R v Nerys Bethan Lloyd

This is a renewed application for leave to appeal sentence. On 5 March 2025 in the Crown Court at Swansea the applicant pleaded guilty to four counts of gross negligence manslaughter and one count of failure to discharge a duty imposed by section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, contrary to section 33(1) of that Act.

On 23 April 2025 the applicant was sentenced by Stacey J to a total of 10 years and six months' imprisonment, comprising four concurrent 10-year sentences for each of the manslaughter counts, with a consecutive six-month sentence for the health and safety offence. The applicant is represented pro bono on this application by David Elias KC. We are grateful to him for his full and helpful submissions in this tragic case. We are grateful also to Mr Watson for his Respondent's Notice and for his attendance today.

Shortly before 09:00 am on Saturday 30 October 2021 the applicant led a party of paddleboarders, comprising seven participants and a fellow instructor, down the River Cleddau, through Haverfordwest. It was a paid tour which the applicant had advertised and organised as part of her paddleboard business. There had been heavy rain earlier in the week, and the river was in "flood conditions" with a visibly strong current.

The participants comprised a group of women, all of whom were much less experienced than the applicant and her co-instructor, Paul O’Dwyer. The applicant and Mr O’Dwyer had completed a basic entry level paddleboard instructors’ course earlier in the year. This level of qualification was insufficient for leading a tour on a river with various hazards including a weir.

Each member of the group was equipped with a paddleboard and paddle and, with one exception, each participant was attached to the paddleboard by a traditional ankle leash. Some of the group had been on previous tours organised by the applicant. Mr O’Dwyer was the applicant’s next-door neighbour. He assisted the applicant in her business and helped arrange and organise tours. Mr O’Dwyer’s wife, Ceri O’Dwyer was one of the participants.

The applicant and Mr O’Dwyer both knew that there was a large weir in the town centre of Haverfordwest. Both had paddled over it in August 2021. With the exception of a narrow fish ramp at its centre, which was slightly wider than the width of a paddleboard, the weir dropped sharply to the river below. On the morning of 30 October 2021 the drop was approximately 1.3 metres between the water levels above and below the weir.

The applicant and Mr O’Dwyer had stopped in the town centre to inspect the river prior to the tour but had not inspected the weir itself. In the days before the tour the applicant had rebuffed a suggestion made by Mr O’Dwyer that they consider an alternative route. Evidence from social media made it clear that the applicant was, or should have been, aware of the very limited paddleboarding experience of members of the group.

Before starting the tour the participants were not briefed, nor were they informed of the presence of the weir, or of any plan to navigate it. Neither the applicant nor Mr O’Dwyer were qualified to lead a paddleboarding tour on a river in flood conditions. Moreover, both knew from the paddleboarding course which they had undertaken that on a river paddleboarders should have quick release waist leads to the paddleboard and not ankle leads. There were no circumstances in which it would have been considered safe to transit a weir in flood conditions, other than for portage, which would have involved exiting the river a safe distance upstream from the weir, walking around it, and re-entering the river further downstream.

The group entered the river just before 09:00 am. The applicant led the group with Mr O’Dwyer taking a position at the rear. CCTV cameras captured the paddleboarders at various points as they made their way along the river. The applicant was positioned in the centre of the river, with five participants following her under the central arch of a bridge located just upstream from the weir. The strength of the current meant that it took the group only minutes to reach the weir from their starting point.

The applicant took a kneeling position on her paddleboard and transited down the fish ramp. She was some distance ahead of the rest of the group, having told them to hang back. The fast-flowing water meant the applicant was swept a significant distance downstream before she was able to turn and look back at the weir.

The first of the participants reached the crest of the weir approximately 40 seconds after the applicant had descended the fish pass. One by one the seven participants were swept over the face of the weir. Each fell off their paddleboards into the turbulent, circulating water where some became trapped. Five went over the west side of the weir, and two over the east side. Mr O’Dwyer, who was still at the rear of the group, exited the river above the weir and saw the danger the group were in. He re-entered the river on his board in an attempt to rescue them and he was also carried over the weir into the water below.

The immense force of the water flowing over the weir and recirculating below was overwhelming. Participants Andrea Powell, Morgan Rogers and Nicola Wheatley all died when they were caught in the forceful, whirling currents. Mr O’Dwyer died while attempting to rescue them. Bystanders tried to assist, throwing lifelines into the water in vain.

