iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Anna Ryder Richardson In Court To Deny Wildlife Park Health And Safety Breaches

PA  |  Posted: 14/05/2012 06:10 Updated: 14/05/2012 06:22   PA

Amazing
 Inspiring
 Funny
 Scary
 Hot
 Crazy
 Important
 Weird
83609481

A TV presenter turned wildlife park owner who denies breaching health and safety at the animal attraction is back before a court on Monday.

Celebrity interior designer Anna Ryder Richardson, 48, is accused of serious breaches which sent a mother and son to hospital.

She appeared with husband Colin MacDougall, 46, at Haverfordwest Magistrates' Court last month where each denied two separate alleged breaches

The couple own and jointly run the Manor House Wildlife Park, in St Florence, near Tenby, west Wales.

Their jointly owned company, Manor House Wildlife Park Ltd, also denies two breaches to health and safety legislation.

Ryder Richardson sobbed silently to herself as details of the case against her were set out during her last court appearance.

Magistrates declined jurisdiction of the case then. They meet today to set a date for the couple's first crown court appearance.

The decision was made after hearing how a heavy branch fell on Gruff Davies-Hughes during strong winds while visiting the park.

The three-year-old spent three days fighting for his life in intensive care after being urgently airlifted to hospital.

PE teacher mother Emma Davies-Hughes, 28, suffered a head injury and fractures to her leg, pelvis, and arm.

The mother and son, from Llanelli, were among dozens of people visiting the attraction's wallaby enclosure in August 2010.

Mother-of-two Ryder Richardson made her name alongside Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen on the BBC's popular makeover show Changing Rooms.

In 2008 she gave up her TV career and bought the dilapidated 52-acre zoo come wildlife park with her husband.

The prosecution is being brought by the public protection division of Pembrokeshire County Council.

The couple are expected to stand trial at Swansea Crown Court last this year.

FOLLOW UK CELEBRITY

A TV presenter turned wildlife park owner who denies breaching health and safety at the animal attraction is back before a court on Monday. Celebrity interior designer Anna Ryder Richardson, 48, is...
A TV presenter turned wildlife park owner who denies breaching health and safety at the animal attraction is back before a court on Monday. Celebrity interior designer Anna Ryder Richardson, 48, is...
Related News On Huffington Post:
 

