Facts

This week's commencement of a coronial inquest into the tragic death of 17 year old English school student Horatio Chapple while on camp has drawn attention to the serious risks that students and their teachers face while undertaking extra-curricular activities.

At 7.30am on 5 August 2011 a polar bear attacked a group of thirteen young explorers on the 'Chanzin Fire expedition' while they were asleep. The group were in Svalbard, Norway on an expedition run by the British Schools Exploring Society (BSES), a charitable organisation (now known as British Exploring).

Horatio, a pupil at the exclusive Eton College, was mauled to death by a 247 kilogram polar bear which had entered the campsite. Despite a trip wire system being in place, it failed to be triggered by the bear. Other explorers were injured. The polar bear was eventually shot dead by a camp leader.

Inquiry

Before this week's inquest commenced in England, BSES had appointed Sir David Steel, a former High Court judge, to carry out an independent inquiry into the events at Svalbard (Report). The Report identified several failings of the BSES group on expedition which may have contributed to Horatio's death. These included:

• the tents being arranged in a circle rather than in a line or semi-circle to avoid the bear feeling trapped;
• poor rifle training for the camp leaders;
• insufficient number of flares;
• inadequate trip wire system in place to protect the campsite (paperclips were used as substitutes for missing key equipment); and
• lack of a bear watch.

The inquest was announced at the request of Horatio's parents, who do not accept some of the factual conclusions of the Report. His parents are appealing against the original finding of the Norwegian authorities that BSES was not criminally negligent in its duties as camp organiser.

Risk assessment procedures

BSES had in place risk assessment polices and guidelines which young explorers and their parents were required to acknowledge they had read as part of the application process. As part of the risk assessment in relation to polar bears, the young explorers were supposed to receive written instructions on what to do in the event an attack occurred. Only oral instructions were given. The Report ultimately found that although the risk assessment was 'satisfactory' in relation to the threat posed by polar bears it was 'unsatisfactory' in regards to steps to take to limit that risk. Amongst other suggestions for improvement, the Report also noted that a bear watch policy should have been in place.

What does this mean for Australian schools?

This tragedy is a reminder for all schools of the importance of undertaking sufficient training and risk assessments before undertaking any extra-curricular activity, particularly those associated with out door education. See our previous article on how to manage the risks presented by school excursions for more information.

Risk assessment involves assessing the risk both in terms of the likelihood of an event occurring (polar bear attack) and the potential consequences if it was to occur (death of a student), and establishing an overall risk rating (usually low, moderate, high or extreme).   The degree of risk generally determines the strength of controls that must be in place.

Although the Report noted how 'unlucky' Chenzin Fire were to encounter what was later found to be a very old, starving and in pain polar bear who had likely come ashore due to unusually heavy ice flows, the possibility of a bear attack was not 'unforeseeable', meaning that appropriate risk controls should have been put in place.  In this case it is clear that the possibility of a bear attack was taken into consideration however the controls that were implemented were not adequate to prevented the tragedy.

The question for schools to consider it what would they have done in similar circumstances to manage this risk.   Hopefully the reports recommendations will be put into place by future expeditions.