• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Man in court for setting fire to fellow worker

fairlie

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2010
Messages
133
I was genuinely astonished to read this report. "Industry-accepted horseplay" sounds alarming to say the least.

Thoughts with the person who was injured and will be living with the consequences.

A railway worker set a colleague's overalls on fire at the end of a shift causing widespread burns to the victim's body, a court has heard. The victim was left with burns to his face, chest, and stomach and spent more than a week in hospital. He has said that what happened to him on the day in question will live with him forever.

Kyle Blackett's advocate told Swansea Crown Court that there had been no intent on the part of his client to cause injury in what he termed "industry-accepted horseplay".

Emily Jermin, prosecuting, told the court that on June 18 last year Blackett was one of a number of railway maintenance workers working at a location known as Jersey Marine South near Swansea. She said the men were wearing personal protective equipment or PPE in the form of flame-retardant overalls.

The barrister said that at the end of the shift, one of the defendant's colleagues unzipped his overalls before picking up a petrol generator - however, the fuel cap was loose and as a result petrol splashed down the front of the man's clothes.

The court heard Blackett then ignited the victim's overalls using a cigarette lighter, causing the man's T-shirt to catch fire and causing immediate pain subsequently rated by the victim as being "ten out of ten".

Realising what had happened the 41-year-old defendant pushed the burning man to the floor and tried to put the flames out. The casualty was taken to the nearby works van where he was doused with water to cool the burns before being taken to Morriston Hospital by Blackett.

The court heard the vicitm suffered "superficial, partial-thickness burns" to his jaw, neck, chest, and abdomen, singed facial hair, and corneal abrasions. In total 14 per cent of his body area was burnt, and he spent more than a week in hospital.

The prosecutor said Blackett subsequently attended a voluntary interview where he accepted what he had done and said it was "common practice" in the rail industry.

In an impact statement read to the court by the prosecution barrister, the vicitm said he was still trying to process why someone would set fire to another person, and he said his burns had not fully healed and were a daily reminder of what happened. The man said he suffers with regular nightmares and is no longer the confident, outgoing person he used to be. He added that what happened on the day in question would live with him forever.

Kyle Blackett, of Aberporth Road, Llandaff North, Cardiff, had previously pleaded guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm when he appeared in the dock for sentencing. His plea was entered on the basis that is was "common practice" for rail workers to set fire to petrol on each other's overalls, and said petrol had been burned on him on previous occasions.

He said he had asked the complainant "Shall I light you up?" to which the complainant had replied "Go on then" before he used a cigarette lighter to ignite the petrol, and he said while he could not recall whether the man's overalls had been zipped up he accepted he had not checked. He said he accepted causing the injuries suffered by the man on a reckless basis.

The court heard the defendant has five previous convictions for nine offences including a common assault from 2009.

Abhinav Mohindru, for Blackett, said there had been no intent on the part of his client to cause injury in what he termed "industry-accepted horseplay", and he said his client had always displayed a significant degree of remorse. He said Blackett was no longer in work and was reliant on benefits.

Judge Catherine Richards told Blackett it was "astonishing" that he had done something so dangerous, and said it was "not just horseplay" regardless of what the defendant and his colleagues may have thought. She said it was only by luck that the outcome of the incident had been even more serious, for both the complainant and the defendant.

She said she would sentence in line with the accepted basis of plea that the defendant's actions had been reckless.

With a one-quarter discount for his guilty plea Blackett was sentenced to 15 months in prison suspended for 18 months, and he was ordered to complete 200 hours of unpaid work in the community.

The judge said given the defendant was not in work she would not make a compensation order but said it would be open to the vicitm to seen financial redress through the civil courts.

 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

CarltonA

Member
Joined
22 Apr 2012
Messages
873
Location
Thames Valley
I worked at a research establishment where there was zero tolerance of horseplay. Everyone complied with this except the odd building contractor who would get a final warning to behave or they would be off site. The railway industry (certain parts of it) needs to develop the same approach in the twenty first century.
 
Last edited:

styles

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2014
Messages
4,614
Location
Gwynedd
His plea was entered on the basis that is was "common practice" for rail workers to set fire to petrol on each other's overalls, and said petrol had been burned on him on previous occasions

Either that is a straight up lie or that is an insane work atmosphere.

The idea of setting a work colleague on fire being normalised is absolutely wild.

It does track that he has 5 previous convictions for 9 other offences including assault though.
 

fairlie

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2010
Messages
133
Absolutely. Even if the person's overalls hadn't been unzipped, setting fire to petrol spilt down someone's front would be a seriously bad idea - it's always going to get the face, if nothing else.
 

styles

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2014
Messages
4,614
Location
Gwynedd
Why are people with 5 previous convictions being employed on the railway?

Depends what the convictions are for I suppose.

And people do deserve second chances and that's why we have the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and DBS filtering rules.

You wouldn't want to employ somebody with a 1 year old drink driving conviction as a train driver, but someone with a pick n mix theft conviction from when they were 18, 10 years ago, probably doesn't need barring from unloading ballast.
 
Last edited:

greatkingrat

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2011
Messages
3,289
The only conviction they specifically mention is an assault from 2009. So the convictions may well have been already spent when he joined the railway.
 

Clarence Yard

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
3,262
I worked for nearly twenty years on depots in North and West London and if this had happened at least two of those, he would have been “given a slap” by his workmates before he got hauled away.

It isn’t regular horseplay, it’s a sadistic assault and he got off lightly.
 

RailwayRookie

Member
Joined
28 Jul 2023
Messages
268
Location
Norfolk
Just because the article quites the man saying there is "industry accepted horseplay", doesn't make it true. I'm sure he'd try and use anything as a mitigating circumstance to lessen the severity of what he's done.

