Owner of paddleboarding company jailed over deaths of four people in Pembrokeshire
A woman has been jailed for 10 years and six months over the deaths of four paddleboarders in Wales.
Nerys Bethan Lloyd - a former police officer - pleaded guilty last month to four counts of gross negligence manslaughter and one offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act.
Paul O'Dwyer, 42, Andrea Powell, 41, Morgan Rogers, 24, and Nicola Wheatley, 40, died after they got into difficulty in the River Cleddau, Pembrokeshire, on 30 October 2021.
The four had been part of a stand-up paddleboarding tour when their paddleboards went over a weir in Haverfordwest, during "extremely hazardous conditions".
The tour had been organised by Lloyd, owner and sole director of Salty Dog Co Ltd.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said in a statement that an expert had concluded the tour "should not have taken place".
'Extremely dangerous'
Paddleboarding expert Andrew Gratwick said in his written evidence that he considered the weir to be "an extremely serious risk which should have been very obvious to any competent instructor".
The court heard that neither the defendant nor Paul O'Dwyer had a "suitable qualification for this kind of activity" and that the "final decisions to take part" were hers.
Prosecuting, Mark Watson KC, said he accepted Mr O'Dwyer "bears a share of the responsibility" but that the defendant was "primarily responsible for the needless loss of life".
During periods of high water levels, Haverfordwest's weir "becomes extremely dangerous with high potential for loss of life", according to evidence submitted by the local kayak club's health and safety officer.
One bystander, who had lived by the side of the River Cleddau for around 35 years said "he could not recall seeing the river ever flowing so strongly".
"All seven participants had been completely taken by surprise by the presence of the weir and in a chaotic episode of some twenty seconds, they were all carried over the weir crest by the strong current," Mr Watson said.
A voice message service on the day of the incident recorded Lloyd as having said "It's my fault 100% I probably shouldn't have gone on the water."
In the back of the ambulance, she was overheard telling friends that she was "going to jail for this".
Sentencing Lloyd at Swansea Crown Court on Wednesday, Mrs Justice Stacey told Lloyd that the weir presented an "obvious and extreme danger" and that she "showed a blatant disregard" for the risk of loss of life.
"This was not a monetary lapse, your whole approach to health and safety was lax," she added.
The judge said there were Met Office weather warnings at that time, as well as a flood alert in place through Natural Resources Wales.
Mrs Justice Stacey said the footage of the incident was "too distressing to be shown in court".
"Having studied it, I am sure that you made no attempt to investigate or paddle to the steps which were visible from the river."
In her sentencing remarks, the judge paid tribute to the victims and their families.
"We've heard such mobbing accounts form the family members of those who died. Statements, which I fear, barely scratch the surface," she said.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
Please refresh the page for the fullest version.
You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Blasphemy laws against Islam are here, but nobody in Westminster will admit it
Last November, the social justice activist Titania McGrath tweeted that 'the assassination attempt against Donald Trump proves irrefutably that he is guilty of inciting violence'. Most people would have instantly understood this remark to be satirical, yet the judge in a much-publicised court case this week appears to have adopted Titania's logic with chilling precision. On Monday, Hamit Coskun was convicted of a public order offence for burning his own copy of the Quran in a peaceful protest outside the Turkish consulate. He was interrupted when an angry member of the public slashed at him with a knife and a passing delivery man kicked him while he lay on the floor. Channelling Titania in his ruling, District Judge John McGarva claimed that Coskun's conduct was proven to be disorderly 'by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by two different people'. While reading the judgment in this case, those of us who still care about free speech will hear multiple alarm bells clanging all at once. Leaving aside the sinister suggestion that a victim of violence is to blame for being attacked, the judge also stated that 'the defendant positioned himself outside the Turkish embassy, a place where he must have known there would be Muslims'. Given that Coskun had said that his protest was against 'the Islamist Government of Erdogan who has made Turkey a base for radical Islamists and is trying to establish a Sharia regime', it is difficult to imagine a more suitable location. Coskun's alleged crime is 'disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress', motivated by 'hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam'. That his style of protest had the potential to cause offence is beyond doubt, with his cries of 'Quran is burning' and 'f--- Islam'. But if provocative language is now illegal, then one wonders how the major protests we've seen on the streets of London this year haven't all culminated in mass arrests. We need to be honest about what this conviction represents: blasphemy law by the back door. The creed of multiculturalism is a keystone of the intersectional ideology that has infected so many of our major institutions. The police and the