A MAN who was crushed to death by a quadbike while working on a £2.5 million estate wasn’t given proper training by his bosses, a court heard.
Former defence chief Nicholas Prest, 71, and his wife Anthea, 70, deny being responsible for the death of their employee.
Nicholas Prest, 71, and his wife Anthea, 70, denied being to blame for the death of a groundsman at their luxury country house[/caption]
Former Defence chief Nicholas Prest and his wife are accused of failing to provide PPE and training to Mr Marsden[/caption]
The groundsman was tragically killed at the couple’s 15 acre countryside estate in Monmouthsire, Wales, in 2020.
Paul Marsden failed to return to the estate for his lunch while working one day, prompting colleagues to go out looking for him, tragically he was found under the quad.
Paul had been ordered to use the quadbike by his bosses, despite not having the training to operate the off-road vehicle, a court was told.
An inquest previously heard a post mortem examination revealed he had died of asphyxia.
The defendants do not face charges of manslaughter.
Mr Prest, a former Ministry of Defence official and his wife, a mother-of-three, are accused of failing to check if workers had protective equipment and if the quad bike was safe to use.
The inquest into Paul’s tragic death heard that his employers failed to do what an employer “would and should have done” to prevent the awful incident.
This included not providing employees with adequate training and PPE.
Newport Crown Court heard from prosecutor James Puzey who explained that by law, Mr and Mrs Prest “had a legal responsibility to ensure that the workers on their land were safe.”
He went on to state that under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, it was the couple’s duty to ensure all health and safety measures were taken before any work was carried out.
The prosecution argued that Paul’s two employers were equally responsible for ensuring a safe workplace.
Paul had worked for the pair on Thursdays and Fridays every week since 2013.
Keith Morton KC, defending, said the couple did not have a legal obligation for Paul’s health and safety as he was a self-employed grounds contractor.
Paul, the defence argued, was working for the couple privately in a domestic capacity at Pilston House, which has nothing to do with their partner business.
Mr Marsden was carrying out work for the couple, who live in a £2.5million mansion, when he died[/caption]
Anthea, 70, and her husband claim they were not responsible for Mr Marsden’s safety as he was self-employed[/caption]
The defence case states that Paul was working at his own risk.
However the prosecution said it was “obvious” that the groundsman was working for the couple’s agricultural company when he died.
Paul was working in fields surrounding the couple’s house, that were not owned by them, when he was crushed by the vehicle.
The court was told that in 2020, the Prests rented the 42.6 acres of farmland where Paul was found for £27,500 per term.
The land was rented from Mr Charles Hopkinson with one of the tenancy conditions stating that it would be used for business purposes.
Prosecutors told the court that because the land was rented for the couple’s business it was obvious that the groundsman’s work their was being carried out under their employment.
It was heard that HSE concluded “that the use of the quadbike was seriously unsafe, and that no suitable safety precautions were taken beforehand.”
The quad was being used to tow a tank of herbicide which, it was claimed, wasn’t checked to ensure it was a safe weight for the terrain.
It was also heard that Paul did not have the proper training or PPE provided to operate the vehicle.
The land the groundsman was driving on was described as “relatively steep, with uneven and rough ground conditions.”
After Paul’s death, Mr and Mrs Prest arranged further training for their employees, the court was told.
Prosecuting, Mr Puzey said: “There were a series of factors here that would have increased the risk of an accident such as this happening.
“Mr and Mrs Prest would have and should have done something to control that risk.”
The trial continues.
The couple pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against them[/caption]
