Recurring concern

Inadequate protective equipment requirements for hunting-event participants

First to latest report 27 Oct 2015 — 25 May 2017

Reports that mention this concern
2
Times this concern has been raised
2
Stated actions linked to this concern
3

What this concern includes

Includes failures in the dedicated hunting-event safety regime to require, specify or enforce suitable protective equipment for participants, including child participants and members of the public, and requirements for compliant protective headgear or other PPE.

What is not included
  • Excludes PPE requirements for hunt staff, employees or workers where the assertion does not also concern participants in hunting events.
  • Excludes protective-equipment requirements for motocross, ice hockey, contact sports or other activities unless the assertion explicitly concerns the same hunting-event PPE regime.
  • Excludes failures in providing, maintaining or using PPE after an adequate hunting-event requirement has been established, unless the assertion also concerns the requirement itself.
  • Excludes generic hunting-event safeguarding, competence, supervision or welfare deficiencies where protective-equipment requirements are not the unsafe condition.

Reports and published responses 2 reports

See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response

  1. Gloucestershire

    AI-generated summary

    Bonamie Elena Miriam Armitage · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Bonamie Elena Miriam Armitage, a 9-year-old girl, died after being struck in the chest by a kick from a larger horse during a hunt on 2 April 2016. The report raised concerns about the lack of mandatory requirements for children’s protective equipment, demonstrated competence, and adult supervision ratios during hunts.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a mandatory personal protective equipment requirement for child Hunt participants

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) There is no mandatory requirement that all child participants in a Hunt are required to wear personal protective equipment, (2) There is no mandatory requirement that all child participants in a Hunt are required to demonstrate an established level of competence before participating in a Hunt. (3) There is no mandatory requirement that children are supervised by adult riders when participating in a Hunt, and no ratio of adult supervisors to child riders is stipulated. ”

    Source location

    Bonamie Elena Miriam Armitage · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Issue guidance on headgear relevant to Hunt staff and followers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “MFHA Guidance The MFHA has issued guidance in the past relating to health and safety of Hunt staff, but has never sought to regulate hunting by way of guidance to those who subscribe to Hunts or who ride with Hunts as guests. The MFHA maintains no records of Hunt followers and has no rules about the way in which they conduct themselves. We have in the past issued guidance on such matters as headgear, which is relevant both to Hunt staff and to followers. This organisation has no power to compel individuals to follow that guidance, nor to enforce any steps that we might recommend.”

    Source location

    2017-0170-Response-by-MFH-Association
    Page 2 · response
    Published 31 August 2017

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The Association has no authority over hunts outside its membership, including unregistered hunts and hunts governed by other associations.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “You have determined in paragraph 6 of that Report that in your opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and that my organisation has the power to take such action. You should be aware that the powers of the MFHA are limited. Whilst we as an organisation regulate hunting there are many Hunts that are outside any jurisdiction that we might have. By way of example, the MFHA does not regulate Hunts that operate through the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles, under the Masters of Deerhounds Association and the Masters of Drag hounds and Bloodhounds Association. In addition, there are a number of unregistered Hunts with which the MFHA has no contact.”

    Source location

    2017-0170-Response-by-MFH-Association
    Page 1 · response
    Published 31 August 2017

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The Association cannot compel individuals or hunts to follow safety guidance or enforce recommended safety measures.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Rules set out above show that the MFHA has wide powers to adopt, instigate and enact new Rules. Proposed new Rules are discussed by the Committee at its regular meetings and, if agreed, are then put to the next Annual General Meeting for the members to approve or otherwise. However, the Committee is unlikely to recommend Rules that it believes would not be widely accepted and adhered to by members and the wider hunting community and in these circumstances the voluntary nature of hunting lends itself better to the issuance of Guidance Notes. The Association cannot compel members to follow any guidance issued.”

    Source location

    2017-0170-Response-by-MFH-Association
    Page 2 · response
    Published 31 August 2017

    Open published response

  2. Avon

    AI-generated summary

    Ms. Scarlett Jukes · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Ms. Scarlett Jukes was thrown from a horse during a trail hunting event after the horse lost its footing, and her head struck the road after her riding hat came off. She suffered a severe traumatic head injury, underwent surgery, and died in hospital on 14 February 2015. The principal concerns were that participants and hunt staff were not required to wear protective headgear complying with recognised safety standards, and that hunt staff could choose to wear non-compliant traditional hunt caps.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to require compliant protective headgear for public participants in hunting events

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Members of the public who participate in such- hunting events (i.e.'subscribers') are not required to wear protective head gear which complies with any relevant safety standards. ”

    Source location

    Ms. Scarlett Jukes · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Conduct a full review of hats and safety for professional staff and followers, including evidence gathering, expert crash testing and consultation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The MFHA has already initiated a full review of the hats currently used for hunting, both for professional Hunt staff and Hunt followers, and to help inform the review has already instigated a further detailed evidence gathering exercise amongst Hunts and Hunt staff.”

    Source location

    2015-0449-Response
    Page 4 · response
    Published 27 October 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Issue new Guidance Notes addressing hat and safety arrangements for Hunt staff, officials and subscribers, for consideration at the June 2016 AGM.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The review will involve further expert crash testing of all currently available traditional hats, and a wide consultation. It is hoped that the review, and any further work emanating from it, will be available for the MFHA Committee prior to its next meeting. It is clear that it will also be necessary to issue new Guidance Notes, not least because guidance has hitherto not been issued for Officials and Subscribers. The aim is produce this Guidance Note in time for approval at the MFHA AGM in June, 2016.”

    Source location

    2015-0449-Response
    Page 4 · response
    Published 27 October 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Safety advice for Hunt followers has traditionally been a matter for individual Hunts, which the MFHA has no facility to communicate with directly.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Participants in hunting do so in a variety of different ways; on horseback and on foot, by bicycle and by car. The MFHA maintains no records of Hunt followers, has no rules about the way followers should conduct themselves, and it has never before been suggested that it should provide advice or guidance to followers in relation to the manner in which they participate. The Association would not be in a position to do so, which is why traditionally, this has been a matter for individual Hunts. Currently, the MFHA has no facility to communicate with followers directly and, while the Hunts clearly have a duty of care towards their employees, we are advised that they currently have no legal duty of care towards followers.”

    Source location

    2015-0449-Response
    Page 4 · response
    Published 27 October 2015

    Open published response

Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.

Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026