judiciary are far from immune, which is presumably why, in the absence of authentic blasphemy codes, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had attempted to invent one of its own. The CPS had originally charged Coskun with intent to cause 'harassment, alarm or distress' against 'the religious institution of Islam'. It was eventually forced to change the wording to comply with the law. This is a standard symptom of ideological capture. The trans charity Stonewall, for instance, has been found to have misrepresented the Equality Act as it 'would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is'. The College of Policing – the body responsible for the training of officers in England and Wales – has ignored demands from successive home secretaries to stop the recording of 'non-crime hate incidents', and has even shirked a ruling from the High Court that found the practice to be a clear infringement on free speech. The problems of two-tier justice and the ongoing state encroachment on free speech will not disappear until we tackle the two major sources of the problem. The first is the ideological bias that has become embedded in the police and the CPS. The second is the various 'hate speech' laws on the statue books that no government has yet had the courage to repeal. Why are people still being prosecuted for 'grossly offensive' comments, when such a notion is hopelessly subjective and impossible to define? Why are there proscriptions against the causing of 'alarm' or 'distress', when these are inevitable aspects of life? Why, for that matter, is 'hate' considered illegal at all? The state is seemingly under the delusion that it can legislate away our hardwired human emotions. Ultimately, no citizen should be arrested for a peaceful protest in which they burn their own book. That it was a copy of the Quran should be beside the point. In a free society, no belief-system should be exempt from criticism, ridicule and, yes, hatred. The spread of ideology through our public institutions, and the ongoing failure of our politicians to acknowledge that it is happening at all, has meant that the principle of equality under the law is now subordinated to group identity and the risk of causing offence. For those of us who still believe in freedom, this situation is no longer tolerable. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Free speech must not be sacrificed to appease Islamists
Sir Keir Starmer once marched into the High Court to defend a woman who trampled and daubed slogans on the American flag, thundering that even the most insulting acts of desecration are protected by free today, faced with a man fined for burning a Koran, he melts into apparent silence. His own MPs are calling for him to specifically outlaw any 'desecration' of holy books and he ominously failed to rule it out. So it's free speech for flag-burners, but criminal records for Koran-burners? The double standard could not be starker: this is two-tier justice, made to measure for Two-Tier Keir's Britain. Hamit Coskun's fate is grotesque. He was allegedly stabbed in broad daylight by an enraged zealot for burning a religious book and hauled before a judge while his alleged assailant will not face trial until 2027. The Kurdish-Armenian atheist, protesting President Erdogan, was knifed, kicked, and spat on outside Turkey's London consulate, yet it is only he who now carries a criminal could have been even worse. My campaign alongside the Free Speech Union forced the CPS to dump its farcical charge that Coskun had harassed 'the religious institution of Islam'. Even so, their revised charge still criminalises the robust denunciation of ideas. This is the rebirth of a blasphemy law, smuggled in through the back door. Seventeen years after Parliament abolished blasphemy against Christianity, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts have brought it back for charge against Coskun, Section 5 of the Public Order Act, was meant to tackle threatening or abusive behaviour directed at real people present in real time. In 2013, Parliament tightened the law so that ordinary insult would no longer suffice. The CPS has now expanded that provision into a blasphemy clause. If book-burning during a political protest is re-defined as 'disorder', then any vigorous criticism of Islam – or indeed any religion – is at risk. The judgment sets a chilling precedent: the more 'offended' a crowd claims to be, the more likely the state might be to punish the note the breathtaking asymmetry. Had Coskun torched a Bible outside Apostolic Nunciature (the Vatican's Embassy) while shouting abuse about Christianity, does anyone seriously believe the CPS would have rushed to press charges? Would the police even have turned up? Their own hate-crime guidance celebrates satire, mockery and irreverence – unless, it seems, the target is Islam. Parliament did not legislate for such religious privilege; officials have conjured it out of thin air. Meanwhile, the real violence has gone largely unremarked. The man alleged to have stabbed Coskun – caught on camera slashing and spitting, and then booted repeatedly by a masked Deliveroo driver who hopped off his bike to 'help' the attacker before cycling away, still unidentified and uncharged – cannot even be named, and his case will not reach court for another two years. Until then, he's out on bail, walking our streets. His appeal against the conviction must, as Kemi Badenoch has said, be successful. To see where this is heading, look no further than Batley Primary School teacher still in hiding – his life shattered – for sharing a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed. Parliament must strike back so that the authorities and our courts have no doubt of Parliament's protection of free speech. My colleague, Nick Timothy, has produced a Bill that will bar prosecutors and judges from reviving blasphemy in any guise. I will support it unequivocally, and I challenge the Government benches to support it. Ministers who claim to cherish free speech must prove it. Let the Bill progress, or admit they are willing to trade our liberties for the transient comfort of avoiding offence. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Man convicted after burning Koran in public
