Crime

Paddleboarding boss jailed for ten years after deaths of four in river tragedy

Published

8 months ago

April 23, 2025

Judge condemns ‘flagrant disregard’ for safety as four families left devastated by tour leader’s fatal failings

THE OWNER of a paddleboarding business has been jailed for ten years and six months after admitting causing the deaths of four people on a flooded river in Haverfordwest in what the judge called a “wholesale failure” to consider safety.

Nerys Bethan Lloyd, 39, from Aberavon, was sentenced at Swansea Crown Court on Tuesday (Apr 22) after pleading guilty to four counts of gross negligence manslaughter and a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is paddleboarders-1024x576.png

Morgan Rogers, 24, Nicola Wheatley, 40, Andrea Powell, 41, and co-instructor Paul O’Dwyer, 42—were swept over a weir in fast-flowing floodwater

The tragic incident occurred on 30 October 2021, when Lloyd, through her company Salty Dog Co Ltd, organised a paddleboarding trip on the swollen River Cleddau in Pembrokeshire. The river was in full flood, with severe weather warnings in place, and fast-moving water surging over the Haverfordwest Town Weir.

Nicola Wheatley, 40, Morgan Rogers, 24, Andrea Powell, 41, and co-instructor Paul O’Dwyer, 42, all drowned after being swept into the base of the weir. Despite visible dangers, Lloyd led the group into the water without providing a safety briefing or even informing participants that a weir lay ahead. Four of the group survived, while four did not.

***Nerys Bethan Lloyd arrives at court on Wednesday for sentencing (Image: BBC)***

No safety measures, no risk assessment

The court heard how Lloyd, who had only basic paddleboarding qualifications, ignored advice from her co-instructor Paul O’Dwyer, who had suggested alternative routes. Lloyd dismissed those routes as “too boring”, the judge said, and led the group straight down the river, aiming for the fish pass at the centre of the weir—either as a risky plan or with no clear plan at all.

None of the participants had the appropriate quick-release safety leashes for fast-flowing water, and several had no wetsuits. One person had opted not to wear a life jacket, and Lloyd had made no effort to check their experience levels or provide instruction. The judge said the group were “cheering and laughing” as they launched, completely unaware of the life-threatening danger ahead.

***Police custody photo: Nerys Bethan Lloyd, 39, from Aberavon***

They were pulled into the hydraulic spin at the base of the weir—described in court as akin to a “washing machine”—and were unable to escape. Mr O’Dwyer, who had initially steered clear of the worst of the water, jumped back in to try and save others, but also lost his life.

Police: ‘Completely avoidable’

Dyfed-Powys Police, who led the joint investigation with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), said the deaths were “completely avoidable”.Detective Superintendent Cameron Ritchie, senior investigating officer, said: “Firstly, I would like to reiterate my heartfelt sympathies to the families of Paul, Andrea, Morgan and Nicola.

We have heard harrowing testimony from the victims and survivors during this hearing of the continuing impact this incident has had on them. I sincerely hope that the conclusion of these proceedings helps to clear the way for them to be able to start the healing process.

The incident that took place in Haverfordwest was an extremely tragic case resulting in the completely avoidable deaths of four people.

This has been a complex and extensive investigation and I’d like to thank my colleagues at Dyfed-Powys Police, the Health and Safety Executive and the Crown Prosecution Service for their professionalism and diligence in securing this outcome.”

HSE: ‘She robbed them of the chance to decide’

HSE Inspector Helen Turner also issued a damning statement: “Four lives were needlessly lost and survivors traumatised by their experience at Haverfordwest Weir.

Nerys Lloyd was solely responsible for the decision to enter the water while the river was in flood, and for the attempt to take even inexperienced paddlers over the weir. This was completely reckless and the risk of death was foreseeable.

The victims placed their trust in Lloyd to deliver a safe and enjoyable paddle, but through her incompetence, carelessness and complacency she failed to plan or assess the obvious risk at the weir or to take even basic safety measures.

By not discussing the hazards on the route Lloyd robbed the participants of the opportunity to make a reasoned decision on their own participation that day.”