It was estimated that the intensity of the water flowing over the weir that morning was the equivalent of nearly two tonnes of water crossing a one metre section of the weir crest at every second.

At the time of their deaths, Andrea Powell was 41, Morgan Rogers was 24, Nicola Wheatley was 40 and Paul O’Dywer was 42. The survivors from the group were Ceri O’Dwyer, Gemma Cox, Jemma Dugdale and Melody Johns.

On 5 March 2025 the applicant pleaded guilty to the gross negligence manslaughter of Andrea Powell, Morgan Rogers, Nicola Wheatley and Paul O’Dwyer. She also pleaded guilty to a breach of duty imposed upon her as a self-employed person by section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, namely that by organising and leading the excursion the applicant failed to ensure the health and safety of the group.

There were expert reports dealing with various aspects of the case. Weirs expert Amanda Kitchen conducted a detailed examination of Haverfordwest Town weir, and undertook a comparative review of other weirs in the United Kingdom. She concluded that the Haverfordwest Town weir was similar to approximately one quarter of the accessible weirs across the country and was not unusual in respect of its features or accessibility. The evidence showed that weirs presented well known and extreme hazards in the type of river conditions present on the River Cleddau on 30 October 2021.

Hydrological expert Professor Carolyn Roberts estimated that the drop of the weir around the time of the reconnaissance trip on 19 August would have been approximately 0.6 metres. Analysis of the photographic and video evidence from 30 October showed that the drop would have been around 1.3 metres.

On 19 August 2021 the river gauge at Haverfordwest, located a short distance upstream from the weir, gave a reading of 0.41 metres. The same river gauge had a reading of 1.32 metres on 30 October. On 19 August the ground would have been dry, whereas the ground on 30 October was wet, with some standing water. On 29 October the rain gauges recorded that there had been 27 millimetres of rain. Any daily rainfall above 15 millimetres was classed as heavy rain. Furthermore, there were no weather warnings in place on 19 August but there were several yellow weather warnings for Pembrokeshire over 28 and 30 October.

Based on these weather warnings, National Resources Wales issued a flood alert for the Western Cleddau at 15:51 pm on 28 October 2021, referring to a high risk of flooding. The alert was reviewed on 29 October and renewed with an updated flood alert for the river at 09:35 am that day. The alert was not removed until 1 November.

A report was obtained by Andrew Gratwick, an expert in paddleboarding. He was also Managing Director and Head of Training for the British Kitesurfing Association and the Head Coach for the British Stand Up Paddleboarding Association. In his opinion, the weir posed an extremely serious risk that should have been obvious to any competent instructor, and a tour encompassing the weir should not have taken place on that or any other day. It was not possible or advisable to navigate the weir on a paddleboard. Andrew Gratwick found that neither the applicant nor Paul O’Dwyer had a suitable qualification for that type of activity. Furthermore, the applicant failed to undertake pre-course planning or complete operational paperwork and failed to conduct comprehensive reconnaissance on the day. The final decisions were the applicant’s to make and she was entirely responsible as the organiser, owner and lead instructor. In Andrew Gratwick’s opinion the applicant’s conduct fell very far below the standard expected of a competent paddleboard instructor or the owner of a paddleboard company.

Andrew Gratwick was also asked to address the role of Paul O’Dwyer. He confirmed that the role of Paul O’Dwyer did not materially impact his assessment on the extent of the applicant’s failures. It was accepted by the Prosecution that Paul O’Dwyer bore a share of the responsibility for the failures and also had a duty of care for the others on the trip, but it was the applicant who was primarily responsible for loss of life.

The judge had a number of documents before her for sentence. A detailed pre-sentence report, defence submissions on sentence, a personal statement from the applicant together with character references submitted on her behalf. The prosecution had prepared a note of the video evidence and submissions on the application of relevant sentencing guidelines. There were truly moving victim personal statements from the families of the dead speaking of their loss grief and from two of the survivors. We have read them all. We have also watched the CCTV. As the judge said, and we repeat, no sentence can undo what happened that day or compensate for the loss of a loved family member or friend.

