A swimmer suffered a hypoxic blackout and lay at the bottom of a leisure centre pool for more than five minutes while two lifeguards stood chatting at the side, a jury heard on Tuesday.
The Newry Crown Court jury of four men and eight women heard that Christopher Rodgers was swimming lengths underwater at Orchard Leisure Centre in Armagh on 7 April 2017 when the 20-year-old tragically died from oxygen starvation.
On trial facing a single count each that being an employee, they were in breach their duty to others on 7 April 2017 in that they “failed to take reasonable care for the health and safety of other persons who may be affected by your acts or omissions at work” are:
Cathal Forrest-McVeigh, 35, from Dunamony Road in Dungannon;
William Holden, 26, from Unshinagh Lane in Portadown and
James Monaghan, 26, from Folly Lane in Armagh.
Formally opening the Crown case prosecuting KC Liam McCollum told the jury that “rather uniquely” in this case they would see what happened as most of the tragedy had been captured by CCTV cameras.
Four CCTV clips were played for the jury after the senior barrister explained how they would see that after Mr Rodgers had swam two lengths of the pool underwater, he was midway through a third length when “he pushed off the bottom, his head came above the water and then he sank to the bottom of the pool”.
As Mr Rodgers lay at the bottom of the pool, McVeigh and Monaghan were recorded chatting at the side of the pool for a time while Holden was “in the high chair”.
Mr Rodgers, he told the jury, was a member of the leisure centre, a member of a local swimming club and was known to be “an excellent swimmer” who would routinely swim lengths of the pool holding his breath under water. He was also known, the jury heard, to practice holding his breath “in a stationary position at the bottom of the pool”.
The incident giving rise to the charges occurred around 9.20pm on 7 April and Mr McCollum described to the jury how three lanes of the pool were being taken up by a children’s swimming club, Mr Rodgers was in the fourth lane and there were other swimmers present in the rest of the pool.
Generally, the practice was that two lifeguards would be on duty at any one time with one in a “roaming position” and one in the high chair on the opposite side.
At the time of the incident which lead to Mr Rodgers’ death, Holden was in the chair and Monaghan was “roaming” but coincidentally, “there was a change over” with McVeigh and another lifeguard coming to relieve them.
Mr McCollum told the jury that mid way through what would have been his third length underwater Mr Rodgers broke the surface and then “submerged to the bottom”, adding that thanks to the CCTV footage it was clear he was there for five minutes and 14 seconds “at which stage he was rescued but unfortunately, died thereafter”.
A report from the coroner suggested that Mr Rodgers “had experienced a loss of consciousness due to low blood oxygen” as a result of holding his breath coupled with the exertion of under water swimming.
At 9.22, the court heard, “McVeigh entered the water…to initiate a rescue” after a member of the public alerted him that Mr Rodgers was in difficulty and had raised him to the surface.
Mr McCollum told the jury that while five minutes may not seem like a long time if for instance “you are waiting on a bus…you might consider, we say, that for someone to be at the bottom of a pool, not emerging, five minutes and 14 seconds is a very, very long time”.
“That is a matter for you to consider at the end of the case,” he suggested to the jury.
Turning to what the three defendants were doing at the time, he told the jury Holden was in the chair while McVeigh and Monaghan were pool side “in conversation at the corner of the deep end”.
“That is before Mr Rodgers submerged and this conversation lasts for two minutes and 20 seconds and during that conversation Mr Rodgers breaks the surface and then submerges to the bottom of the pool having suffered a hypoxic blackout,” said the lawyer.
Over the course of the next three minutes Monaghan is in and out but is beside McVeigh when he uses a metal pole to strike the steps “to try to get a response from mr Rodgers”.
“There appears to be no response” the jury heard, and a minute after that, McVeigh signals to another swimmer to check on Rodgers and the jury heard the victim “gave him a thumbs up”.
A minute after that McVeigh signals to Holden in the chair who then goes to get a radio and a few seconds after that, two members of the public “duck under” and retrieve Mr Rodgers from the bottom of the pool.
It is the Crown case, said Mr McCollum, that each of them failed in their duty as lifeguards and he highlighted extracts from the lifeguard handbook which stipulated several measures which he suggested were “just common sense”.
By way of example, he told the jury the guidance said that when lifeguards are rotating exchanging information “should only take a matter of seconds” and he suggested that was common sense because “their job is to keep an eye on the people in the pool”.
Another excerpt he emphasised that early intervention was always better than having to rescue or give first aid and that “it is far better to take action and find out that is not required than not to take action and find out later that early intervention would have prevented or reduced the severity of a potential serious incident”.
“Never talk on poolside unless a colleague passing on vital info,” was another rule from the book and Mr McCollum said that as a lifeguard, “you should take every measure possible to ensure that you are not distracted from what is happening in the pool”.
“If you are not sure whether a swimmer is fooling around or actually in difficulty it is far better to react and initiate emergency respite than to delay the rescue,” he quoted to the jury.
Urging the jury to bring their experience and wisdom into the jury room when they come to decide the case, the senior barrister reminded them the charge related to each of the defendants taking “reasonable care” to ensure the health and safety of people in the pool and their decision was to decide whether their actions amounted to reasonable care.
“Their job was to guard lives…their job was to be vigilant for the safety of everybody who was swimming in the pool and if anyone look to be in any trouble, to save them,” said Mr McCollum.
“The prosecution say that self-evidently, they did not do this job properly because a very long period of time passed between Mr Rodgers hitting the bottom of the pool and any rescue attempt.
“The prosecution say that on the basis of the evidence that all three defendants are guilty of the charge before you and you will have no difficulty, when you have heard all of the evidence, in coming to that conclusion,” Mr McCollum submitted.
The trial continues.
At hearing.
Ends
English (United States) ·