The Crown Prosecution Service has been accused of reviving blasphemy laws after a man who set fire to a copy of the Koran was convicted of a racially aggravated public order offence. Hamit Coskun shouted 'f--- Islam' and 'Islam is religion of terrorism' while holding the religious text above his head during a protest on Feb 13. The 50-year-old, who was violently attacked by a passerby during the demonstration in London, went on trial last week, accused of an offence under the Public Order Act. At Westminster magistrates' court on Monday, he was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly conduct, which was motivated 'in part by hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam'. Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: 'This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. 'Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.' Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the 'religious institution of Islam'. However, the charge was later amended after free speech campaigners took up his cause and argued he was essentially being accused of blasphemy. District Judge John McGarva said, 'there was a real problem with the original charge, which referred to Islam as if it was a person, when it is not'. He said, however, that the current prosecution was not 'an attempt to bring back and expand blasphemy law.' He said: 'A decision needs to be made as to whether your conduct was simply you exercising your right to protest and freedom of speech or whether your behaviour crossed a line into criminal conduct.' Katy Thorne KC, Coskun's barrister, had argued that even the amended charges against him effectively criminalised any public burning of a religious book and were tantamount to blasphemy laws. 'It is effectively chilling the right of citizens to criticise religion,' she said. She said Coskun's actions were not motivated by hostility towards the followers of Islam but to the religion itself. Judge McGarva, however, said he did not accept that argument. Addressing Coskun, he said: 'You believe Islam is an ideology which encourages its followers to violent paedophilia and a disregard for the rights of non-believers. 'You don't distinguish between the two. I find you have a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers. That is based on your experiences in Turkey and the experiences of your family.' Giving his verdict, Judge McGarva said: 'Your actions in burning the Koran where you did were highly provocative, and your actions were accompanied by bad language in some cases directed toward the religion and were motivated at least in part by hatred of followers of the religion.' The judge ordered Coskun, who is currently claiming asylum, to pay a fine of £240. The court heard Coskun, who is now in hiding, had to flee his home country of Turkey two and a half years ago to escape persecution. He argued he was protesting against the 'Islamist government' of Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Giving evidence, Coskun made a number of comments about Islam, including claiming the majority of paedophiles are Muslim. Lawyers for the CPS insisted that Coskun was not being prosecuted for setting fire to the Koran. Philip McGhee, for the CPS, said: 'He is being prosecuted for his disorderly behaviour in public.' He added: 'Nothing about the prosecution of this defendant for his words and actions has any impact on the ability of anyone to make any trenchant criticism of a religion. On Feb 13, Coskun, who is of Armenian-Kurdish descent, travelled from his home in the Midlands to the Turkish consulate in Knightsbridge. He then set fire to the holy book and held it above his head, shouting, 'Islam is religion of terrorism'and 'f--- Islam'. As he did so, a passerby attacked him and appeared to slash at Coskun with a blade and then began kicking him when he fell to the ground. Although the man has admitted assaulting Coskun, he has denied using a knife in the attack. The man, whose identity is subject to reporting restrictions, will go on trial in 2027. The National Secular Society (NSS), which, alongside the Free Speech Union, paid for Coskun's legal fees, said the verdict 'jeopardises' free expression. A spokesperson for the FSU said: 'This is deeply disappointing. Everyone should be able to exercise their rights to protest peacefully and to freedom of expression, regardless of how offensive or upsetting it may be to some people. 'The Free Speech Union and the National Secular Society intend to appeal this verdict and keep on appealing it until it's overturned. If that means taking it all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, we will do so.' 'Religious tolerance is an important British value, but it doesn't require non-believers to respect the blasphemy codes of believers. On the contrary, it requires people of faith to tolerate those who criticise and protest against their religion, just as their values and beliefs are tolerated.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
