Recipient

J. M. Nixon & Son

First report 29 Dec 2020•Latest report 29 Dec 2020

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Company. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports: 1
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 7
Stated actions: 4

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found

4stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from J. M. Nixon & Son linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

29 Dec2020
Newcastle and North Tyneside
Concerns raised7
1. Risk of serious injury or death to the public on public bridleways on or adjacent to working farms
2. Unavailability of a usable secure gate at the entrance to the bridleway
3. Lack of specific planning for the heightened risks of young calves during first release from winter shed
1. Lack of formal cattle movement plans
2. Lack of contingency plans for cattle breakout
3. Failure to warn the public of impending cattle movement and its risks
4. Failure to secure cattle in the holding area before movement
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 4
1. Action
  Move cattle one shed at a time without using the second holding area or bridleway gate as part of the movement plan.
  Stated completed
2. Action
  Check the route before movement, warn walkers, and position staff ahead of cattle to manage public access during movement.
  Stated completed
3. Action
  Place warning signs around the farmyard to alert the public that cattle are being moved.
  Stated completed
1. Action
  Revise the cattle-movement plan so all participants understand the plan and their roles.
  Stated completed
Respondent positions 4
1. Position
  The bridleway gate was not altered because its gradient and camber made outward opening difficult and potentially increased the risk of cattle breaking out.
  Unable to act
1. Position
  Pre-movement route checks were considered sufficient to warn the public, and no HSE guidance required temporary warning signs.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
2. Position
  The cattle-movement plan need not be documented because all participants understand the plan and their roles.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
3. Position
  A cattle-movement plan, including contingency arrangements and consideration of young calves, was already in place and reasonably managed the risks.
  Disputes the concern
AI-generated summary

Marian Elizabeth CLODE · 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

Marian Elizabeth Clode was attacked three times by a cow while walking with her family on a public bridleway near Swinhoe Farm on 3 April 2016, and died from the resulting injuries on 5 April 2016. The concerns included cattle movements without formal or contingency plans, inadequate measures to prevent cattle breaking out, and no warning to the public about the cattle movement and associated risks.

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 J. M. Nixon & Son; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Risk of serious injury or death to the public on public bridleways on or adjacent to working farms
Wider context from the report
“(1) There is a continuing risk to the public of serious injury or death in exercising their right to walk on public bridleways on or adjacent to working farms. (2) A robust system of Regulation of farming practice in the context of Public Rights of way and guidance to the public is necessary to mitigate that risk. ”
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 J. M. Nixon & Son; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Unavailability of a usable secure gate at the entrance to the bridleway
Wider context from the report
“(3) Secure gate at the entrance to bridle way unable to be utilised due to direction of opening which with some limited alteration may have gone someway to mitigate the risk in this case. ”
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 J. M. Nixon & Son; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of specific planning for the heightened risks of young calves during first release from winter shed
Wider context from the report
“(1) Cattle movement being commonly undertaken in accordance with individual farmers “custom and practice” and in the absence of: a) formal plans for cattle movement (written or verbal) b) Contingency plans/strategies in the event of cattle breakout c) Specific planning in respect of the heightened risk associated with the presence of young calves and in the context of their first release from winter shed ”
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 J. M. Nixon & Son; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of formal cattle movement plans
Wider context from the report
“(1) Cattle movement being commonly undertaken in accordance with individual farmers “custom and practice” and in the absence of: a) formal plans for cattle movement (written or verbal) b) Contingency plans/strategies in the event of cattle breakout c) Specific planning in respect of the heightened risk associated with the presence of young calves and in the context of their first release from winter shed ”
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 J. M. Nixon & Son; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of contingency plans for cattle breakout
Wider context from the report
“(1) Cattle movement being commonly undertaken in accordance with individual farmers “custom and practice” and in the absence of: a) formal plans for cattle movement (written or verbal) b) Contingency plans/strategies in the event of cattle breakout c) Specific planning in respect of the heightened risk associated with the presence of young calves and in the context of their first release from winter shed ”
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 J. M. Nixon & Son; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to warn the public of impending cattle movement and its risks
Wider context from the report
“(2) Cattle movement undertaken without appropriate measures in place to mitigate the risks of cattle breakout: a) Cattle held prior to movement in a holding area pen which was insecure. Cattle contained only by quad bike and trailer (driven by farmer) at the front of the herd. b) No warning to the public of impending cattle movement and the risks thereof either by temporary warning signage or farm staff place at strategic points on the planned route to give verbal warning. ”
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 J. M. Nixon & Son; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to secure cattle in the holding area before movement
Wider context from the report
“(2) Cattle movement undertaken without appropriate measures in place to mitigate the risks of cattle breakout: a) Cattle held prior to movement in a holding area pen which was insecure. Cattle contained only by quad bike and trailer (driven by farmer) at the front of the herd. b) No warning to the public of impending cattle movement and the risks thereof either by temporary warning signage or farm staff place at strategic points on the planned route to give verbal warning. ”
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
Move cattle one shed at a time without using the second holding area or bridleway gate as part of the movement plan.

