Statement by staff
at SAFARI ZOO
It is of
concern to the staff and specifically those involved in the Keeping of Big Cats
at the zoo that the clarity of detail regarding the actual situation that
occurred on 24th May 2013 and the subsequent Court proceedings are not being
presented fairly or with the correct facts in relation to the actual events
leading up to the tragic death of Sarah McClay. If the Zoo world as a whole is
to learn anything from this incident the true facts as presented to a Jury at
the Inquest need to be reiterated and reminded to those concerned and the
visiting public. We shall not learn if the truth is hidden or avoided.
The
Company pleaded guilty to failing to have in place a pro active maintenance
regime that involved regular checking of the Tiger house facility by a
maintenance person as the company had relied for 18 years with approval of the
Local and National authorities on a reactive approach relying on Keeper staff
to report any issues for action. It is suggested a proactive approach may
pre empt an issue occurring. The company accepted this situation. There
is now a pro active regime and has been for a long while now. However only 4
days before the accident the Barrow Borough Council Health and Safety Officer
and DEFRA Zoo Inspectors passed the Risk Assessments as adequate for purpose
and the maintenance regime as accepted. We always felt we had approval of
our practices but we have found that because “experts” say they are good does
not mean in the eyes of a Court they are. The company did not plead guilty to
having a faulty door or mechanism. nor did it accept that the mechanism was
there to protect staff or could be relied upon for safety.
We wish
to make very clear that self closing mechanisms were only on the tiger house
doors and not on any other big cat house doors and only on the Tigers as a
quarantine requirement and certainly not as
a safety mechanism. It was
very clear from all documentation presented both to the Inquest and the Court
that there was a clear defined and signed for protocol for operations of doors
within the Tiger house. The training of staff was commended and clearly
well documented.
We wish
to make clear that ALL staff working with any dangerous animal would never rely on a self closing mechanism to
provide safety or protection from a Big Cat. Even when a door is
closed with a self closer it is not secured nor safe in any way. A tiger could
open that door easily if not locked by padlock and bolts and we shall never
know whether the door was left wide open or it was simply just not bolted and
locked . But it SHOULD have been locked .
The zoo
had a very clear safety protocol for the safe operations this defined the
working practice “when leaving a tiger den
the door MUST be closed, the two bolts fastened and the padlock inserted and
securely locked before leaving or before any other action. This is
the key issue that there is no provision in
the procedures to allow any door to just self close and be deemed safe or
effective in preventing tiger escapes it absolutely MUST be bolted and locked.
It is
abundantly clear from all witness evidence that in this tragic instance
Sarah was working in the “dark den” cleaning and then left the den with Emma
Els who then left the Tiger house completely. .
What
happened next is that Sarah went to the “light den “ and cleaned that den
. Sarah left the “light den” then, without checking all doors and locks for absolute security as written in
the operating procedures , she inexplicably decided to open the slide to the
outside enclosure by using a key to unlock a padlock and then opening the
steel plate slide allowing the tigers access into the “light den” of the tiger
house.
The next decision was to decide to open the steel
plate slide to the “dark den” by once again using a key to open a padlock then
pulling the slide to allow the tigers into the “dark den” .
Critically this was the third error in sequence that
sadly allowed the tiger access to the Keeper corridor.
The door was not securely locked and padlocked, the
slide was opened and the second slide opened.
If Sarah had not done any one of these three actions
the Tiger could not have accessed her in the corridor. It was a tragic
set of errors to make but there were many safeguards and opportunities to
prevent that tragedy and the failure to physically close , bolt and lock the
door as is clearly written and directed in all training and procedure was the
last defence and certainly not a self closer that was not there for any safety
reason .
The
assumption that a working self closer may have prevented this tragedy has been
made. However as stated earlier never would a big cat keeper ever suggest that
a working self closer alone provided any protection from a Big cat inside the
den. It was never proven that the door was left fully open or the self closer
did not in fact work or the door closed as far as the spring bolt possibly left
out by Sarah. There is no agreed protocol that any bolt should be used in this
manner.
Serious
errors of judgement or simple mistakes or failures to follow safe
practice is the cause of many a tragic outcome in all areas of life and not
least on our roads. We are not aiming to blame or cause issue here but
the public need to be aware that we do have very robust, clear and well versed
safety working practices that when adhered to are safe and effective.
