Farmhand manslaughter trial latest

Bristol teenager Lee Mason lost his life operating an unguarded farm machine in a job without proper safety back-up, a court heard.

Philip Mott, QC, prosecuting, said evidence pointed to someone - not Lee - removing a safety guard from a soil-sifting device in which he became snagged and was pulled against, crushing his neck.

He told Bristol Crown Court Roy and Michael Hill, of R E Hill and Son in Dundry, were responsible for keeping 17-year-old Lee safe, and they failed.

Farm owner Roy Hill, 56, and his son Michael, 32, both deny manslaughter by gross negligence.

They also deny breaching health and safety rules but Roy Hill had admitted a separate health and safety charge in employing Lee without carrying out a risk assessment.

Mr Mott, closing his case to the jury, said seven-and-a-half stone Lee would not have been physically or practically able to remove the five-and-a-half stone safety guard, and evidence suggested someone else had left it off when he was working the machine alone.

He said there was no evidence Lee was greasing the contraption and no evidence he was adjusting the tracking of its conveyor belt, which had previously been a problem.

Mr Mott said evidence suggested there was a lack of thought, training and supervision at the farm.

He said: "The allegation is the Hills created and maintained the environment where risks existed and flourished and committed dangerous practices to develop unchecked.

"It's no good for them blaming employees who make mistakes."

Peter Blair, QC, defending Roy Hill, reminded the jury Lee had been described as a "good little worker" and witnesses said he was improving in his job.

Mr Blair said his client denied permitting Lee to operate the machine unguarded, denied failing to check the machine, and he didn't accept Lee wasn't trained to use it, having been supervised in the past.

Mr Blair added that Lee working on the machine alone wasn't a breach of care by his employers.

Paul Garlick, QC, defending Michael Hill, said there was no evidence his client allowed Lee to operate the machine with the guard removed or not fixed in place.

He told the court that a failure to check the machine did not amount to manslaughter and his client had made it clear that safety guards were important and the machine should not be operated without them.

Mr Garlick also said that Lee working unsupervised did not amount to a breach of duty regarding his care.

He said evidence existed which suggested someone else had operated the machine unguarded in the past and they should have noticed that the guard was missing when Lee worked that machine on the day of the accident.

The judge is due to sum up the case on Thursday, before the jury retires to consider its verdict.

The case continues at Bristol Crown Court.