‘You called the shots’ – judge

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is paddleboarders-surf-in-river.avif

The decision to paddle down the fish ramp at in the River Cleddau was a flagrant breach of health and safety protocol, the court heard (Image: Herald)

Mrs Justice Mary Stacey said Lloyd had been in full control of the tour and bore sole responsibility for its planning and execution. She rejected the defence’s claims that Lloyd’s social media activity after the tragedy was innocent, describing it as “insensitive” in a community still grieving. She did, however, accept that Lloyd’s guilty plea, lack of previous convictions, and references from supporters provided some mitigation.

“You called the shots,” the judge said, noting that Paul O’Dwyer had made efforts to divert the group away from danger, but Lloyd had dismissed him. “The lives of four people were cut short in their prime because of your decisions.”

Families left devastated

Heartbreaking victim impact statements were read during the two-day hearing. Morgan Rogers’ parents described the pain of losing their daughter, who had just begun training for the fire service. Her father said, “My family will have a life sentence of grief for our remaining days.”

Nicola Wheatley’s husband Darren accused Lloyd of cowardice and deception, saying: “You are a vile person and you disgust me.” He recalled having to identify his wife’s body, a moment that still haunts him.

Andrea Powell’s husband described seeing his wife unconscious and bruised in hospital and hearing their son sob that he wanted to die to be with his mother. Paul O’Dwyer was remembered as a loving husband and father who had died trying to save others.

CPS: ‘The tragedy was completely avoidable’

Lisa Rose, Specialist Prosecutor with the CPS Special Crime Division, said: “Nerys Lloyd should not have taken participants on the water that day. The heavy flooding had left the river running very fast and it was beyond the remit of a beginner’s tour.

Lloyd was not qualified to take inexperienced paddleboarders out in such conditions. Her actions fell far below the standard expected of a paddleboard instructor and activity planner.

There are no words that can articulate the devastation this tragedy has caused, and I can only hope this sentence provides a sense of justice for those affected.”

Sentence and aftermath

Lloyd received ten years’ imprisonment for the four counts of gross negligence manslaughter, with a further six months for the health and safety offence. The judge acknowledged that Lloyd may never fully recover from what happened—but said the victims’ families will live with the consequences forever.

The case has triggered renewed calls for tighter regulation of commercial paddleboarding activities and clearer safety standards, particularly when rivers are in flood or feature hidden hazards like weirs.

As Lloyd begins her prison sentence, the families of the four victims continue to grieve their immense loss—and hope that others in the adventure activity industry will learn the lessons of that tragic October day.

Crime

Mother admits “terrible idea” to let new partner change her baby’s nappies alone

Published

5 hours ago

December 4, 2025

Tom Sinclair

Court hears from timid mother who was barely audible in the witness box who said she carried out no checks to establish whether Phillips was safe to be around her child

A MOTHER who cannot be named for legal reasons gave evidence yesterday in the trial of Christopher Phillips, the man accused of physically and sexually assaulting her infant son – referred to as Baby C – and causing him life-changing injuries in January 2021.

Phillips, 37 at the time, had been in a relationship with the mother for only a few weeks when Baby C, then around 10 weeks old, suffered catastrophic anal injuries at a flat in Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire. The child was rushed to Glangwili Hospital in the early hours of January 24 and survived, but the harm was permanent. Phillips denies 11 counts of sexual penetration of a child under 13, four counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, all between December 20, 2020, and January 25, 2021. The mother denies two charges of causing or allowing a child to suffer serious physical harm and two charges of child cruelty by neglect.

The prosecution alleges that Phillips deliberately inflicted the injuries while alone with the baby during nappy changes, using a finger coated in Sudocrem as lubricant on multiple occasions, leading to escalating harm including blood in the nappies and ultimately a massive tear and prolapse. A central part of their case is that the mother repeatedly allowed Phillips unsupervised access to her son – including taking him into another room to change his nappy and shut the door – despite knowing very little about him and despite behaviour that should have raised alarm, such as his insistence on privacy and her own unease.

