Wiltshire student loses hammer attack compensation claim (From The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald)

Wiltshire student loses hammer attack compensation claim

12:54pm Friday 5th February 2010

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments(0)

A student who suffered brain damage in an allegedly racist hammer attack lost his battle for compensation today.

Henry Webster was 15 when he was repeatedly punched, kicked and hit with the sharp end of a claw hammer by a gang of Asian pupils and young men on the tennis courts at Ridgeway School in Wroughton in January 2007.

At London's High Court in October, Mr Webster, now 18, claimed there was a negligent failure by the school, which denied liability, to maintain proper discipline and deal with racial tension.

His mother Elizabeth, 14-year-old brother Joseph, and stepfather Roger Durnford, of Beranburh Field, Wroughton, were also seeking compensation for the trauma of witnessing his injuries. Their claims now also fail.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Nicol said the school did not breach its duty to take reasonable care to keep Mr Webster reasonably safe while on its premises.

Mr Webster and his family had also been unable to prove the necessary causal link between the things that the school did not do and his head injuries.

The judge said that Mr Webster was the victim of a "brutal and criminal attack, which was very nearly fatal and left him with serious injuries".

"Those immediately responsible have been prosecuted and punished.

"If they had any money, they could also be sued in the civil courts.

"No one, let alone an innocent 15-year-old boy, should have had to put up with the pain and suffering that he has had to endure.

"The shock of seeing him lying in a pool of blood must have been traumatic for his brother, mother and stepfather.

"Yet the sympathy which everyone must feel for the claimants cannot determine whether the Ridgeway School is liable to pay them compensation."

Peter Lay, chairman of governors at the school, said: "We completely empathise with Henry Webster and his family. He suffered a serious assault at the school in January 2007.

"We were extremely pleased the police were able to successfully prosecute the perpetrators of that crime and custodial sentences given.

"The governing body was particularly concerned, naturally, about this incident. Many of the governors have had and have children in the school themselves.

"The incident was investigated internally, comprehensively, and we found no evidence of negligence on the part of the school. If we had, we would have taken action internally.

"Naturally the court case was lengthy, some six weeks with 52 witnesses.

"We believe the fact that all eight points with which liability was argued were dismissed by the judge vindicates the school in defeating the suggestion that the event was caused by failure on the school's part."

It is understood the legal bill for the court case will be substantial and falls to be paid by the claimants.

A brief statement from the Webster family, who were not in court to hear the judgment, was issued following conclusion of the case.

It said: "We are deeply shocked and disappointed with the judge's decision.

"We are in the process of analysing and coming to terms with the judge's analysis.

"We must express our immense gratitude to all of the individuals who gave their time to come to court and give evidence on Henry's part."

Mr Webster went to the tennis courts because he had agreed to fight a boy "one on one" to end the harassment which he thought he and his friends were experiencing and because of peer pressure.

The judge said the ensuing attack, which happened when four boys pointed Mr Webster out to the Asian men who had arrived in cars, took a very short time - about one minute.

Although four pupils and three adults took part, and although Mr Webster also suffered kicks and punches, it was the six blows from the hammer produced by one of the intruders which left the teenager with a depressed skull fracture, resulting in short-term memory problems and difficulties with concentration.

Mr Justice Nicol echoed the conclusion of the judge at one of the two criminal trials which followed - that none of the gang, apart from the hammer man, knew that a hammer was to be used.

Almost immediately after the attack, the four boys were suspended and later permanently excluded from school.

The judge said a 2005 Ofsted report found the standards of discipline at the school were satisfactory and he did not find any marked deterioration in the months up to the attack.

He backed the school's case that, while there were instances of bad behaviour, which it was taking active measures to improve, they were not as bad as the Websters portrayed and were not out of the ordinary for a large comprehensive school.

Nor were the Asians treated more leniently than their white counterparts.

He said the school did not breach its duty of care by failing to construct a perimeter fence or smaller inner fence around the site or in not having a teacher on duty at the courts.

He concluded that, while "it is more likely than not" that race did play an important part in the motivation of the four boys in the attack, it did not take the Websters very far as they could not show that any breach was causative of the injury to Henry.

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments(0)