Stonegate Pub Company cleared of three of four health and safety breaches in Teesside Crown Court trial over death of Milford student Olivia Burt at Missoula nightclub in Durham

A PUB chain accused of four health and safety breaches over the death of Milford student Olivia Burt has been cleared of three of them.

Olivia (20) suffered a “devastating head injury” when a decorative screen collapsed outside Missoula in Durham city centre on 7th February, 2018, writes Alex Storey.

Prosecutors claim Stonegate Pub Company, which managed the bar, failed to carry out proper safety checks. Teesside Crown Court has heard the screen partially collapsed just an hour before the tragedy but was put back up by staff.

The venue was one of 800 bars directly managed by Stonegate, who hired Phoenix Security as a contractor to provide door staff.

Stonegate, based in Solihull, west Midlands, initially denied four breaches of the Health and Safety Act and is being tried by a jury.

However, following legal arguments between counsel, Judge Howard Crowson ruled that the jury should return not guilty verdicts today (Tuesday) on three of the four alleged breaches.

The company now denies one remaining charge of failing to ensure the safety of people not in its employment on the night Olivia died.

Independent health and safety expert Steve Allen took to the stand today and told jurors the screen itself may not have been the safety hazard.

Mr Allen said that having watched “hours of CCTV”, the hazard would have come from the disorderly fashion of the queue.

Mr Allen added: “Phoenix are there to manage the queues, and the management would not overrule what Phoenix said.”

Following the first collapse, the witness said the company could have left the screen lying down and erected more temporary fencing around it.

However, the court heard this would have caused a trip hazard and could have blocked fire exits.

When asked by defence barrister Prashant Popat KC: “Would you have done anything different after the first screen collapsed?”

Mr Allen responded: “If I had been there, I would have made the exact same decision.”

He did, however, agree that due to the venue being close to capacity, the rest of the queue should have been dispersed by Phoenix staff.

During cross-examination, prosecutor Jamie Hill KC asked: “Do you agree that whatever measure was taken, the screen ought to have been taken out of the question?”

Mr Allen said: “No I do not.”

Mr Hill KC then asked: “Do you agree measures should have been taken to stop queuing against it?”

Mr Allen again replied: “No I do not.”

However, when asked if the ultimate responsibility for venue safety remains with the owner at all times, Mr Allen replied: “Yes it does.”

The trial continues.