Having set out the facts of the case, the judge noted relevant matters relating to the applicant herself and also dealt with the delay noting that "Whilst the families have seen you out and about when their loved ones are gone, the delay and today's hearing has weighed heavily on you too." The judge then turned to the guidelines. There is no criticism of her conclusion that culpability fell into culpability category B in the Sentencing Council Guideline for Gross Negligence Manslaughter. She found that two of the culpability B factors applied, namely blatant disregard for a very high risk of death and leading role. Under a sub-heading "mitigation" in her remarks, the judge referred to the absence of any relevant previous convictions and to the statement speaking to the applicant's positive good character. She referred also to the steps taken by the applicant at the scene to resuscitate the victims. The judge accepted that the applicant had by the time of sentence come to show genuine remorse, although she noted that "It has taken time and mis-steps along the way which has exacerbated the impact on the grieving families". The judge indicated that had just one person died, the appropriate sentence after a trial would have been seven years, a reduction of one year from the starting point for a culpability B offence which has a starting point of eight years and a range of six to 12 years. However, here four people had died. Referring to the totality guideline, the judge noted that it would not be just or proportionate simply to multiply the seven-year sentence by four. Her task was to arrive at a just sentence by assessing "the overall harm and your culpability and the mitigating factors that I have identified."

Dealing with the health and safety offence, the judge indicated that this offence addressed the risk of harm rather than the harm itself, pointing out that although the offence arose out of the same incident, it addressed a different aspect of the applicant's offending with different victims meriting a consecutive sentence. The judge went on to pass the sentences we have indicated.

Mr Elias makes three criticisms of the judge's approach, leading, he says, to an overall sentence which is manifestly excessive. First, he says that the judge erred in arriving at a notional sentence after trial of seven years for a single offence. Next, that she erred in increasing that to 15 years to reflect the fact that four deaths were caused. Lastly, that she erred in imposing a consecutive sentence in relation to the health and safety offence.

Mr Elias' primary focus was on the increase of seven years to 15 years. Pointing to the range in the relevant category of the guideline, he submits that the extent of that range was sufficient to enable the number of deaths properly to be reflected within that range rather than moving in effect up the range within the higher category of the guideline.

We have read and been assisted by the full Respondent's Notice.

The judge had identified two culpability B factors. The guidance in the guideline given in the box just above the sentencing table includes this: "An adjustment from the starting point upwards or downwards may be necessary to reflect particular features of culpability (for example the presence of multiple factors within one category ... )." Although in this case the judge did not explicitly adjust the starting point upwards to reflect the fact that there were two culpability B factors, it remains the case that she might have done so. In any event, the judge clearly had all of the mitigating factors in mind, including delay which she had dealt with in a separate section of her sentencing remarks. In the section dealing with mitigation, she identified the lack of relevant previous convictions. She noted the evidence as to the positive good character of the applicant, and the attempts made by the applicant at the scene to resuscitate victims.

We reject the suggestion that the judge erred in arriving at a sentence for a single offence of seven years. We are similarly unpersuaded that the judge was wrong to uplift the sentence to one of 15 years to reflect the fact that four deaths resulted from the applicant's blatant disregard for the very high risk of death. This case is far removed from the cases of R v Bah [2024] EWCA Crim 1499 and Draghici (sentencing remarks of Garnham J) to which Mr Elias referred us. The applicant was the principal of the paddleboarding business. The fatal outing went ahead at her instigation, and the many serious failures of planning and safeguarding were all hers. She was the principal causer of four deaths and those losses needed to be reflected in the overall sentence. The totality guidelines specifically observe that: "Where concurrent sentences are to be passed, the lead sentence should be just and proportionate to reflect the overall criminality involved which may take the lead offence outside the category range appropriate for a single offence." Here the judge had careful regard to the totality guidelines, as her remarks made clear. It is not arguable that an uplift to 15 years before discount for plea to reflect four deaths in these circumstances was wrong or that it has resulted in an excessive sentence.

In his advice accompanying the grounds, Mr Elias implicitly conceded that the consecutive six-month sentence could not be criticised "had the judge adopted the correct approach to the manslaughter counts, there could have been no criticism of the short consecutive sentence for the health and safety offence." For the reasons we have given, we do not accept that the judge erred in her approach to the manslaughter counts. In any event this court is concerned with the overall sentence, rather than the way in which that sentence is arrived at.

In our view, it is not arguable that a sentence of 10 years and six months is manifestly excessive given the severity of the incident, the number of paddleboarders who lost their lives and the impact upon the members of the tour who survived. Leave to appeal is accordingly refused.

Tel No: 020 7404 1400

Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk