header-logo header-logo

31 May 2023
Issue: 8027 / Categories: Legal News , Health & safety , Employment , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Serco failed to protect court officers

Security firm Serco has been fined £2.25m and ordered to pay £433,596 in costs at the Old Bailey for health and safety failings following the death of custody officer Lorraine Barwell.

The deceased, who had worked for Serco for ten years, died from brain injuries after being kicked in the head at Blackfriars Crown Court in 2015 during the restraint of a prisoner in custody.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Serco had failed to properly analyse risk intelligence on prisoners and communicate risks and safety precautions to staff. There was a failure to have sufficient procedures in place and follow them, to provide readily accessible protective equipment, and to ensure further training was provided where identified as required.

The HSE also highlighted a continued failure to adequately staff court activities, manage working hours, assess risks of violence and aggression, communicate critical safety information, have suitable procedures in place, and to work in accordance with those procedures covering a period of over three years. Time pressures, staffing levels and business priorities had led to routine violations of procedures by staff in order to get the job done, which had gone unchallenged. This is despite such failings being brought to their attentions by HM Prisons Inspectorate, the Ministry of Justice, HSE Inspectors and Serco’s own staff.

A separate incident occurred at Woolwich Court annex in 2016, during which a member of staff was rammed against a wall and strangled. Help was delayed as there were no staff manning the annex to respond to the alarm button—there should have been 32 Serco officers at court that day, but there were only 22. 

HSE inspector Helen Donnelly said: ‘Serco drastically failed in their duties to protect both Lorraine Barwell and other staff over a sustained period. Had Serco carried out their legal duties, these incidents could have been prevented.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll