SHERIFFDOM OF Grampian Highland and Islands AT Aberdeen sheriff court                                                     

Court ref: ABE-B552-25

RESPONSE

to the

DETERMINATION OF SHERIFF Andrew Miller

UNDER THE INQUIRIES INTO FATAL ACCIDENTS AND SUDDEN DEATHS ETC. (SCOTLAND) ACT 2016

IN THE

INQUIRY INTO THE DEATH OF Andrew McCallum Pirie

To: the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service

1.

John Parker, CEO of the Arboricultural Association being a person to whom a recommendation under section 26(1)(b) was addressed, do respond as follows.

[2.

[A.B.] was a participant in the inquiry.]

[or

2.

•      John Parker has an interest in the inquiry but was not a participant in the inquiry. The Arboricultural Association has been asked to respond to a recommendation in Andrew Miller’s determination dated 9^th January 2026 and in accompanying letter dated 12^th January 2026

3.

(Set out in full each recommendation in numbered paragraphs together with your corresponding response. Please respond as fully as possible).

Paragraph 81: It is clear in this and the following paragraph in the Sherrif’s ‘Analysis and Conclusions’ that it is accepted that the industry guidance set out by the Association in its ‘Industry Code of Practice for Arboriculture – Tree work at height (Second edition), May 2020 (ICoP) adequately addresses the good practice required for safe working in relation to the circumstances of this fatal accident inquiry.

Paragraph 82: In this paragraph, the Sherrif expresses concern about the extent of dissemination of the ICoP to those undertaking this kind of work. This concern is shared by the Association, and all steps within our capability as a charity (we are not a Governmental or Regulatory body) are taken to maximise promotion of, and access to, this information, including making it publicly available and free to download from the Association’s website, promotion through the quarterly publication the ARB Magazine and reference to the guidance on training courses and arboricultural training and education syllabuses.

Paragraph 83: The Sherrif recommends that the Association considers whether further steps can be taken to maximise awareness of its guidance within the arboricultural industry throughout the UK, and further, whether the Code of Practice requires to be amended or revised in light of the circumstances of the death of Andrew Pirie.

As stated above, the Association is committed to disseminating this guidance as far and widely as possible, and will continue to endeavour to promote to target audiences within the arboricultural and associated industry sectors.

In addition to the ICoP itself, which is written for the ‘Responsible Person’ within an organisation, at a relatively high level, the Association also publishes a range of Technical Guides, providing detailed information, advice and guidance to practitioners in a range of specific tasks, Including ‘Tree climbing and aerial rescue’, Use of tools in the tree’ and ‘Rigging and dismantling’, amongst others. These Technical Guides also provide detailed guidance on the importance of safe site management, fully addressing the issues raised in the Sherrif’s determination. We were surprised not see reference to these documents in the report or the Determination.

Over the last two years, the Association has been engaged in a complete review of all of its associated guidance in relation to tree work, both at height and on the ground, including revision of the ICoP and the Technical Guides. This work is almost complete and we expect to publish the revised guidance, including 4 new Technical Guides, later this year. Please note this scheduled, periodic revision has not been carried out in response to the Sherrif’s determination or recommendations in this particular case. However, all relevant factors have been reviewed in light of this determination, to ensure that the revised guidance is comprehensive in its coverage of the relevant issues.

It remains the case that many operatives with access to the tools for carrying out this type of work continue to do so without adequate formal training or, in many cases, adequate supervision by competent persons. Neither the UK Governments, nor the Regulators, appear to have any interest in regulating this sector to ensure that only competent operators are permitted to carry out such work and, while this remains the case, it is possible that further accidents of this nature could occur. The Association stands ready to work with any appropriate body to support greater regulation of our sector.

NOTES

(Please refer to section 28 of the Act. A person to whom a recommendation has been addressed under section 26(1) of the Act, if they were also a participant in the inquiry, is under a legal duty to respond to those recommendations in writing. Persons who were not participants but to whom recommendations have been directed are encouraged to respond, though they are not obliged to.

The response must set out–

(a)      details of what the respondent has done or proposes to do in response to the recommendation, or

(b)      if the respondent has not done, and does not intend to do, anything in response to the recommendation, the reasons for that.

A response must be given to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service within the period of 8 weeks beginning with the day on which the respondent receives a copy of the determination in which the recommendation is made.

The response may be published, though you may make representations to SCTS as to the withholding of all or part of the response from publication.

A response made under section 28(1) is not admissible in evidence, and may not be founded on, in any judicial proceedings of any nature).