3 Nov 2019 Russell Paul BOWRY · Prevention of Future Deaths report Bedfordshire and Luton
View report summary
Concerns raised 6 Failure to ensure work-at-height systems provide adequate fall protection View source Unsafe working practices routinely occurring in rigging work View source Failure to provide competent planning and supervision of work at height View source Failure to ensure riggers remain clipped on during work at height View source Limited rigger influence over fall protection and fall prevention measures View source Failure to ensure competent design of necessary work-at-height safety features View source See 3 more concerns
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
×
AI-generated summary
Russell Paul BOWRY · 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
Russell Paul Bowry died after falling 11 metres through exposed roof material while working at height on a stage structure at Cardington Studios. The concerns included inadequate planning and supervision of work at height, insufficiently designed fall-protection systems, and unsafe working practices affecting self-employed riggers.
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 National Rigging Advisory Group (NRAG); that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to ensure work-at-height systems provide adequate fall protection
Wider context from the report “(b) Employers in your industry may not realise they are responsible for designing the necessary safety features for work at height, including engaging the services of those who have the right skills to design such systems. Safe systems of work include ensuring that all clipping on points and safety features have the necessary impact requirements to hold a falling person and that the work can be done while the riggers are always clipped on or, that it is safe without clipping on ;
” 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 National Rigging Advisory Group (NRAG); that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Unsafe working practices routinely occurring in rigging work
Wider context from the report “(c) Unsafe working practices are routinely encountered by riggers in your industry and due to the structure of your industry – in which a small number of employers engage a large pool of self-employed riggers for individual jobs of short duration – riggers appear to have little influence over the fall protection or fall prevention measures that are put in place to keep them safe.
” 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 National Rigging Advisory Group (NRAG); that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to provide competent planning and supervision of work at height
Wider context from the report “(a) Employers in your industry may believe that they can safely delegate to individual riggers the responsibility to plan work at height, supervise it and carry it out safely . Russell Bowry was an NRC level 2 rigger but he was working directly under ELP, whose employees had no NRC qualifications . There was no head rigger . ELP gave evidence that it was their expectation that experienced riggers could be relied upon to ensure their own safety . Yet the riggers from whom I heard, told me that they were not always clipped on;
” 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 National Rigging Advisory Group (NRAG); that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to ensure riggers remain clipped on during work at height
Wider context from the report “(a) Employers in your industry may believe that they can safely delegate to individual riggers the responsibility to plan work at height, supervise it and carry it out safely. Russell Bowry was an NRC level 2 rigger but he was working directly under ELP, whose employees had no NRC qualifications. There was no head rigger. ELP gave evidence that it was their expectation that experienced riggers could be relied upon to ensure their own safety. Yet the riggers from whom I heard, told me that they were not always clipped on ;
” 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 National Rigging Advisory Group (NRAG); that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Limited rigger influence over fall protection and fall prevention measures
Wider context from the report “(c) Unsafe working practices are routinely encountered by riggers in your industry and due to the structure of your industry – in which a small number of employers engage a large pool of self-employed riggers for individual jobs of short duration – riggers appear to have little influence over the fall protection or fall prevention measures that are put in place to keep them safe .
” 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 National Rigging Advisory Group (NRAG); that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to ensure competent design of necessary work-at-height safety features
Wider context from the report “(b) Employers in your industry may not realise they are responsible for designing the necessary safety features for work at height, including engaging the services of those who have the right skills to design such systems . Safe systems of work include ensuring that all clipping on points and safety features have the necessary impact requirements to hold a falling person and that the work can be done while the riggers are always clipped on or, that it is safe without clipping on;
” Open source report
Pin
Request correction
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations