Festival Republic Limited

Private and voluntary organisations · Private limited company

Pin Request correction

First report 19 Jan 2021•Latest report 21 Aug 2023

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Reports
2

Naming this recipient

Published responses
50%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
5

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
16

Described in responses

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Festival Republic Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. West Yorkshire Eastern

    AI-generated summary

    David Joseph Celino · 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

    David Joseph Celino, aged 16, took tablets sold as an illicit drug at Leeds Festival in August 2022, developed an adverse reaction, and died after being treated at the festival field hospital and in hospital. The concerns included inadequate information about the number of under-18 attendees, the absence of national oversight and reliable data on drug-related casualties at music festivals, insufficient action to deter drug supply, and a failure by festival staff to identify and assist David as his condition deteriorated.

    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. The report was sent to Festival Republic Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of authoritative guidance on permitted front-of-house drug testing

    Wider context from the report

    “(6) Various witnesses raised the issue of “Front of House” drug testing, expressing views as to the benefits and disadvantages of this being permitted. It would help all those involved in the management of events similar to the Leeds Festival to have authoritative guidance on this subject, from the Home Office, along with clarification as to exactly what is permitted. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Festival Republic Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of festival staff and volunteers to proactively identify and assist people showing signs of adverse drug reactions

    Wider context from the report

    “(5) Evidence at the inquest indicated David Celino had walked about the Leeds Festival site between approximately 7pm and 8.45pm on the evening of Saturday 27 August 2022. As the signs of his adverse drug reaction developed, he was unable to walk straight, was pale, sweating profusely and agitated. In the latter stages he needed help from two other 16-year-olds to prevent him falling over. In this period, he passed through at least one check point manned by stewards or security staff. It is likely he encountered other festival staff and/or volunteers in this period also. Lamentably, no staff or volunteers spotted the need to intervene to ask about his well-being or offer assistance. This history suggests further instruction or training for festival staff and volunteers is required as to the need to be proactive, particularly in view of the prevalence of illicit drugs and teenagers. As it was, David Celino’s friends only obtained advice as to his condition from the drug dealer they happened to encounter, who reassured them that his reaction as “normal”. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Festival Republic Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of reliable records of drug-related festival casualties

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) It was said in the course of the evidence that some 4-5 people die annually from illicit drug related causes at the various music festivals held in Britain. It is understood that there is no governing body with oversight of music festivals and hence no record of drug related casualties, which might reveal the extent of the problem. (3) Without reliable numbers, it is not possible to interrogate the data or establish what proportion of the drug related casualties belong to the under 18 cohort of attendees. National oversight would enable comparisons to be made between different festivals and their respective demographics, as well as providing useful information as to the breadth and depth of the drug problem at different events. This in turn is likely to assist in an assessment of the effectiveness of control measures to prevent (or at least restrict) illegal drugs being brought onto festival sites. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Festival Republic Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of governing oversight of music festivals

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) It was said in the course of the evidence that some 4-5 people die annually from illicit drug related causes at the various music festivals held in Britain. It is understood that there is no governing body with oversight of music festivals and hence no record of drug related casualties, which might reveal the extent of the problem. (3) Without reliable numbers, it is not possible to interrogate the data or establish what proportion of the drug related casualties belong to the under 18 cohort of attendees. National oversight would enable comparisons to be made between different festivals and their respective demographics, as well as providing useful information as to the breadth and depth of the drug problem at different events. This in turn is likely to assist in an assessment of the effectiveness of control measures to prevent (or at least restrict) illegal drugs being brought onto festival sites. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Festival Republic Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of accurate information about the number of under-18 festival attendees

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Neither the organiser of the festival (Festival Republic) nor Leeds City Council which licenced the event had accurate information about the number of people under 18 who were attending the festival. It was estimated to be 20% of the 90,000 attending, so about 18,000. In consequence, the magnitude of the problem of potentially vulnerable, naïve teenagers exposed to possible exploitation by drug dealers, was not appreciated. ”
    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

    Record accompanied and unaccompanied 16- and 17-year-old attendees using ID checks, scanners and QR codes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Prior to the Inquest, I committed to putting in place a system for recording the number of 16 and 17 year olds on site, each day of the Festival in 2023. I was able at very short notice, to put this in place prior to the festival in 2023. We introduced a system for checking and recording these festival goers by requiring all young persons to bring ID with them to show proof of age at the point of exchanging their ticket for a wristband. An electronic system, using scanners and different QR codes was implemented to record this information accurately. This system worked well but can be improved and streamlined. We were able to record the exact number of both accompanied and unaccompanied 16 and 17 year olds entering the site, however we did not then scan persons upon exit.”

