Sunday, February 15 2026 - A former soldier who went on to become a gold medal-winning para-athlete could face prison after being accused of “lying” about the extent of her disability in a £2.4 million compensation claim against the Ministry of Defence (MoD)
Debbie O’Connell, 37, fractured her collarbone in four
places after falling from a horse in 2015 while training with the Royal Horse
Artillery’s ceremonial unit, the King’s Troop. She later claimed the injury
left her left arm almost unusable. After leaving the army, she built a
successful para-athletics career and won gold medals in cycling at the 2018
Invictus Games.
In September 2018, Ms O’Connell launched a £2.4 million
damages claim against the MoD, later reduced to £1.74 million. However, the
claim was dismissed by a High Court judge last year on the grounds of
“fundamental dishonesty.”
Judge Christopher Kennedy KC ruled that her evidence
regarding ongoing pain “must be dishonest” after surveillance footage showed
her performing tasks such as leading a horse and chopping vegetables. He
ordered her to pay more than £200,000 in legal costs.
The case returned to court last week after the MoD applied
to have Ms O’Connell committed to prison for contempt of court, alleging she
lied about the severity of her disability during the compensation proceedings.
A new judge, Mr Justice Coppel, allowed the contempt
proceedings to move forward, stating that it was in the “public interest” for
such applications to proceed where claims had been “prosecuted on a false
basis, as has been found in this case.”
During the original trial, the court heard that Ms O’Connell
claimed chronic pain in her left arm and shoulder following the accident, which
led to her discharge from the forces two years later. She argued that her fall
was caused by riding boots that were two sizes too large and by being assigned
a horse that had a tendency to buck.
The MoD disputed her claim, alleging she exaggerated her
injuries while “dishonestly” competing in the T46 para-athletics category,
which is for athletes with limb impairments comparable to a unilateral
above-elbow amputation.
MoD barrister Niazi Fetto KC said she had “relied upon her
dishonest pursuit of a para-athletics career in the knowledge that her
condition does not fall within the T46 category.” Covert surveillance footage
showed her using her injured arm in everyday tasks, including leading a horse
and chopping vegetables.
Ms O’Connell denied any dishonesty. She told the court she
had “described my condition” when assessed and had been assigned the
classification accordingly. She said she had been trained as a soldier to “push
through pain” and was doing her best to rebuild her life despite her injury.
She competed at the 2018 Invictus Games in Sydney, winning
two gold and two silver medals, and later took part in sprinting and CrossFit
competitions.
In his earlier judgment, Judge Kennedy noted that by 2022
she was still reporting needing assistance with cutting food, preparing hot
drinks, bathing, and dressing.
“She reported that her pain remained the same as before and
it restricted her daily activities,” he said. “[But] the claimant’s
presentation on the video is of someone with normal or near normal function in
their left upper limb and shoulder.”
He concluded: “This is a claim which I have found to be
fundamentally dishonest. The claimant has persisted with her dishonesty over a
long period. She has sought to engage others and her attempts to conceal the
truth have been sophisticated.”
At last week’s hearing, MoD lawyers argued that there was a
clear public interest in pursuing contempt proceedings, which carry a maximum
sentence of two years in prison.
Ms O’Connell’s barrister, Ian Denham, argued that she had
“suffered enough already,” having lost her claim, been ordered to pay
substantial legal costs, and faced public findings of dishonesty. He also
contended that she had only been found dishonest to the civil standard of
proof, not the higher criminal standard required in contempt proceedings.
However, Mr Justice Coppel ruled against her. “There are
strong findings of fundamental dishonesty made against the defendant in the
judgment,” he said. “I am going to give permission, in so far as it’s
necessary, for the claimant to pursue each of the allegations.”
A further hearing will now determine whether Ms O’Connell is
in contempt of court and whether she should face imprisonment.
0 Comments