSE inspectors did not advise that an interlock on the entrance gate was required. In 2021 a person working at a racing yard was tragically killed in the same model of horse walker. This was the only incident of its kind involving any horse walker and there had never previously been a near miss. The HSE alleged breaches of ss.3 and 6 of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974, on the basis that the machine should have had an inter-lock. The defendant would have argued at trial, listed for three weeks September 2025, that this would not be reasonably practicable.
HHJ Hurst ruled “The question can reasonably be asked of a duty holder as to what is the point in getting an unequivocal assurance – in other words a form of guarantee – from HSE, the public regulator and prosecutor, if by caprice or fate, something wholly unforeseen arises that means the guarantor suddenly turns prosecutor? Public confidence does require public confidence in the expertise and consistency of advisory bodies, and also that caprice or inconsistency is not to be alive and well lurking just below the surface. If Institutions are unpredictable and/or self-serving, then confidence and respect will soon ebb away. To be fair to HSE, its own Guidance must in effect recognise that.
In my judgement therefore the public interest is served in the context of this case by holding the HSE to its 1996, 1999 (and 2000) representations, and finding that this is indeed one of those very rare cases where the public interest is positively served by a stay in proceedings.
[The defendant director] concludes his witness statement with a heartfelt sense of being led astray and badly let down by HSE, considering HSE complicit in all that tragically followed. I make it clear that this understandable view has not remotely influenced my analysis or judgement in this case. However, I do consider, having reached the judgment that I have, that [the director] very clearly articulates the anger and disbelief of those who have trusted a Government agency in good faith, should find they are now being prosecuted, when all they did was seek advice in good faith, act upon that advice, and maintained that standard for many years whilst nothing changed.
I hereby order a stay of this prosecution.”
Mark Balysz KC was instructed by Mark Thompson and Catherine O’Rourke at DWF.