    Source location

    Response from Festival Republic 1
    Page 5 · response
    Published 6 September 2023

    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

    Provide additional wellbeing briefings and reinforce staff and contractor duties to identify and assist unwell festival goers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In my statement I set out the proactive surveillance for the wellbeing of festival goers, but during the Inquest, I recognised that this could be improved. Therefore, in addition to the messages in the Staff Handbook and the normal briefings, I put in place for the 2023 Festival, additional briefings for staff and contractors (especially security, stewards and volunteers) that observation of the wellbeing of festival goers was a primary task together with a duty to act where festival goers (and especially young festival goers) seemed unwell. The protocol required, depending upon the condition of the festival goer, that the festival goer should be helped to either a medical or welfare provision as appropriate. Also, new for 2023, on Tuesday 22 August 2023, I sent a Newsletter to all of my staff and all workers on site, prior to opening the Festival reinforcing my message.”

    Source location

    Response from Festival Republic 1
    Page 6 · response
    Published 6 September 2023

    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

    Increase peak-time CCTV staffing and assign an observer specifically to monitor drug incidents and support drugs operations.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Prior to the Festival in 2023, we increased the number of CCTV monitor observers in Event Control from 3 to 5 at peak times. In addition to their normal duties, we briefed observers to emphasise”

    Source location

    Response from Festival Republic 1
    Page 5 · response
    Published 6 September 2023

    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

    Promote a culture of proactive wellbeing observation and intervention at Leeds Festival and future festivals.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “These measures were in place for the 2023 Festival but I am aware that it requires a change in culture. Therefore, I still regard it to be a work in progress and I am committed to promote this culture at Leeds Festival and all of our Festivals in the future.”

    Source location

    Response from Festival Republic 1
    Page 6 · response
    Published 6 September 2023

    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

    Front-of-house drug testing was not carried out because it is not permitted.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “At the Festival in 2023, we continued to have a Back of House testing service available, facilitated by West Yorkshire Police, which enabled us to feed harm reduction messaging to festival goers via social media platforms, the Leeds Festival App and the main stage screens. There were no known drugs of a particular high strength in circulation that needed alerting to the audience. In the on-site SAG meeting held on Sunday 27th August it was observed that there had been no concerns regarding the potency of drugs in circulation at the festival and therefore it was not necessary for any tailored public health messaging to be communicated. Front of house testing was not carried out because it is not permitted.”

    Source location

    Response from Festival Republic 1
    Page 5 · response
    Published 6 September 2023

    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

    Existing local licensing, enforcement, safety-advisory and industry arrangements provide sufficient oversight, making a governing body unnecessary.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Governing Body with Oversight of Festivals”

    Source location

    Response from Festival Republic 1
    Page 7 · response
    Published 6 September 2023

    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

    National festival statistics are considered unlikely to assist in reducing drug-related casualties, which are best addressed locally.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I do not object to supplying data to a National Database (subject to Data Protection Regulations) but doubt that this will assist in fighting drug related casualties at festivals, concerts or other events. I consider the fight against drugs and the peddling of drugs at festivals is best addressed at a local level.”

    Source location

    Response from Festival Republic 1
    Page 9 · response
    Published 6 September 2023

    Open published response

  2. West Yorkshire Eastern

    AI-generated summary

    Anya Lily Buckley · 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

    Anya Lily Buckley, aged 17, attended the Leeds Festival, took various illicit drugs, collapsed and died at the festival site on 24 August 2019 despite CPR. The concerns included the admission of unsupervised 16- and 17-year-olds to the festival, their exposure to illicit drugs and alcohol, and whether Leeds City Council’s licensing arrangements adequately addressed risks to potentially vulnerable teenagers.

    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. The report was sent to Festival Republic Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Availability of illicit drugs at festivals

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Young people aged 16-17 are admitted to the Leeds Festival without any adult supervision. (2) Illicit drugs are a fact of life at festivals such as this, despite the efforts made by the organiser to prevent them getting in, and to treat those who are harmed by them. The infrastructure of drug searches and medical resources testifies to this. (3) The mixture of potentially vulnerable young people and available illicit drugs creates a tempting situation for the excited teenagers and exposes them to the potential harm which illicit drugs can inflict. (4) As teenagers aged 16-17 are not legally permitted to be in public houses or night clubs, it seems anomalous that they should be free to spend the while night in an environment where illicit drugs and alcohol are prevalent. (5) Evidence was given at Inquest by Miss Buckley's mother that entry should be restricted to people under the age of 18. In fairness, evidence was also given in relation to: a) the difficulty of checking age, and b) the possibility that young people will search for excitement elsewhere if they cannot attend well-organised festivals and the casualty rate of those adversely affected by drugs is low when set against the huge numbers of young people attending. (6) As Leeds City Council licenses the Leeds Festival, it is for them to consider whether admitting 16-17 year old teenagers into the festival (when they are not permitted in other licensed premises) amounts to an abdication of responsibility in relation to impressionable and potentially vulnerable teenagers. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Festival Republic Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Admission of 16-17-year-olds without adult supervision

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Young people aged 16-17 are admitted to the Leeds Festival without any adult supervision. (2) Illicit drugs are a fact of life at festivals such as this, despite the efforts made by the organiser to prevent them getting in, and to treat those who are harmed by them. The infrastructure of drug searches and medical resources testifies to this. (3) The mixture of potentially vulnerable young people and available illicit drugs creates a tempting situation for the excited teenagers and exposes them to the potential harm which illicit drugs can inflict. (4) As teenagers aged 16-17 are not legally permitted to be in public houses or night clubs, it seems anomalous that they should be free to spend the while night in an environment where illicit drugs and alcohol are prevalent. (5) Evidence was given at Inquest by Miss Buckley's mother that entry should be restricted to people under the age of 18. In fairness, evidence was also given in relation to: a) the difficulty of checking age, and b) the possibility that young people will search for excitement elsewhere if they cannot attend well-organised festivals and the casualty rate of those adversely affected by drugs is low when set against the huge numbers of young people attending. (6) As Leeds City Council licenses the Leeds Festival, it is for them to consider whether admitting 16-17 year old teenagers into the festival (when they are not permitted in other licensed premises) amounts to an abdication of responsibility in relation to impressionable and potentially vulnerable teenagers. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Festival Republic Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Exposure of potentially vulnerable young people to available illicit drugs

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Young people aged 16-17 are admitted to the Leeds Festival without any adult supervision. (2) Illicit drugs are a fact of life at festivals such as this, despite the efforts made by the organiser to prevent them getting in, and to treat those who are harmed by them. The infrastructure of drug searches and medical resources testifies to this. (3) The mixture of potentially vulnerable young people and available illicit drugs creates a tempting situation for the excited teenagers and exposes them to the potential harm which illicit drugs can inflict. (4) As teenagers aged 16-17 are not legally permitted to be in public houses or night clubs, it seems anomalous that they should be free to spend the while night in an environment where illicit drugs and alcohol are prevalent. (5) Evidence was given at Inquest by Miss Buckley's mother that entry should be restricted to people under the age of 18. In fairness, evidence was also given in relation to: a) the difficulty of checking age, and b) the possibility that young people will search for excitement elsewhere if they cannot attend well-organised festivals and the casualty rate of those adversely affected by drugs is low when set against the huge numbers of young people attending. (6) As Leeds City Council licenses the Leeds Festival, it is for them to consider whether admitting 16-17 year old teenagers into the festival (when they are not permitted in other licensed premises) amounts to an abdication of responsibility in relation to impressionable and potentially vulnerable teenagers. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026