Late on Thursday morning (Dec 4), under lengthy and forceful cross-examination by Caroline Rees KC, prosecuting, the mother appeared composed but spoke so quietly and timidly that people in court struggled to hear her answers. She conceded point after point:

She carried out no checks to establish whether Phillips was safe to be around her child.
She allowed him to be alone with Baby C from the very start of January 2021 (possibly even before 2 January).
She ignored her own concerns and permitted Phillips to shut the door while changing the baby’s nappy, telling her not to enter or accusing her of “micromanaging”.
She accepted that this had exposed her son to “a massive risk” and had been “a terrible idea”.

The mother explained that Phillips had said he wanted to learn nappy-changing because he “never got the chance” with his own child. She initially stayed in the room but soon permitted him to take Baby C into a separate room alone. She also recounted noticing odd details during changes, such as Phillips having Sudocrem around his finger “as if it had come from a pot” – despite her not owning a pot of the cream – and him leaving the room without putting the baby’s babygro back on after fastening the nappy, which immediately struck her as wrong. A few days earlier, she had discovered extensive bruising to the baby’s bottom, a swollen testicle and blood in his nappy, prompting her to confide in family and seek medical advice, though Phillips became angry when she mentioned the appointments.

Key moments from the cross-examination

Caroline Rees KC: “You took no steps whatsoever to keep Baby C safe, did you?” Mother (barely audible): “No.”

Caroline Rees KC: “You did absolutely nothing to keep him safe, did you?” Mother: “No.”

When His Honour Judge Paul Thomas KC asked her to clarify for the jury why she let Phillips change the baby alone, she confirmed:

“I wasn’t allowed in the room. If I tried to go in he would accuse me of micromanaging.”

She said this made her feel “annoyed”, but she “ignored it”.

Caroline Rees KC put it directly to the mother:

“The signs were all there, weren’t they?”
“It was a terrible idea, wasn’t it?”
“You could have stopped it at any time – by doing the changes yourself or by ending the relationship.”
“This man wanted to have your baby on his own more than is normal.”

The mother eventually accepted each proposition, agreeing that:

Allowing Phillips to change the baby alone had been “a terrible idea”;
The warning signs that she should have stopped it were present;
Phillips’ desire to be alone with her son was greater than normal.

She admitted she had been “keen to have company” and had tolerated behaviour she should never have accepted.

Legal matters will be dealt with tomorrow morning only. Closing speeches are expected to continue into Monday.

The trial continues.

Crime

Pembroke rape investigation dropped – one suspect now facing deportation

Published

1 day ago

December 3, 2025

Tom Sinclair

DYFED-POWYS POLICE have closed an investigation into an alleged rape and false imprisonment in Pembroke after deciding to take no further action. One of the two men originally arrested is now in immigration detention and faces deportation.

The incident took place on Main Street over the weekend of 8–9 November 2025. Police were called at 9:45am on Sunday 9 November after reports of a woman in distress. She was taken to hospital for treatment.

Two men – aged 36 and 27 – were arrested at the scene on suspicion of rape and false imprisonment. They were subsequently released on bail while enquiries continued.

On Tuesday (2 December 2025), the force announced the criminal investigation has concluded and no charges will be brought. A police spokesperson said the decision took full account of the victim’s wishes.

Outcome for the two suspects:

The 36-year-old man has been transferred to the custody of the Home Office Immigration Enforcement team and is now detained pending deportation.
The 27-year-old man has been released with no further police action.

A Dyfed-Powys Police statement read: “This investigation was not terrorism-related, and we have no knowledge of any linked incident in Monkton. All rumours suggesting otherwise are incorrect.”

The force has also dismissed separate community speculation that the men entered the UK illegally on fraudulent passports or were due in court this week on terrorism charges.

Detectives stressed that every report of rape or serious sexual assault is treated seriously and victims are supported throughout. Anyone affected has been directed to specialist services, details of which are available on the force website.

No further police updates are expected.

Crime

Defendant denies using Sudocrem-covered finger to assault two-month-old baby

Published

2 days ago

December 2, 2025

Tom Sinclair

In dramatic day-long cross-examination, Christopher Phillips repeatedly denies sexual penetration, as prosecution alleges escalating anal attacks ended in catastrophic injury

CHRISTOPHER PHILLIPS, 28, spent almost six hours in the witness box today. During the entire afternoon he underwent a sustained and highly graphic cross-examination by prosecuting counsel Caroline Rees KC.

