Ms. Scarlett Jukes · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 27 Oct 2015•Avon

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
3

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Concerns raised3

  1. Failure to require compliant protective headgear for hunt staff riding horses during employment
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure employees have suitable personal protective equipment for workplace hazards
  2. MFHA recommendations permitting hunt staff to choose non-compliant protective headgear
  3. Failure to require compliant protective headgear for public participants in hunting events
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate protective equipment requirements for hunting-event participants

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. MFHA ASSOCIATION

    Commission and complete an evidence-based report assessing protection provided by different hunting hats, including accident review and crash testing.

  2. MFHA ASSOCIATION

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

  3. MFHA ASSOCIATION

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

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.5

  1. MFHA ASSOCIATION

    The 2008 evidence review concluded traditional hunt caps sufficiently protect against the primary accidents Hunt Staff are likely to experience.

    Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
  2. MFHA ASSOCIATION

    MFHA rules and guidance apply only to registered member Hunts, not Hunts operating under other associations or unregistered Hunts.

    Outside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
  3. MFHA ASSOCIATION

    MFHA cannot compel members to follow guidance, and expulsion would not prevent an expelled Hunt from operating.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  4. MFHA ASSOCIATION

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

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  5. MFHA ASSOCIATION

    Individual Hunts, as employers, are responsible for ensuring Hunt Staff equipment is safe and appropriate.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to require compliant protective headgear for hunt staff riding horses during employment

Wider context from the report

“(2) Hunt staff who are paid employees of each hunt and whose work can involve significant time riding horses are not required to wear head gear designed and manufactured to recognised safety standards. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure employees have suitable personal protective equipment for workplace hazards.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

MFHA recommendations permitting hunt staff to choose non-compliant protective headgear

Wider context from the report

“(3) The current recommendations of the Master of Foxhounds Association (MFHA), the governing body, published in October 2008 provides that hunt staff should be permitted to choose whether to wear a traditional hunt cap which does not comply with recognised safety standards or to wear a 'modern hat' which does comply with the required safety standards. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate protective equipment requirements for hunting-event participants.

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

Commission and complete an evidence-based report assessing protection provided by different hunting hats, including accident review and crash testing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Over the years hats have evolved and as part of that process the safety of particular hats has been reviewed. In 2008 the MFHA commissioned, with legal and other expert advice, a detailed report on the protection provided by different types of hats.”

Source location

2015-0449-Response
Page 2 · 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

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

The 2008 evidence review concluded traditional hunt caps sufficiently protect against the primary accidents Hunt Staff are likely to experience.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Over the years hats have evolved and as part of that process the safety of particular hats has been reviewed. In 2008 the MFHA commissioned, with legal and other expert advice, a detailed report on the protection provided by different types of hats.”

Source location

2015-0449-Response
Page 2 · 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

MFHA rules and guidance apply only to registered member Hunts, not Hunts operating under other associations or unregistered Hunts.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You have determined that the MFHA is the organisation with the power to take action to prevent future deaths. This is only partially correct, in that the MFHA has a regulatory role only in respect of those Hunts that are members of this Association, but not over Hunts that operate under the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles, the Masters of Deerhounds Association, and the Masters of Drag hounds and Bloodhounds Association, which currently collectively number approximately 105 Hunts. There are also a number of un-registered Hunts, with which the MFHA has no contact.”

Source location

2015-0449-Response
Page 1 · 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

MFHA cannot compel members to follow guidance, and expulsion would not prevent an expelled Hunt from operating.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The MFHA regulates the activity of hunting, including the management of a Hunt country, and the welfare and breeding of hounds. It has never sought to regulate those who participate in hunting, including staff employed by individual Hunts. The MFHA is not a regulatory body like, for example, the Football Association or the British Board of Boxing Control, both of which regulate commercial operations with significant budgets and large numbers of professional staff, neither of which the MFHA has. Furthermore, the MFHA has virtually no sanctions apart from expulsion, which is rarely used, and obviously only then in extreme circumstances. The sanction of expulsion would have the consequence of the Hunt concerned operating independently. It would not prevent the Hunt from operating.”

Source location

2015-0449-Response
Page 2 · 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

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

Individual Hunts, as employers, are responsible for ensuring Hunt Staff equipment is safe and appropriate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The MFHA recognises that Hunts owe a duty of care towards their professional employees and other staff, to ensure that they are safe in the workplace and are provided with satisfactory equipment and appropriate protective equipment: relevant legislation and statutory instruments include the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations and the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations. The MFHA, through Guidance Notes and regular training seminars, make clear to Hunts that a breach of health and safety regulations is a serious matter and can result in criminal prosecutions.”

Source location

2015-0449-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 27 October 2015

Open published response
Back to top

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026