Hammer attack case: School 'breached contract' (From Swindon Advertiser)

Hammer attack case: School 'breached contract'

4:20pm Saturday 28th November 2009

• Print
• Email
• Share

RIDGEWAY School’s failure to save pupil Henry Webster from the hammer attack that left him brain damaged was tantamount to a breach of contract, London's High Court heard.

The submission was made on the last day of the five-week legal action brought by 18-year-old Henry against the Wroughton foundation school.

Mr Webster’s QC Robert Glancy said that while the pupil’s relationship with the school was not defined by contract the school’s own security policy pledged to protect him as a pupil – a pledge it failed to uphold.

“It was akin to a contract. This is what Henry's school said they would do, protect him while he was on the premises.”

Henry is fighting for £1million compensation for the attack by the schools self-named ‘Asian invasion’ gang in January 2007.

Henry suffered a fractured skull when he was beaten to the ground with a claw hammer by an intruder summoned to the school's tennis court by a pupil.

During his own evidence at the start of the hearing, Henry said he had anticipated a one-on-one fight after he had clashed with an Asian teenager earlier that day.

Making his final submissions to Lord Justice Nicol, Mr Glancy said: “Our submission is the school is responsible for the access of the adults as being the very thing their security policy said itself could happen if reasonable and proper protection was not taken.”

The school, in Inverary Road, denies all blame for the attack, saying it took place after school hours and that, short of stopping and searching every visitor to the site, nothing could have been done to prevent it.

Reading from the school’s security policy, Mr Glancy said: “Duties by staff are undertaken during breaks and at the start and end of the school day at the perimeter areas of the school to safeguard the school from intruders.

“You’ll see My Lord, under ‘Protection of Pupils and Staff’ it says: ‘The school takes all reasonable steps to minimise any security risk to pupils and staff.’ He went on: “As stated in the Health, Safety and Welfare Policy, all health and safety issues are regularly monitored.

“There is a system of extensive duties at breaks and lunchtimes which includes monitoring the perimeter for intruders. At the end of the day staff are placed by all the exits.”

Mr Glancy said the school had failed its compliance with the policy.

“There are four,” he said. “Student behaviour/discipline, the failure (by the school) to deal with racism, the failure to provide proper security and the failure to supervise the north end of the site.”

Answering the claimants’ submissions, QC Ronald Walker said the school could not have possibly predicted the attack, nor that the attacker, who was unknown to the school, would arrive to carry it out.

“I don’t accept there was a real and imminent risk of harm until the moment the man with the hammer turned up,” he said.

Mr Justice Nicol thanked all parties in the case, adding that he would reserve his decision on the claim.

• Print
• Email
• Share