Hydroactive Outdoor Pursuits were fined £6,000 and incurred £15,000 in legal costs after the HSE prosecuted them for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act

The prosecution by the HSE at Luton Crown Court was pursued following the death of Janet Reed, a PADI open water student, at Stoney Cove in March 2001.

The inquest into Mrs Reed's death in November 2001 heard that she had panicked in shallow water, struggling free from a rescuing diver and losing her regulator. Leicester coroner Martin Symington instructed the jury at the time that there were no grounds for a verdict of death by neglect or lack of care and a verdict of death by misadventure was returned.

The dive centre believed that the evidence presented at the inquest together with the coroner's comments showed that they had not caused the death.

A statement made to Divernet by HSE reveals that they hold a different view of events.
"In fact the Coroner is specifically prevented from apportioning blame or liability to named individuals during an inquest. Therefore at the inquest hearing in November 2001, the Coroner was not permitted to frame the verdict in such a way as to appear to determine any question of criminal or civil liability."

The HSE investigation found that Craig Mainprize and Ian Wilson, the partners at Hydroactive Pursuits had failed to comply with their duty under Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act
Section 3 General duties of employers and self employed to persons other than their employees.
It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health and safety.

HSE issued this statement:
"As part of the investigation process into the death of Janet Reed, Hydroactive Outdoor Pursuits were issued with an Improvement Notice in April 2001 which set out a number of breaches of the Diving Operations at Work Regulations 1997.
"These were:

There were no Emergency Procedures for each Diving Operation taking place, as is required by Regulation 6.
"Hydroactive Outdoor Pursuits accepted the requirements of the Improvement Notice and produced documentation and systems to comply with the Improvement Notice and therefore remedy the breaches of the Diving Regulations by the due date."

Mainprize and Wilson pleaded guilty to the breaches, while maintaining that these points had in no way contributed to Mrs Reed's death. "We had these things in place but they were not presented in a format that the HSE recognises," explained Mainprize. "We are not satisfied with the result and the case is with our lawyers, who are considering an appeal." The two men were particularly angry about HSE action being taken after believing that they had been exonerated of blame at the inquest.

The case is the latest in a number of prosecutions where dive centres believed that they were complying with the spirit and substance of the regulations.

"HSE is extremely keen to ensure that, where recreational divers are being taught to dive, these operations are run properly and safely. This case highlights the need to properly plan and manage dives in accordance with the Regulations to ensure the safety of all those involved. An approved code of practice and guidance exists under the Regulations and is available from HSE. Additionally our diving inspectors are always happy to advise on the management of health and safety aspects of recreational dives." HSE inspector Gordon Clark told Divernet.

Related pages
Confusion over safety standards
HSE expectations for divers under instruction
HSE website

News Index Page