Health & Safety Duties in Focus: R v Prest and Prest

In the recent case of R v Prest and Prest, proceedings were brought against Mr and Mrs Prest (the defendants) following the tragic death of Mr Marsden, a gardener they had contracted to undertake herbicide spraying on the defendants’ estate in Monmouthshire. Mr Marsden died after being crushed by a quad bike, fixed with a spray tank, when operating the vehicle. 

Mr and Mrs Prest were ultimately acquitted by a jury.

The key issues: 

The Defendants were charged under sections 3 and 4 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (“HSWA”). 

Section 3 of HSWA imposes a duty on employers to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that those who are not necessarily employees, such as members of the public or those who are self-employed, are not exposed to risks to their health and safety whilst at work.

Section 4 of HSWA imposes a duty on any person in control of non-domestic premises, regardless of whether they are an employer, to ensure that equipment made available for use on the premises are safe so far as is reasonably practicable.

Prosecutions under these provisions often turn on the circumstances surrounding the case. For example, identifying which steps were reasonably practicable for the defendants to take in the circumstances, and whether these steps, or lack thereof, contributed to the risk or occurrence of harm.

There appear to have been two crucial questions before the jury:

1. Was Mr Marsden’s work within the “undertaking” of the Prests?
2. Had the Prests done what was reasonably practicable?

Mr and Mrs Prest ran a business together on a farm under a partnership with one employee. Unusually, the prosecution prosecuted them personally as Partners of the business rather than prosecuting the business partnership itself but argued that Mr Marsden’s work formed part of the Prests’ business undertaking, and therefore this created a duty under sections 3 and 4 of HSWA. However, the defence argued that Mr Marsden’s work was concerned with the domestic premises and did not fall within their business undertaking.  

If Mr Marsden’s work did fall within Mr and Mrs Prest’s undertaking, the defence argued that Mr and Mrs Prest had done everything reasonably practicable to make sure Mr Marsden was protected from risks arising from Mr and Mrs Prest’s undertaking. However, the prosecution argued that Mr and Mrs Prest had failed to discharge their duties under HSWA, for example, in failing to provide Mr Marsden with personal protective equipment (PPE) and adequate training to operate the quad bike. 

What are the implications?

This case serves as a reminder that (a) in certain circumstances, individuals face the risk of prosecution following workplace accidents even where there is scope to prosecute another defendant and (b) successfully prosecuting certain offences under HSWA, which are not strict liability, can be challenging in factually complex scenarios, especially where the victim of a fatal incident does not necessarily have a clear relationship with an owner or occupier, and where it is not necessarily clear if their work falls within a domestic or business context. 

This case demonstrates the importance of (a) legal representation for corporate and individual suspects and defendants facing regulatory investigations and enforcement, and (b) the need for a robust approach to health and safety compliance, such as careful assessment of risk, and clear communication with all those working on the premises to understand the risks they face. 

This article was written by Ben Davies and Thomas Hubbard. 

If you want to know more about our services, please contact Charlotte Whitaker, Ben Davies, Thomas Hubbard or a member of our health and safety team.  

‘An outstanding team boasting huge experience across the whole range of criminal regulatory, inquest, and inquiry work. The team combines superb strategic and tactical sense with attention to detail and superb client care. The team has built on its unrivalled expertise in the transport sector.’ Legal 500 2026