A SLIPSHOD and complacent attitude to safety led to the death of a boy of four who was electrocuted when he strayed on to a railway line, a judge said.

Judge Andrew Patience, QC, spoke as he imposed fines totalling £300,000 on two companies who admitted they had failed to prevent the tragedy, which happened almost five years ago, in June 1999.

Bobby Wood, whose home in Evelyn Close, Strood, was only a short distance from the station, had found his way on to the track because of an unlocked gate and an unfenced stretch of railway line.

And, said Judge Patience, he had decided to apportion responsibility equally between Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, who owned the site, and their maintenance company, Balfour Beatty Rail Infrastructure Services Ltd.

Balfour Beatty, who had admitted breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 by failing to prevent access to the rail infrastructure, were fined £150,000 and ordered to pay £21,735.90 costs.

Network Rail admitted failing to conduct its undertaking so as to ensure that persons in its employment were not exposed to risks to their health and safety, and failing to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the prevention of unauthorised access to the infrastructure.

For each of the two offences - which arose from the same set of circumstances - the company was fined £75,000, making a total of £150,000, and was ordered to pay £11,412.50 costs.

Before announcing his decision, Judge Patience said events leading up to the tragedy had led him to consider that in both companies there was an underlying slipshod and complacent attitude to the question of safety.

“There was a lack of urgency; in short, an abject failure on the part of each company properly to carry out its duty,” he said.

“Despite both companies being clearly aware of the serious risk of child trespass no-one in either company seems to have applied their minds to the possibility of danger in the unlocked gates in a built-up area.”

It was at about mid-day on June 15, 1999, that Bobby Wood had been playing on his bicycle in the front garden of his home.

While those who were caring for him were momentarily distracted, he cycled away, out of the close and into Station Road.

He continued unnoticed until he arrived at the yard next to Strood Railway Station.

Said the judge: “He entered through gates which were open and unlocked and continued on through the yard before turning and cycling on to the track itself.

“Sadly and tragically he came into direct contact with the conductor rail. He was electrocuted and died instantly. Thus there ended a life which had scarcely begun.

“To say that his family was, and remains, devastated, is to make an enormous understatement. They have a sense of loss which will never go away."

“They will always feel that this tragedy should never have been allowed to happen.”

Judge Patience went on: “The stark fact of this case is this: this tragedy would not have occurred if the gates to that yard had been shut and locked; they were not.

“Each defendant in this case has pleaded guilty to breaches of duty under the relevant provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act and this court has to look at how it was that these offences came to be committed.”

At the time, Connex South Eastern leased the station and were also the train operating company.

Railtrack, the forerunners of Network Rail, owned the infrastructure including the station. Balfour Beatty used the yard and were licensed to occupy various buildings within it, in the course of their duties of maintaining property belonging to Network Rail.

“It is clear that Balfour Beatty were under a duty to carry out regular track inspections . . . and to maintain and repair fences and control access to the track by taking measures to prevent it,” said the judge.

During April and May 1999, Connex decided to undertake work to improve the security of the yard by the erection of new gates and fencing.

“It would seem that their purpose was to curtail fare evasion. They were undertaking a course of action in order to protect revenue, rather than carrying out something they were duty-bound to do.”

Even after the installation of the new fencing and gates, however, it was noted that the gates were frequently open.

When on June 7 a passenger left via the open gate of the yard in order to avoid paying his fare, members of staff from both Railtrack and Balfour Beatty were involved in efforts to have the gates secured.

But it proved impractical because of the number of vehicles parked in the yard. There was a suggestion that Railtrack should post a notice saying that from a certain date the gates would be locked and nobody should be allowed to park in the yard unless they had a key.

Later that night, someone on duty at Balfour Beatty entered the word “rectified” on the computer - even though the problem had not been rectified.

“This was a procedure apparently adopted where a fault was passed on to another company to be dealt with,” said Judge Patience.

“It was marked as rectified because the matter was reported to Railtrack for them to deal with.

“That in my judgement was a system which was thoroughly misleading and bad.”