It is
therefor difficult for the Zoo , its staff and all here who strive for safety
in all areas to accept any suggestion that Zoo was primarily responsible for
Sarah’s death as all protocols and protections were in place and there should
never be an acceptance or reliance on any self closing mechanism when safety is
paramount. Indeed the Court made that clear that the door mechanism was not the
primary cause but Courts are directed not to blame victims so that was never
going to be stated.
The
mechanism that is only suggested may have not worked correctly on that
day is an assistance to close a door and
certainly not a safety tool . The
Door should have been securely closed, bolted with two bolts and then a padlock
fastened closed before any further activity or opening of doors or
slides.
We
deeply regret the accident that occurred and do not wish to lay blame on anyone
for this awful outcome , but as the zoo is the victim of clear
misrepresentation of facts in the media as to the cause of this accident we
feel it right to protect the staff concerned and working with the Big cats
today by clarifying the very strong safety regime that has always been in force
in any Big Cat house at this zoo.
Secondly,
the plea of guilty to the charge that the risk assessment for the
use of the entrance door to the tiger house in an emergency was not sufficient
to prevent the public being at potential risk was made based on hindsight
and with the knowledge that there was a minimum of 14 DEFRA Inspections and
many other Barrow Borough Council officer inspections of the tiger house and
its means of entry and exit . On no occasion in 18 years of inspections did any
one suggest that our risk assessments or protocols were potentially
dangerous. In fact 4 days before the accident the Tiger House and its
risk assessments were examined by DEFRA and Barrow Council officials and given
clear approval. It is therefor of great concern not just to this company but it
must be to all zoos in the UK that the HSE guidelines we complied with in
full and the Defra Inspections failed to warn us or see the risk along
with this company the potential dangers from an escaped Tiger/big cat into the
keeper corridor and the resulting inability to access the area without opening
the door thus potentially placing public at risk. We have subsequently in
2014 changed this design to incorporate all the features required to satisfy
the safety of the public , however there are many zoos in the UK that still
work to the HSE guidelines and do not have doors that provide the safety
aspects that were highlighted in this case. so whilst the company pleaded
guilty it was working on the assumption that so many experts and Council
officials must be right and this was clearly not the case. At no time in
any of these events was there a tiger in that corridor when the door was opened
and never was the public placed in that risk. However it is accepted that the
risk did potentially exist and we acknowledge that issue fully but no
inspection ever saw that issue in 18 years.
Risk
Assessment is a difficult area of working practices in business and knowing it
is correct or fit for purpose relies on others to give an opinion. There is no
set standard and clearly the missing out of the word “Door” from our
assessments and protocols by just saying “Slides and locks” was a very
expensive error to make. the changes made are simply to have a person go
into the housing on a regular pattern to sign off the facility as safe to use
as opposed to relying on the keepers them selves to report any maintenance
needs.
The
media criticising the management or the Health and Safety person at the Zoo is
unfair when they had been told they were doing a great job and to the right
standard.
There
are no other safety issues, when the walkways were questioned and the new
standard being applied was deemed to expensive to put in place we immediately
responded in the public interest and demolished them all within weeks.
Our
record of public safety is excellent and we have dedicated staff who are all
very perplexed at how a story can be so twisted to suggest the zoo is
inherently unsafe when at no stage did any one suggest closure, change or any
other order. the Tiger house was deemed as perfectly safe to operate from the
day of the tragedy until over 1 and half years after the event when we modified
certain aspects of the unit during our expansion programme.
The
staff and management at SLSZ Ltd are conscientious and dedicated to providing a
safe work environment and a safe, yet exciting visit to the public.
We hope
you take this as intended, not to defend ourselves at all but to at least
inform the public that what took place was in the control of Sarah and we are
left with the negative publicity and fines.
Sarah s
photo is up in our brew room and we will not forget her, but she would want the
truth and not cries from anyone to close the zoo or claims we were unsafe. she
would want lessons learned and the conservation mission to go from strength to
strength. She was positive not negative and we will always remember her like
that.
Staff of
Safari Zoo.
Animal
Management
SAFARI
ZOO
Safari
Zoo
Dalton
In Furness,
Cumbria,
LA15
8JR.
Tel
Office: 01229 466086 (ext 0)
Curator:
01229 846511
Company
Registered in England No: 3561692
VAT no:
621 3114 96
 |
Peter Dickinson
Independent International Zoo Consultant        |
No comments:
Post a Comment