Filed by Michael Rundle  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 98
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
female54
0 Fans
10:45 PM on 05/14/2012
I DO FEEL FOR ANNA AND I ALSO FEEL FOR THE CHILD AND THE PARENTS.
I AM OBSESSIVE WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO LOOKING FOR HAZARDS BUT SOMETIMES
AN ISOLATED INCIDENT OCCURS FROM OUT OF NOWHERE.I EXPECT THERE IS LOTS OF STRESS FROM BOTH SIDES..KEEP STRONG..
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fozwords
Abandon hope when you post on here
190 Fans
06:06 PM on 05/14/2012
HSE Law is strict and there for a reason, I think a fine will be sufficient, but it is a warning to many people who go blindly into the leisure industry and think its all about taking cash in, there is a lot more too it.
Permalink  |
photo
grannyonline2
9 Fans
05:02 PM on 05/14/2012
While i feel sorry for the poor child who was hit,how on earth can Anna be held responsible for a branch falling off a tree in high winds??. Shes a lovely lady and has done wonders at this zoo, im sure she was devastated that this happened.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fozwords
Abandon hope when you post on here
190 Fans
06:07 PM on 05/14/2012
Because under HSE Law she must assess everything in her park and act accodingly, ie, fence off areas under trees with low/dangerous branches.
Permalink  |
photo
25sammy25
We just wanna be togever !!!!
247 Fans
04:55 PM on 05/14/2012
Pure act of nature. Could happen anywhere, anytime, to any one.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fozwords
Abandon hope when you post on here
190 Fans
06:09 PM on 05/14/2012
And in a country lane nothing would happen, but when you own the land and charge people to come in the onus changes under HSE Law.
Permalink  |
photo
25sammy25
We just wanna be togever !!!!
247 Fans
08:43 PM on 05/14/2012
Thanks for your support.
Permalink  |
MELkay
34 Fans
01:09 PM on 05/14/2012
Is this another 'NO WIN NO FEE' I bet they where contacted by one or more solicitors. waste of tax payers money.
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
neilhwilliams
14 Fans
01:40 PM on 05/14/2012
Aaaaaaarrrrgggghhh. It's a bloody CRIMINAL prosecution. They aren't being sued !! The clue is in the article. Magistrates Court, Crown Court, Prosecution. It's all there.
Permalink  |
majdf18148
I have nothing to declare but my curiosity
248 Fans
03:12 PM on 05/14/2012
You are sadly wasting your time. I don't think half of the posters on the matter have either read the article properly of if they have failed to grasp the crux of it. I have tried below to explaain it further. To no avail. Sympathy for a fairly popular ex TV presenter has blinded many people to the salient facts and history to this case. That sympathy may well dissipate once the whole story emerges. That story might include the instructions that the tree in question was unsafe and needed urgent remedial action before anyone was hurt! We will see!
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fozwords
Abandon hope when you post on here
190 Fans
06:12 PM on 05/14/2012
Well said Neil, so many people cannot read English and want to put their own slant on it, it doesnt matter that she may be a nice person and has done lots to improve the park, there are liabilities, as a business man I have to take out personal and public liability to ensure that I can afford any claims made against me in the course of my work. No one has to date because I take my responsibilities seriously. But it cost me money, which is lost every year.
Permalink  |
itsjusthel
4 Fans
01:00 PM on 05/14/2012
Quote - ""The decision was made after hearing how a heavy branch fell on Gruff Davies-Hughes during strong winds while visiting the park."" Maybe they should sue "Mother Nature" she is the one that caused the branch to fall.
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
neilhwilliams
14 Fans
03:37 PM on 05/14/2012
No one is suing anybody. Read it properly.
Permalink  |
itsjusthel
4 Fans
04:19 PM on 05/14/2012
I DID READ IT PROPERLY. I WAS JUST MAKING A STATEMENT. SO PICK YOUR DUMMY UP OFF THE FLOOR AND STICK IT BACK IN YOUR GOB. this is my personal statement. if you dont like it ""TOUGH""
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fozwords
Abandon hope when you post on here
190 Fans
06:14 PM on 05/14/2012
AGAIN, BECAUSE SHE CHARGES PEOPLE TO ENTER SHE HAS TO ASSESS HER PROPERTY AND HER LIABILITIES AND WHERE NECESSARY PREVENT PEOPLE GOING INTO AREAS OF DANGER REGARDLESS OF IF IT IS WINDY OR NOT.
Permalink  |
mattydragon
10 Fans
07:44 AM on 05/15/2012
The main point in this will be did she know that the tree was dangerous before hand.If she had been warned before by the HSE or even just a tree surgeon that the tree was in need of action then she is guilty.If on the other hand no one knew that the tree was dangerous and in fact it wasnt and that it was the strong wind that caused the tree to collapse makes it an unavoidable accident as it could not be foreseen.Hence she should be found not guilty as it something that could not be foreseen. Oh just to put people of saying I am wrong.This is exactly how the HSE law is written on the HSE rules poster in front of me,OK.
Permalink  |
photo
cbolsover2005
2 Fans
12:56 PM on 05/14/2012
Does this mean that if Anna and her husband go out in windy weather and a council owned tree branch falls on them they can sue the council...? I bet they would get out of it as an "act of God" type incident....This is all about legal people getting money. Its not like the woman and child are sueing.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fozwords
Abandon hope when you post on here
190 Fans
06:15 PM on 05/14/2012
Not if it was a park or a lane where they were not charged for entry, that is an act of god or a force majure.
Permalink  |
ivor bigun
18 Fans
12:42 PM on 05/14/2012
Wasting public money on making a court case over it won't alter the fact that It sounds like a freak sad accident that nobody could have foreseen and maybe could have happened to Anna and her husband themselves.
Permalink  |
DAVROGERS
1 Fans
12:37 PM on 05/14/2012
