IN Brief:
- David Wood Baking was fined £333,333 after a worker suffered multiple fractures while cleaning a sausage-roll conveyor.
- HSE found access to rotating parts had not been effectively prevented, resulting in a guilty plea under PUWER.
- Conveyors account for 30% of machinery accidents in food and drink manufacturing, according to HSE guidance.
David Wood Baking has been fined £333,333 after a worker suffered multiple fractures when her arm became trapped in an unguarded conveyor roller while cleaning a sausage-roll production line at the company’s Sheerness factory in Kent.
Ribeca Jesuthasan was cleaning the line on 1 December 2023 when she passed her hand through an unguarded roller. Although the conveyor had initially been switched off, it began operating during the task and pulled her arm into the rotating mechanism.
The Health and Safety Executive found that David Wood Baking had failed to prevent access to dangerous moving parts. The company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and was sentenced at Medway Court on 1 September 2026.
Alongside the £333,333 fine, the bakery was ordered to pay £7,644 in costs. The prosecution centres on a longstanding machinery hazard in food production: accessible conveyor components during cleaning, blockage clearing, adjustment, or maintenance.
Food plants present a specific guarding challenge because machinery that must be enclosed safely during operation also needs frequent hygienic access. HSE guidance distinguishes between fixed guards, which may suit areas where routine access is unnecessary, and interlocked guards, which can allow frequent access while preventing dangerous movement before a person can reach the hazard.
That control becomes particularly important during cleaning. Switching a line off at the controls does not necessarily remove the risk of unexpected movement if energy remains available or if the machine can be restarted while a worker is exposed.
The food and drink sector’s accident record shows how familiar the problem is. HSE says conveyors are involved in 30% of all machinery accidents in the industry, more than any other machine class. Around 90% of conveyor injuries occur on flat-belt systems, and 90% involve well-known hazards such as in-running nips, transmission parts, and trapping points between moving and fixed components.
The regulator also says around 90% of conveyor accidents occur during normal foreseeable operations, including production, clearing blockages, and cleaning. That pattern places guarding and isolation requirements around routine work rather than rare maintenance events.
A formal safe system of work is expected for daily and routine hygienic cleaning. HSE guidance calls for workers to be protected from unguarded moving parts and for the method to be supported by appropriate training and supervision.
In the Sheerness incident, the conveyor had been off when cleaning began but subsequently started. The known facts point directly to the need for controls that remain effective for the full period of exposure, whether through guarding, interlocking, safe isolation, lock-off procedures, or a combination of measures suited to the machine and task.
HSE inspector Delcina Burden said: “If simple measures had been taken, this incident could have been avoided.” The regulator has repeatedly highlighted established trapping and nip-point hazards in its food-manufacturing guidance.
Machinery risk can change over a line’s working life. Production rates, cleaning methods, product formats, automation, maintenance routines, and access requirements may evolve after installation, making periodic reassessment of guarding necessary rather than assuming that the original arrangement remains suitable.
The same applies after modifications. Removing a guard to improve cleanability, changing a conveyor, adding sensors, or altering access around a line can introduce new trapping points or increase the frequency with which operators work near moving parts.
Guarding decisions also have to account for washdown, corrosion, and repeated removal. An interlock that works when a machine is commissioned can become unreliable if switches, fixings, or cables are damaged by cleaning chemicals or physical impact, while improvised access created during maintenance can defeat the intended protection.
Inspection and preventive maintenance therefore form part of the safeguarding system. HSE says machinery and plant account for almost 500 reportable injuries a year across food and drink manufacturing, with conveyors representing the largest single machinery category.
PUWER requires employers to prevent access to dangerous machinery parts or stop their movement before anyone enters the danger zone. In hygienic food production, that requirement has to coexist with frequent cleaning and inspection, but hygiene does not reduce the machinery-safety duty.
The Sheerness prosecution ended more than two years after the injury with a six-figure fine. The mechanics of the incident remain straightforward: cleaning was foreseeable, the roller was accessible, and the line was able to move while a worker’s arm was within the danger area.