I could say the railway had "industry accepted meetings in the local titty bar" and that doesn't make it true either. What it does do it make a great quote for a quality news outlet like, oh nevermind, its reach media. The absolute pinnacle of journalism.
 

godfreycomplex

Established Member
Joined
23 Jun 2016
Messages
1,749
11 years in the industry and I’ve never heard of this before, and I’m sure that the vast majority of people I’ve worked with wouldn’t accept this.

It’s by no means a humourless environment, but most people stop a long way short of this
 

GordonT

Established Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,678
Just because the article quites the man saying there is "industry accepted horseplay", doesn't make it true. I'm sure he'd try and use anything as a mitigating circumstance to lessen the severity of what he's done.
Inconceivable that his employer, wider industry employers or the ORR would find this remotely valid as mitigation of any kind for his mindless stupidity.
 

RailwayRookie

Member
Joined
28 Jul 2023
Messages
268
Location
Norfolk
Inconceivable that his employer, wider industry employers or the ORR would find this remotely valid as mitigation of any kind for his mindless stupidity.
Of course. But it's the court that decides and any mitigation is better than no mitigation in the eyes of the defense.

Not saying I agree, but just saying that's probably why they said it
 

357

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2018
Messages
2,282
I've been involved in lots of hilarious behaviour during my career - however I can confirm that I've never been set on fire, and I've never set fire to anyone.

Honestly, I'm disappointed but not surprised that some members have read that and believed it to be truthful. I've never worked somewhere that would tolerate anything like this sort of behaviour.
 

Gloster

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
12,940
Location
Up the creek
People will say anything and invent things to pass the buck, minimise their actions or suggest that their behaviour is quite reasonable. One hopes that the judge was fully aware of this and wasn’t fooled.
 

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
4,155
Suspended sentence and 20 hours work. Words fail me....
There are 3 reasons for imprisonment,

Punishment. Deterrent to others and to prevent the offender from repeating.

The second and third and irrelevent in this case and the person is probably punished enough, almost certainly will not work on the railway again.

Imprisonment would be a waste of money in this case
 

Ziggy3legs

Member
Joined
8 Jan 2026
Messages
22
Location
Beeston
Something very similar happened at Nottingham steam shed (I can't recall when (1950s?), but we were told about it when I was on a management training course at Crewe in around the late '80s or early '90s), tragically with fatal results.

It involved two young lads, can't remember if cleaners or apprentices, but one put a flare lamp to the others backside, to give him a warm backside, and overlooking the fact that the other lads overalls were contaminated with oil/paraffin etc. He died there and then.

The lad who did it instantly realised what he'd done and was totally distraught. A moment of stupidity and he's watched his mate die in front of him. Whilst an incredibly stupid thing to do, he just never realised the potential consequences.

There is a footnote to this, but whilst the story as told to me has always stayed, too much of the detail hasn't especially with regards to the immediate aftermath and so I won't say any more except that the shed foreman/manager's actions afterwards were described to us as "kindness personified" in protecting the perpetrator of the "prank" from others, and trying to console him for his actions whilst no doubt reigning in other more obvious conflicting emotions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
6,577
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
And people do deserve second chances and that's why we have the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and DBS filtering rules.
Yes, everyone deserves a second chance providing that they are truly sorry for what they done and don't do it again, but they don't deserve a third, fourth or fifth chance (as he had five convictions)

The sentence is as astonishing as the story o_O
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,176
Location
LBK
Of course his five earlier convictions could have arisen out of a single sequence of events, in which case this would be a second chance, not a third or later chance.
And even if he had a serious of convictions from 2009-2015 for example they may well all have been spent.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,414
Why are people with 5 previous convictions being employed on the railway?

Alternative question: why should people who have committed any form of criminal offences in the past, perhaps distant past, be barred from working again, which seems to be what you are implying?
 
Last edited:

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
10,662
Location
West Riding
Alternative question: why should people who have committed any form of criminal offences in the past, perhaps distant past, be barred from working again, which seems to be what you are implying?
So that people don’t get set on fire in the workplace…

And that’s not the same as I said anyway, I wouldn’t have an issue with 1/2 in the distant past, but a maximum of 3 convictions excluding employment on the railway doesn’t seem too controversial a policy to me.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,176
Location
LBK
So that people don’t get set on fire in the workplace…

And that’s not the same as I said anyway, I wouldn’t have an issue with 1/2 in the distant past, but a maximum of 3 convictions excluding employment on the railway doesn’t seem too controversial a policy to me.
Not possible to enforce it if the convictions are spent, which they would be. The railway likely never knew about them.
 

spyinthesky

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2021
Messages
507
Location
Bulford
This conviction will be spent after 5 years and 3 months and will no longer appear on the Basic DBS. It will however remain on Standard and enhanced forever.
I would like to think that the railway industry won’t forget him if he would ever apply for another role.
 

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
4,155
This act was just stupidity, almost certainly no malicious intent.

Previous offences probably have no bearing on this behaviour.

Any donkey, with or without a record could have done it.
 

MP33

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2011
Messages
629
An old school friend, who was in the Fire Brigade. Moved in a few doors up and came for a drink with a group of us. He told a story, when he was a station manager, with the London Fire Brigade. A fireman, who was from a minority was filmed being rolled around the fire station, in a piece of equipment. He told the men, to delete all the footage that had been filmed. For the reason, that although the man they were rolling, was going along with it as a joke. The top brass, would not see it that way.
 

riceuten

Member
Joined
23 May 2018
Messages
938
"Industry accepted horseplay" - I'd love to know what the legal definition of this is - "I only permanently scarred him a bit"?
 

Top