This was an ACCIDENT, there is a limit, health and safety has and is causing the loss of so much that I used to enjoy as a child in the 50s and 60s, the local council should be ashamed at allowing this ACCIDENT to inflict such heartache on innocent people who are doing their best. What do Anna's insurance company think? would this be an "an act of God" just as if lightening had struck. I feel so sorry for the moher and child but let's face it Accidents happen, I fell out of trees, went scrumping, slipped down embankments, got chased by the gamekeeper with a 12 bore shotgun, nearly drowned, Etc. Etc, did all the things that I shouldn't do, got loads of bruises and scars, this was all part of growing up. I suffered all sorts of accidents and ended up in hospital for stitches and a hidings from my mum, she was my "Health and Safety" advisor not a load of pompous arses sitting round a table in the luxury Council offices ruining so many events and business's. C'mon, lets face it one puff of wind and another branch is going to fall today somewhere, it's just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, chance, luck, fate....living. Anna, we all wish you the very best of luck and ask that you carry on with your wonderfull project and put this behind you as a sad memory and just do your best. Regards, Dave.
Permalink  |
dvsjer
0 Fans
12:30 PM on 05/14/2012
I guess that if there was some pre-notice about the 'risk' of the tree then my previous comments might be unfair..... because obviously it might have been avoided but even so, all trees pose a risk of some kind, as do pavements, puddles, door knobs, milk bottles, lamp posts, I mean where do you draw the line?
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
neilhwilliams
14 Fans
03:39 PM on 05/14/2012
Probably at a broken or diseased tree that the council have warned you about twice I should think
Permalink  |
Kraptonfactor
They're coming to take me away ha ha, hee hee, ho
199 Fans
06:23 PM on 05/14/2012
Don't forget running with scissors!
Permalink  |
photo
curryclan37
19 Fans
12:23 PM on 05/14/2012
How on earth can someone be responsible for the wind breaking a branch,it was an unfortunate accident caused by nature let's hope that the case is thown out by the judge.
Permalink  |
dvsjer
0 Fans
12:22 PM on 05/14/2012
The legal 'profession' is what its all about... some accident or another, so how can we extract a big fat fee? That and a poorly advised & foolhardy council that may well ruin years of hard work.
Then you have the HSE, set up with public money with nothing else to do, advising councils, I know, lets make people accountable for everything we can think of.... ' I know, what about conker trees, they pose a danger to the public, lets fence them off in case someone gets hit by a conker, ooh, and that tree looks a bit dangerous, better chop it down (only 200 years old and never hurt anyone).
I am sorry for the mother and child that got hurt though.
You know when we were kids, we learned by playing, how high to climb before you fell or the branch snapped but you are not even allowed to play now, so how will our children learn? When it is icy you walk more carefully in case you slip, you dont close schools.
Going off the point a bit I know but it is all related, I could go on but I think you know what I mean.....
Hope Anna does not get into trouble for this thats all.
Permalink  |
majdf18148
I have nothing to declare but my curiosity
248 Fans
12:06 PM on 05/14/2012
I am wholly unsurprised in this H&S mad world we currently live in that people are mainly supportive of Anne RR and her husband. BUT, most are missing the point. She faces CRIMINAL prosecution. That means she and her husband, the company they own' are considered to have committed a crime (of omission or negligence) that resulted in serious injury to a mother and child. This isn't some compensation mad person suing to make a fast buck (yet) this is the local council prosecuting a very serious charge that alleges the (in)actions of the owners of the zoo were a major contributory part of the incident that resulted in these people's injuries.We don't know the lead up to this prosecution. According to some press reports I have read the owners were alledgedly ordered to deal with the tree BEFORE the accident occurred. I wonder how other posters would feel were they put in hospital as a result of visiting a place of recreation and having a huge tree limb land on them AND then finding out that particular tree was identified previously to the owners as being in urgent need of remedial action/ Not very happy I surmise.Like I said there is more to this than we know at present. I like Ms Anne RR and wish her well but I am keeping an open mind.
Permalink  |
celticron
4 Fans
11:53 AM on 05/14/2012
How ludicrous to include tree branches in health and safety regulations. I do not know whether or our PC officials have noticed but nature provides numerous hazards which are guarded against by COMMON SENSE not regulation. If we guard against everything which may be hazardous under health and safety rules nobody would leave their own premises and not even move for fear of an accident of some sort. These sort of prosecutions are a breach of common sense and a waste of public money. An accident is an accident and branches DO fall of trees and trees DO get blown over in the wind, we should just live with these possibilities. If this was the case of a neglected man made object causing personal damage fair enough, but an act of nature is just that, an act of nature. It's time we all lived in the real world!!!!
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
neilhwilliams
14 Fans
11:47 AM on 05/14/2012
Why are so many of the comments on here banging on about litigation and suing ? It's a criminal prosecution. Do you not know the difference ?!
Permalink  |
photo
evebang
30 Fans
05:44 AM on 05/15/2012
I doubt they know anything about the law when most posters are illiterate and have their own personal axes to grind. How they must have driven their teachers mad at school. People will insist on making comments on news articles they haven't even read properly, or as you say put their own slant on them. I used to find them amusing. Now I just find it frustrating.
Permalink  |
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)