Bicester Motion fire: Inquest into three deaths set to open
An inquest into the deaths of two firefighters and a member of the public who were killed during a fire at a business park is set to open on Tuesday.Firefighters Jennie Logan, 30, and Martyn Sadler, 38, along with father-of-two Dave Chester, 57, were killed in the blaze that engulfed the Bicester Motion site on 15 May.Thames Valley Police (TVP) previously said all three had sustained injuries in line with those "typically caused by the collapse of part of a structure".Two other firefighters seriously injured in the incident remain in hospital in stable conditions.
The fire was reported at about 18:30 BST on 16 May and rapidly spread through a former aircraft hangar at the site on Buckingham Road, and a major incident was declared.Ten fire and rescue crews were called to tackle the blaze as witnesses reported seeing black smoke in the sky.
Bicester Motion is home to more than 50 specialist businesses, focused on classic car restoration and engineering on the former site of RAF Bicester.It was home to RAF Bomber Command in World War Two and became redundant in 2004.Thames Valley Police (TVP) said post-mortem examinations showed that Ms Logan, Mr Sadler, who worked for Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, and Mr Chester died from multiple traumatic injuries.The force also confirmed that an unexplained death investigation was being led by its major crime unit, alongside fire investigators and the Health and Safety Executive.Home Office statistics showed it was only the fourth incident in which a firefighter had died whilst tackling a blaze in England in the past 15 years.It was also the first time two firefighters had been killed in the same fire since Jim Shears and Alan Bannon died in a blaze at Shirley Towers in Southampton in April 2010.
Following the blaze, Bicester Town Council opened books of condolence, while church services and silences also took place.Two gold plaques were placed at Bicester Motion following the fire, with both signed: "Love from the Bicester Community."Paying tribute after the fire, the family of Mr Sadler, who previously worked for Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service (RBFRS) and was also part of London Fire Brigade, said being a firefighter was "always in his blood", adding that he was "the true definition of a hero"."Our world has fallen apart and our hearts are completely broken, but somewhere in amongst it all we are immensely proud of him and his unwavering bravery," they added.The family of Ms Logan said her "bravery and fearlessness shone through right until the end"."She will always be our hero and we are so immensely proud of her. Forever in our hearts," they added.Mr Chester's family described him as "Bicester born and bred" with a "quirky sense of humour"."He was not a victim but a hero, he died the way he lived – helping others and putting them ahead of himself," they continued.
Nicholas Mawer, who represents Bicester North on Cherwell District Council, previously told the BBC those lost in the fire were "the best of Bicester"."Thankfully these incidents are very rare but it's deeply affected the community," he added.Ms Logan and Mr Sadler were members of Bicester Rugby Union Football Club (BRUFC), with Ms Logan on the Bicester Vixens women's team."We are a tight-knit club," BRUFC's chairman Paul Jaggers said."Obviously losing two of your members in any situation is really tough and it's had a profound impact."A fundraiser launched by the club has raised more than £23,000 for the Fire Fighters Charity since the tragedy.
You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
42 minutes ago
- The Sun
Huge ‘Jack & the Beanstalk' tree towers over our homes – it's grotesque & irresponsible… but council won't chop it down
A GIANT "Jack and the beanstalk" tree is ruining locals' lives - but the council won't chop it down. Residents in Winchester, Hants, slammed the "grotesquely irresponsible" and "ludicrous" 45 foot high oak. 9 9 9 They say the tree was planted around 50 years ago by a previous homeowner on Canon Street who just "wanted something to do". But now it has branched into an "out of proportion" eyesore which overshadows the gardens of nearby properties - where the average house price is more than £600,000. However, the council have refused to cut it down and placed it under a protection order. The authorities said residents from a neighbouring street "appreciated" the tree. The decision has sparked outrage among locals who are actually dealing with the daily repercussions of such an overwhelming tree. Orla Williams, 40, moved into her terraced Grade II Listed home with her partner around two years ago. The doctor said after moving in, several residents went to her about the oak. She explained: "They were concerned that it is getting very large and that it could cause damage to their properties and potentially harm to people if it gets any larger, so they wanted it to be taken down. "We applied to the council to have it removed and someone came to look at it. "[The tree officer] said that they want to put a tree protection order on it." The mum-of-two also told how an "awful lot of detritus" falls from the tree in autumn and winter. She added: "We appreciate that the tree is beautiful but it's the wrong tree in the wrong place. "It is quite sad to remove something like that but it is only going to get bigger and potentially cause damage to lots of properties which is the main concern. "The council said they were concerned about removing it because it's one of the only trees in the area. 9 9 9 "All of the local residents seem to be of the opinion that unfortunately, it's the wrong tree in the wrong place." According to a council report, the tree officer visited Orla after receiving notice from the couple that it was due to be felled. But he found the tree met the criteria for a provisional protection order, which was issued in February of this year. A Winchester County Council meeting will take place next week to decide whether the tree status will change or not. There are nine residents in total who have objected to the order. Mark Pocock, a retired resident living on Canon Street, slammed the council's decision to protect the tree as "ludicrous". He said: 'As trees grow older they become more brittle. "If it were to fall and damage properties or persons, I would say the responsibility would be entirely with the council – not the owners of those properties. "I think putting a tree protection order on is grotesquely irresponsible of the council. 'It could be a danger to property and life." Nick Goff, 80, said he fears if the tree continues to grow, the roots underneath will damage a medieval wall in his garden, which was built in the Tudor era. The retired British Airways pilot said: "The issue is that in 10 years time, that will be double the height and double the width. 