Support quality, independent, local journalism…that matters

From just £1 a month you can help fund our work – and use our website without adverts. Become a member today

The owner of a trampoline park where four children broke their legs has been handed a suspended sentence after he failed to report the injuries.

Cardiff Crown Court was told Philip Booth, 61, from St Mellons, Cardiff, “profit before safety” when running Supajump in Trident Trade Park, Cardiff.

Prosecutors said that the venue, between late 2017 and mid-2019, was “chaos” and “like a zoo” – with no proper safety briefings for parents and their children. 

Booth had previously admitted six health and safety offences which occurred between August 2017 and October 2019. He was given a ten-month custodial sentence, suspended for 18 months, and ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work. He also fined Booth’s company Supatramp £10,000 and ordered it to pay £10,000 prosecution costs.

A total of six children, ranging in age from three and 11, all suffered injuries during an 18-month period.

Injuries they suffered included broken legs and in one case a spinal injury.

The court heard that prior to opening, Booth was warned after a safety officials that the trampoline park was not safe – but he still went ahead regardless

A later investigation found improper padding and poor training for staff, Items were also found at the bottom of a foam pit including a pair of scissors, a lighter, a rolled up cigarette, springs, and a sanitary towel.

His defence said the former sweet shop owner had been “overwhelmed” by running a trampoline park and insisted he had not neglected people’s safety in danger at the expense of making money.

However, Judge Matthew Seymour Porter–Bryant said Booth had shown a lax attitude and was “highly culpable” and told him he had been warned on several occasions.

Booth was charged, and admitted, four counts of failing to report an accident and two counts of failing to ensure people were not exposed to health and safety risks from using play equipment at Supajump.

The court heard that after having opened without an independent safety inspection taking place, a child was left bleeding from the mouth and “crying and shaking” after getting trapped down the side of the air bag at the trampoline park.

The court also heard how the child had difficulty breathing before being rescued and details of the incident were not taken down. When the child’s parent spoke to park owner Booth, the court heard that he told them: “It’s only a graze not to worry”.

The second incident at the trampoline park involved a young child who broke her leg after accidentally being struck by another adult. 

Prosecutor Carl Harrison, for Cardiff Council, told the court that the family of the child had not been informed of a safety briefing before the incident. 

The child was described as being “white as a ghost” after the incident and was taken to the University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, where they were diagnosed with a fracture just below the knee. 

The court was told that a third incident saw a child fracture their tibia and fibula after jumping into a foam pit. 

Again, Mr Harrison said no safety briefing or advice was given ahead of this incident. The child was taken to hospital “screaming in pain” according to Mr Harrison. 

Mr Harrison added that within 18 months of the accident having taken place, children were back playing in the foam pit. 

In April 2019 a child suffered a broken femur in another incident involving the foam pit and had to undergo surgery. 

A fifth incident saw a young child break their fibula and tibula after ‘double jumping’ on one of the trampolines and landing awkwardly. 

According to Mr Harrison, the child, who was left “hysterical” after the injury, and should have been in the under fives area of the trampoline park. 

In the sixth incident which took place at the site, a nine-year-old child suffered a spinal injury after being thrown into the foam pit by their parent. 

The area was supervised by a member of staff at the time who had not warned the parent.

The court also heard the park was understaffed and that workers were not properly trained. One staff member said that they were “not told much” and “figured most of it out by reading the signs”.

Mr Harrison said: “Basically they allowed a 17-year-old to teach a 16-year-old to teach the next cohort of staff.”

Booth’s barrister John Ryan said the business was set up for a cost of £500,000 and had been established thanks to a mix of a loan and money from his elderly father. He said his client had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and was incredibly remorseful.

He said: “He is a man that’s put his heart and soul in the business…..He was naïve. He came from a background of running a sweet shop and may have been overwhelmed by the complexities of running a business (such as this)”.

He also gave a number of character references to the court – including ones from disability groups saying that Booth had been incredibly helpful towards them as well as a Muslim group, who said the defendant had shown a great deal of professionalism and sensitivities towards their specific visit.

He also said that a number of lessons had been learned, proper safety measures were in place and that the business now had 20 members of staff – 70% of which were trained in first aid.

Judge Porter–Bryant said the offences were clearly serious and showed a high degree of culpability and that “the same issues kept running” throughout the period of offences.

He said: “You intentionally breached of flagrantly disregarded the law.”

But after listening to both the prosecution and defence’s submissions, he said that there were elements of each others’ argument that “balanced themselves out”.

He decided against sending the defendant straight to jail. Among the key factors was that if Booth was sent to prison immediately, Supajump would likely close – thus reducing the chances of victims claiming any compensation in the future, because the defendant would likely no longer have the means to pay.

The Judge also said: “In the intervening period, you have done one of the best things – you have run a business that has seemingly turned a corner in terms of its accidents and incidents.”

The court also heard that safety measures had since been put in place.