Man lay at bottom of swimming pool for five minutes while lifeguards 'stood chatting', court told

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 yesterday.

The Newry Crown Court jury of four men and eight women heard that Christopher Rodgers was swimming lengths underwater at Orchard Leisure Centre on 7 April 2017 when the 20-year-old tragically died from oxygen starvation.

Three lifeguards, Cathal Peter Forrest McVeigh, 35, of Dunamony Road in Dungannon, James Monaghan, 26, of Folly Lane in Armagh, and William Holden, 26, of Unshinagh Lane in Portadown, were on duty the night Christopher died.

Each is on trial facing a single count each that being employee, they were in breach their duty to others 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”.

Formally opening the 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 where the jury saw that after 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 Rodgers, known to be “an excellent swimmer” who would practice holding his breath, 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.”

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 Rodgers’ tragic 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.

McCollum told the jury that midway through what would have been his third length underwater, Rodgers breaks 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.”

Advertisement

A report from the coroner suggested that 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.

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”. 

Turning to what the three defendants were doing at the time, he told the jury that Holden was in the chair while McVeigh and Monaghan were poolside “in conversation at the corner of the deep end” for two minutes and 20 second.

He said that 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” but there was none.

He said McVeigh signals to another swimmer to check on Rodgers. The jury heard the victim “gave him a thumbs up” but a minute later, two members of the public “duck under” and retrieve Rodgers from the bottom of the pool.

It is the Crown case, said McCollum, that each of them failed in their duty as lifeguards. He highlighted extracts from the lifeguard handbook which stipulated several measures, including not having poolside conversations, intervening early to avoid accidents and intervening even if there’s a doubt over a swimmer flowing around or being in genuine difficulty.

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,” said 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 all three defendants are guilty…and you will have no difficulty, when you have heard all of the evidence, in coming to that conclusion,” McCollum submitted.

The trial continues.

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Learn More Support The Journal