I don't want to mis-represent what you said so I'm going to be quite careful in this observation, but it could be read from your last comment that IF the site owner hadn't met his obligations then the trespassers could be relieved of all THEIR responsibility in this matter. I think that's a really dangerous precedent to set and I'd hope no court in the land would allow such a thing.
I might have read you wrong though so please feel free to correct me!
No, the trespassers are not absolved from their responsibility simply because the outcome was also predicated by a failure of the site owner to fulfil their obligations. The trespassers are still liable for the trespass and the theft....the boy still has to live with the consequences of his actions...however if NWR are also found to have been negligent then they share a portion of the responsibility of the outcome.
Effectively this means that there are potentially two guilty parties, the boys for breaking the law and NWR for failing to adhere to their legal obligations. How that responsibility is attributed and to what degree is a matter for a court to decide, but there is precedent where a claimant has their claim substantially reduced due to their own part in the incident, not to forget the obligations set out in the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 on site owners.
So it isn't about point the finger of blame at one individual and saying 'it's all your fault' or 'if you didn't do this, this would not have happened' in isolation, be it NWR or the boys themselves, but assessing the relative responsibility and addressing the respective punishments and/or measures that need to be taken.
For my part, NWR should not be held liable for the actions of the boys, equally the boys should not be held liable for the (potential) failure of NWR. Time will tell as to how it all pans out, NWR and the BTP will investigate as a matter of course and if NWR are found to have taken all reasonable and practical precausions in securing their site and the safety therein, then they will have no case to answer, if however they are found to have been negligent they will.......this has no bearing on the theft/trespass allegations/prosecutions on the three young men and any responsibilty that NWR have toward the injured boy is for a court to decide (and is separate from the boys responsibilty for trespassing/theft) and on past evidence any compensation for negligence will be severly limited by the injured boys own actions and responsibility for his own injury.
Effectively one illegal action doesn't absolve the other. I hope that clarifies my position somewhat, and I apologise for the remark earlier, I misunderstood your motivation.