'It put on six feet last year it it's going to put on another six feet this year." He commissioned an independent report from a tree consultancy business. The report stated while the tree, which is still a "teenager" is in "good physiological condition". But the officer also found it is "a large sized tree in a very small area" and so the tree protection order is "unjustified". The report also stated "the possibility of longer term damage to the retaining walls and footings of the adjacent properties as entirely foreseeable". "Some guy planted this as something to do 40 years ago," Mr Goff continued "Now, we have got Jack and the Beanstalk. "It's not a historic tree – it's a silly mistake." However, the council report issued ahead of next week's meeting claimed these concerns were "speculative" and the tree "contributes meaningfully to local biodiversity and visual amenity". It added: "It is also the last significant tree in an area of land between Canon Street and St Swithun's Street, enhancing the character of the conservation area." Retired resident Graham Rule, 62, blasted the decision as "irresponsible". He said: "We all love trees but that shouldn't be there. "The people who want the protection order, they don't live here – its totally irresponsible." Winchester County Council was contacted for comment. 9 9 9
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Unite union had ‘pervasive fraud environment', auditors say
One of Britain's biggest trade unions had a 'pervasive fraud environment', a leaked auditors' report has concluded. Global tax advisory firm BDO found there had been a culture at Unite that 'did not challenge the appropriateness of transactions' and failed to ensure appropriate financial reporting. It concluded 'dominant personalities and a weak control environment facilitated opportunities to commit fraud' at the union. The audit was ordered by general secretary Sharon Graham shortly after she entered her role in 2021 amid questions about accounting and spending on building a hotel and conference centre in Birmingham. Its findings were presented to the union's executive council on Friday. Unite said the probe uncovered a £53.8 million 'impairment' related to the difference between the original valuation of the Birmingham project used to calculate the 'book value' by the auditors at the time, and the real value. The BDO report also said there had been 'unusual relationships' between former senior staff and Unite's customers and suppliers, according to the BBC which obtained a copy of the 35-page document ahead of its publication. In response, Ms Graham, who has pledged to strengthen internal governance practices, said: 'On behalf of Unite's 1.2 million-plus members, I promised on my election that I would uncover the truth about historic alleged corruption related to the Birmingham hotel project. 'This process has quite frankly been an ugly one, where I have endured attacks and smears from those with much to lose, but they have not deterred me. 'The re-audit is in its final stages and as we move to completion, I will ensure steps are taken so that this can never happen again and we have already started the process of getting our money back. 'Over the last three years of my leadership, I have refocused our union on to the jobs, pay and conditions of our members and we have secured a union that is financially strong and able to fight for workers.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
High court tells UK lawyers to ‘urgently' stop misuse of AI in legal work
The high court has told senior lawyers to take urgent action to prevent the misuse of artificial intelligence after dozens of fake case-law citations were put before the courts that were either completely fictitious or contained made-up passages. Lawyers are increasingly using AI systems to help them build legal arguments, but two cases this year were blighted by made-up case-law citations which were either definitely or suspected to have been generated by AI. In a £89m damages case against the Qatar National Bank, the claimants made 45 case-law citations, 18 of which turned out to be fictitious, with quotes in many of the others also bogus. The claimant admitted using publicly available AI tools and his solicitor accepted he cited the sham authorities. When Haringey Law Centre challenged the London borough of Haringey over its alleged failure to provide its client with temporary accommodation, its lawyer cited phantom case law five times. Suspicions were raised when the solicitor defending the council had to repeatedly query why they could not find any trace of the supposed authorities. It resulted in a legal action for wasted legal costs and a court found the law centre and its lawyer, a pupil barrister, were negligent. The barrister denied using AI in that case but said she may have inadvertently done so while using Google or Safari in preparation for a separate case where she also cited phantom authorities. In that case she said she may have taken account of AI summaries without realising what they were. In a regulatory ruling responding to the cases on Friday, Dame Victoria Sharp, the president of the King's bench division, said there were 'serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused' and that lawyers misusing AI could face sanctions, from public admonishment to facing contempt of court proceedings and referral to the police. She called on the Bar Council and the Law Society to consider steps to curb the problem 'as a matter of urgency' and told heads of barristers' chambers and managing partners of solicitors to ensure all lawyers know their professional and ethical duties if using AI. 'Such tools can produce apparently coherent and plausible responses to prompts, but those coherent and plausible responses may turn out to be entirely incorrect,' she wrote. 'The responses may make confident assertions that are simply untrue. They may cite sources that do not exist. They may purport to quote passages from a genuine source that do not appear in that source.' Ian Jeffery, the chief executive of the Law Society of England and Wales, said the ruling 'lays bare the dangers of using AI in legal work'. 'Artificial intelligence tools are increasingly used to support legal service delivery,' he added. 'However, the real risk of incorrect outputs produced by generative AI requires lawyers to check, review and ensure the accuracy of their work.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion The cases are not the first to have been blighted by AI-created hallucinations. In a UK tax tribunal in 2023, an appellant who claimed to have been helped by 'a friend in a solicitor's office' provided nine bogus historical tribunal decisions as supposed precedents. She admitted it was 'possible' she had used ChatGPT, but said it surely made no difference as there must be other cases that made her point. The appellants in a €5.8m (£4.9m) Danish case this year narrowly avoided contempt proceedings when they relied on a made-up ruling that the judge spotted. And a 2023 case in the US district court for the southern district of New York descended into chaos when a lawyer was challenged to produce the seven apparently fictitious cases they had cited. The simply asked ChatGPT to summarise the cases it had already made up and the result, said the judge was 'gibberish' and fined the two lawyers and their firm $5,000.
