An ex-elite warrior alleging his hearing was damaged during preparation for crowd control assignments in Northern Ireland has filed a lawsuit against the MOD seeking more than £75,000 in damages.
William Isherwood, a retired non-commissioned officer from the Irish Guards, one of the units responsible for guarding the Royal Family alleges he sustained permanent hearing loss throughout his 16-year military service, including during a mission in Northern Ireland amid the conflict known as The Troubles.
He asserts that he wasn't adequately shielded from the loud sounds of helicopters, intense gunfire, rockets, and blasts during his time in the military and training due to low-quality ear protection devices that constantly fell out or weren’t even worn.
Although he left the military in 1999, he has recently started seeking compensation for the harm, claiming it has led to decreased hearing, ringing in the ears, and greater sensitivity to specific sounds.
Nevertheless, MoD attorneys are disputing his assertion, contending that his ear protectors were "appropriate and adequate" and that it is not feasible to "ensure the continuous use of hearing protection."
As per papers submitted to the High Court, Mr. Isherwood, who is currently 60 years old and resides in Widnes, Cheshire, enlisted in 1983 and completed his initial training at Pirbright, located in Surrey, prior to being assigned to the Irish Guards and starting his service in Germany .
The Irish Guards – referred to within military circles as "The Micks" – constitute an esteemed foot battalion of the British Army. Established by Queen Victoria in 1900, they serve both as frontline troops engaged in combat operations and as official sentinels responsible for guarding members of the royal family.
Following a period carrying out official responsibilities within the United Kingdom, he was stationed in Belize prior to undertaking a tour of duty in Northern Ireland in 1992, and subsequently worked as a fitness trainer at Chelsea Barracks until his departure in 1999.
A former soldier mentions that the sound of weapons started shortly after he began his basic training, during which he got acquainted with various loud guns — such as an SLR combat rifle, a Browning handgun, and a heavy machine gun capable of firing up to 1,000 bullets every minute.
Even though trainees received hearing protection devices, their legal representatives claim these were typically of poor quality and prone to dislodge during usage.
Mr. Isherwood mentions that there was a break from the constant noise while performing 'ceremonial duties' as a member of the royal guard, although the exposure resumed during his subsequent years in service.
"the time spent at pirbright prior to touring northern ireland was loud," said his lawyer, philip de berry, in court papers.
He completed pre-deployment preparation for Northern Ireland, including instruction on dealing with riots, combat in urban environments, ambush drills, and several different situations.
In Northern Ireland, the primary source of noise occurred during the claimant's air transport using a helicopter – either a Chinook or a Puma.
'It could occur several times each week. Hearing protection was neither supplied nor utilized.'
The primary experiences throughout initial training included utilizing the shooting range to handle firearms and taking part in outdoor drills.
The applicant's firearm was the SLR. He was also acquainted with the GPMG, the Sterling submachine gun, and the Browning 9mm handgun.
Additional experience was gained through practice with hand-thrown explosives and the application of special effects during drills.
During their time on the range, the applicant and his team would each discharge multiple magazine loads. A significantly higher number of bullets would be fired utilizing standard issue firearms and machine pistols.
Available were green ear defenders or push-in earplugs. These earplugs often fell out. Both forms of hearing protection were of low quality.
Typical exercises included using dummy ammunition and being exposed to fireworks. Ear protection was usually not worn, and various types of weapons were utilized.
Mr. Isherwood claims that the MOD was negligent in not supplying suitable ear protection, not conducting appropriate noise evaluations, and not performing sufficient hearing tests.
In general, his legal representatives state that the Ministry of Defence "allowed or resulted in the plaintiff being subjected to an excessive amount of noise that harmed his hearing."
Referred to by his legal representatives as "disabled and at a disadvantage in the open job market," he may also be a suitable candidate for hearing devices, according to reports.
However, the Ministry of Defence is rejecting responsibility for any hearing loss he might have experienced, maintaining that his commanders took all necessary steps to reduce dangers, stating that dangerous weapons are "naturally loud," and emphasizing that in real battlefield exercises "exposure to noise can't be eliminated completely."
"The defendant had to supply the claimant with rigorous and practical training that closely – as much as possible – mirrored the battlefield," stated MOD lawyer Dominic Collingwood during the defense of the claim.
Thus, training drills were conducted across extensive regions and lasted for prolonged durations. These included the application of firearms, fireworks, and detonations to simulate battlefield scenarios.
It is not feasible to maintain constant oversight to guarantee the use of hearing protection throughout various training situations.
Training would occur over extensive geographic regions, during nighttime hours, or under conditions where it might be challenging to verify whether hearing protection is being used.
Additionally, training would include rapidly changing combat scenarios where it would be both unfair to the purpose of the training and, honestly, impractical to halt frequently and ensure proper use of hearing protection.
He stated: "In training drills, just like during actual missions, military personnel, including the plaintiff, had to be capable of communicating with one another and maintaining an understanding of their surroundings."
If sound exposure could be lowered—through the use of ear protection—to degrees where environmental awareness was impaired and/or interaction became difficult, mission effectiveness would be greatly impacted, putting the individual and/or their coworkers in danger.
The importance of being aware of one's surroundings is common among military branches, and losing this awareness may endanger security both in battle scenarios and during exercises. Therefore, complete elimination of sound exposure is not feasible.
In addition to rejecting all responsibility, the MoD denies any connection between weapon discharge and Mr. Isherwood's health issues and contends that his case is "out of time" because he delayed filing a lawsuit for too long.
Furthermore, his hearing was regularly assessed according to the Army's "health monitoring program," stated the lawyer.
The legal case brought by Mr. Isherwood against the Ministry of Defence has not been scheduled for a courtroom hearing yet.
Read more