Recipient

Recipient name withheld

Pin Request correction

First report 1 Apr 2024•Latest report 1 Apr 2024

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Reports over time

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.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Recipient name withheld linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Worcestershire

    AI-generated summary

    Christopher William Townsend · 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

    Christopher William Townsend died on 8 June 2023 after sustaining multiple chest and abdominal injuries in a motor accident during an organised grass-track motorcycle and side-car race. The report identified concerns about the lack of event-specific risk assessments and a requirement for recorded safety plans at ACU track-racing events, creating a risk of future deaths.

    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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a requirement for a recorded event-specific safety plan at National and Club events

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) However, in my questions to ████████ he confirmed that there is no requirement for organisers of events held under the ACU Regulations to prepare an event-specific Safety Plan at either National or Club events. There is such a requirement for ACU events held on an international/European permit (paragraph 3.26 National Sporting Code 2023). ████████ confirmed that whilst it is not an ACU requirement to prepare such a plan for Club/National events it is open to organisers to do so. Appendix 3 of the ACU’s publication provides an example of contents list of an event safety plan. (3) Planning for safety at motorsport events to which the public are admitted must be thorough, comprehensive and verifiable by being recorded. This allows organisers to record and disseminate safety arrangements for their events. The risks may differ in scale, but not substantially in nature, as between international and national/club events. (4) In my opinion, in the absence of such methodical planning and recording there is a risk of future deaths arising from the current arrangements for safety planning at ACU track race events. (5) I have carefully considered ████████ evidence as to the reviews that are being undertaken by the ACU of their procedures and guidance. This was provided in his written evidence, his answers in oral evidence and in the letter from him dated 5 April 2024. I have also carefully considered the cogent submissions on behalf of the ACU by ████████ of DWF, in particular as to Chief Coroner’s Guidance Note 5 (November 2020), especially paragraph 7 thereof. Nonetheless, I remain of the opinion that in the absence of a requirement for a recorded safety plan for each event there is a risk that future deaths will occur. ”
    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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of the grass-track event risk assessment process to produce event-specific assessments and meaningful conclusions about risk control

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The risk assessment prepared for the grass-track event on 4 June 2024 was a downloaded proforma from the ACU publication “ACU Requirements for Safety Precautions At All Track Race Events Held Under An ACU Permit” (p.19 of 26). This document listed pre-populated control measures to address a list of pre-populated risks. The control measures were ticked “yes” or “no” by the organiser to indicate whether they were in place. The assessment of the level of that risk as high, medium or low was also pre-populated. This did not amount to a process that could produce an event specific risk assessment nor did it encourage organisers to record meaningful conclusions about controlling risk at their event. I was told by ████████ that this was a pro-forma for grass track events and that more complex, event specific risk assessments were produced for other types of event. He also confirmed that the risk assessment pro-forma were under review by the ACU and he produced an example of a potential new pro-forma requiring significantly more individual assessment and input. I accept that the ACU is taking steps to address the inadequacy of the grass track event risk assessment process. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

0%
0%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

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