Verbatim wording from the response
“3. However, as stated at the Inquest hearing, cattle are not now moved into a second holding area requiring the use of any barrier at the entrance to the bridleway. That second holding area and the gate are no longer part of the movement plan. Cattle are moved one shed at a time so there is no need for this second holding area.”

Source location
2021-0228-Response-from-J-M-Nixon-Son-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 July 2021
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
Check the route before movement, warn walkers, and position staff ahead of cattle to manage public access during movement.

Verbatim wording from the response
“4. The gate to the bridleway is left open and I ride my quadbike along the track to check the gates along it and to warn any walkers on the track. As I explained during my evidence at the inquest, I then return to the brow of the first hill. From this point I can”

Source location
2021-0228-Response-from-J-M-Nixon-Son-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 July 2021
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
Place warning signs around the farmyard to alert the public that cattle are being moved.

Verbatim wording from the response
“5. We also now have "Warning – Cattle being Moved" signs which are placed around the farm yard to warn any members of the public coming up behind the sheds that cattle are being moved ahead of them.”

Source location
2021-0228-Response-from-J-M-Nixon-Son-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 9 July 2021
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
Revise the cattle-movement plan so all participants understand the plan and their roles.

Verbatim wording from the response
“1. Whilst I maintain that there was a plan in place at the time of the incident I have revisited the plan and changes were made following the incident. The plan is not required to be documented but all parties involved understand the plan and their role in it.”

Source location
2021-0228-Response-from-J-M-Nixon-Son-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 July 2021
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 bridleway gate was not altered because its gradient and camber made outward opening difficult and potentially increased the risk of cattle breaking out.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The gate opens “inwards” (ie towards the sheds rather than away from them down the track). During a visit from representatives of the H.S.E. on 17th November 2020, it was discovered that, following some significant alterations, the gate can be opened outwards (away from the sheds). However, it has to be lifted, with significant effort, over the slope of the ground because of both the gradient of the track and its camber. That is, the gradient and camber are such that the gate hits the ground and cannot be pushed any further without it being lifted. This would clearly cause problems, and potentially increase the risk of cattle breaking out, if it were done at a time when cattle were about to be moved along the bridleway. This is the reason the gate had not been altered previously.”

Source location
2021-0228-Response-from-J-M-Nixon-Son-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 July 2021
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
Pre-movement route checks were considered sufficient to warn the public, and no HSE guidance required temporary warning signs.

Verbatim wording from the response
“When giving evidence at the Inquest, ████████ stated that in his view the method of using the quadbike and trailer, together with my being at the side of those with the flexible stick, was a reasonable practice. It is accepted that at the time of the incident there was no temporary signage in place, as it was believed that the check of the route prior to the movement commencing was sufficient. No guidance issued by the H.S.E. suggests that signs should be used when moving cattle.”

Source location
2021-0228-Response-from-J-M-Nixon-Son-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 July 2021
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 cattle-movement plan need not be documented because all participants understand the plan and their roles.

Verbatim wording from the response
“1. Whilst I maintain that there was a plan in place at the time of the incident I have revisited the plan and changes were made following the incident. The plan is not required to be documented but all parties involved understand the plan and their role in it.”

Source location
2021-0228-Response-from-J-M-Nixon-Son-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 July 2021
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
A cattle-movement plan, including contingency arrangements and consideration of young calves, was already in place and reasonably managed the risks.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In relation to the suggestions that there was an absence of a formal plan for cattle movement, contingency plan or specific planning to take into account the presence of young calves, I would wish to make the following observations. Having heard all of the evidence, the HSE expert witness, ████████ confirmed in his evidence to the court that, in his opinion, the plan in place for the movement of the cattle was a reasonable one. In particular, he confirmed it was his view that the drive along the track to check for members of the public was carried out within a reasonable timeframe. In relation to my contingency plan, I had agreed that I had a contingency plan in place and that the plan to follow the herd, enter the field on the left hand side by the metal gate and travel up the field in order to overtake the cattle, was a reasonable one.”

Source location
2021-0228-Response-from-J-M-Nixon-Son-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 9 July 2021
Open published response

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

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised7

Risk of serious injury or death to the public on public bridleways on or adjacent to working farms

Unavailability of a usable secure gate at the entrance to the bridleway

Lack of specific planning for the heightened risks of young calves during first release from winter shed

Lack of formal cattle movement plans

Lack of contingency plans for cattle breakout

Failure to warn the public of impending cattle movement and its risks

Failure to secure cattle in the holding area before movement

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

Actions described in response 4

Respondent positions 4