The defendant is accused of cruelty and multiple sexual assaults on his then-girlfriend’s two-month-old son between December 2020 and January 2021, culminating in life-threatening anal injuries discovered when the child was rushed to hospital on 24 January 2021. The baby’s mother, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is jointly charged with causing or allowing serious physical harm.

Both defendants plead not guilty.

Ms Rees KC opened the day by telling Phillips that the prosecution case was that he had developed a sexual interest in penetrating the baby anally and had used his finger, coated with Sudocrem, to do so on a number of occasions before finally causing the “catastrophic” tearing injury seen in the medical photographs.

***Artist’s impression of Christopher Phillips giving evidence at Swansea Crown Court***

Sudocrem and the mechanics of nappy changing

The prosecutor took Phillips step-by-step through his own description of how he applied Sudocrem: Ms Rees: “You would put a blob of Sudocrem on one finger, then use another finger to smear it around the nappy area?” Phillips: “Yes.” Ms Rees: “So your finger was covered in Sudocrem?” Phillips: “Yes.” Ms Rees: “And you accept you sometimes changed the baby completely alone?” Phillips: “Yes, occasionally.” Ms Rees: “You are extremely experienced with anal sex. You know that the first thing you do is use a lubricated finger to relax and open the sphincter before anything larger is introduced?” Phillips: “With consenting adults, yes.” Ms Rees: “Precisely. And that is exactly what you did to this baby with your Sudocrem-covered finger on more than one occasion, wasn’t it?” Phillips: “No. Never. Absolutely not.”

The alleged progression of assaults

Ms Rees put it to Phillips that the bright red blood he first noticed in the nappy around 12 January 2021, the further bleeding he photographed and sent to the mother on the night of 23 January, and the eventual massive tear and prolapse discovered hours later formed a clear escalation. “You were testing the water,” Ms Rees said. “First a little bleeding, then a bit more, and finally you went too far and caused the terrible injury the jury have seen.” Phillips repeatedly insisted the blood was caused by constipation and a haemorrhoid he had personally identified.

The baby’s rattle

Returning to the incident in which Phillips pressed the baby’s rattle against his own anus as a joke, Ms Rees said: “You have a highly trained eye for objects that can be used anally, don’t you, Mr Phillips? Within a split second you saw that rattle and thought ‘sex toy’.” Phillips replied: “It was a stupid, throw-away moment of jocularity. I didn’t insert it.”

Deletion of material from his phone

Within 48–72 hours of the baby being admitted to hospital in a life-threatening condition, Phillips wiped large quantities of sexual photographs, videos and internet search history from his device. Ms Rees: “You realised the game was up and you frantically deleted anything that showed your sexual interests, didn’t you?” Phillips: “I deleted adult material involving [the mother] because I was embarrassed. There was never anything involving the baby to delete.”

The final night – 23/24 January 2021

Cell-site records show Phillips arrived at the flat around 18:30 and did not leave until 02:57. He accepts he changed the baby’s nappy three times that night, including once around 22:17 when he photographed fresh blood and sent it to the mother who was in the next room. Ms Rees put it to him that shortly before he left he carried out the most serious assault, causing the full-thickness tear and prolapse, then “calmly walked out knowing the child was catastrophically injured”. Phillips answered: “When I left he was quiet and settled in [the mother’s] arms.”

Closing accusation

At the end of the afternoon, Caroline Rees KC rose and addressed the defendant directly: “Mr Phillips, over a period of weeks you sexually assaulted this two-month-old baby with your finger on multiple occasions. On the final night you penetrated [Baby C] so violently that you caused the devastating injuries shown in the photographs the jury have seen. That is the truth, isn’t it?” Phillips turned to face the jury and replied firmly and clearly: “No. I did not. I have never touched that baby sexually or harmed [the baby] in any way whatsoever.”

Caroline Rees KC indicated she still has further questions. Cross-examination will resume tomorrow morning before His Honour Judge Paul Thomas KC.