A young soldier whose military career was ended when he overheated during a notorious Royal Marines training exercise is suing the Ministry of Defence for £236,000.
Charlie Gould, a 23-year-old new recruit, collapsed during a five-hour “yomp” in full kit while taking part in the “arduous” Exercise Hunters Moon high on Dartmoor in June 2020.
Mr Gould was loaded down with equipment during the multi-day training exercise – during which “exertion is loudly verbally encouraged” by superiors – and became ill when he overheated.
His lawyers claim that he suffered “exertional heat stroke” and because he was not properly treated immediately ended up permanently injured and had to leave the Royal Marines.
At the High Court, he is now suing for £236,000 in damages, accusing his superiors of “negligence” in making him do the exercise without adequate training in potential injuries, and also for delays in his treatment.
But the MoD is fighting the claim, insisting that Mr Gould was properly treated and had not in fact suffered heat stroke, but simply a more “mild” heat exhaustion.
In papers filed at London’s High Court, Mr Gould’s barrister Jonathan Dingle says the MoD “negligently exposed the claimant to a foreseeable risk of personal injury because of its inadequate and delayed response to his exertional heat illness.”
At the time of the incident in June 2020, Mr Gould, now 29, was a recent recruit to the Royal Marines, having joined in March 2020.
He had passed medicals and strenuous commando fitness tests during the first ten weeks of training and was “extremely fit,” says the barrister.
“On or about 10th June 2020, the claimant was required in the course of his duties with the defendant to undertake an arduous training exercise, namely a five-hour forced route march or ‘yomp’ carrying a load including a Bergen [large military backpack] during Exercise Hunters Moon on the high ground of Dartmoor during summer heat,” he says.
Exercise Hunter’s Moon is a notorious multi-day training program which recruits undertake in week ten of basic training. It involves three fully loaded “yomps” around Dartmoor, built around extended sections of navigation and survival training.
“During the five-hour yomp, on the morning of 10th June 2020, the claimant began to feel unwell and unduly exhausted,” the barrister says.
“He was suffering from the onset of exertional heat stroke, leading to exertional heat injury. He collapsed at the top of a hill carrying his Bergen and other equipment.”
Although emergency medical care was available about 30 minutes’ drive away, Mr Gould was left instead to recover in a safety vehicle, he added.
He was examined by a doctor the next day, when blood tests revealed elevated levels of creatine kinase, an enzyme released into the blood when muscles are damaged.
That led to his admission to hospital, where he remained for five days.
Mr Dingle says Mr Gould went on to suffer a “permanent exertional heat stroke injury,” with an associated adjustment disorder and anxiety, resulting in his discharge from the Marines.
Blaming the MoD for his injury, the barrister accuses it of negligence in allowing Mr Gould to remain untreated in the safety vehicle for hours, when delays in treating such illnesses are a “known and serious risk of permanent injury.”
There had been a failure to heed his condition when he collapsed and then a failure to “assess adequately or at all” his condition afterwards.
The MoD was also negligent in failing to provide before the ‘yomp’ proper training about the risk of “climatic injuries” in such exercises.
However, MoD lawyer Annie Brookes denies the claims in its defence to the action, arguing that what happened to Mr Gould happened during vital basic training.
“The yomp formed part of standard military training and it was not unreasonable for the claimant to undertake this,” she says in the MoD defence.
“The defendant owes a duty to train and prepare the claimant, and members of the Army in general, to be able to conduct military operations.
“In order to do so, the defendant must provide the claimant with sufficiently demanding and realistic training.
“The defendant asserts that a risk assessment was in place for the exercise and a dynamic risk assessment took place throughout the exercise and the yomp.”
She also denies that the ‘yomp’ was undertaken in summer heat, with temperatures no more than 14c during the march, while Mr Gould did not actually suffer heat stroke, but the less dangerous “exertional heat exhaustion.”
“The defendant’s response in relation to the claimant’s collapse due to exertional heat exhaustion was entirely appropriate and in accordance with clinical and operational standards,” she says.
“The claimant was treated in the field by appropriate personnel. The claimant was removed from the heat and provided with rehydration.
“In mild cases, such as heat exhaustion, cooling can be achieved by moving the individual to a cool recovery area.
“The claimant was moved to a recovery vehicle and given fluids. The defendant’s actions were in accordance with best practices.”
The case reached court for a brief hearing last month focusing on the evidence to be heard at an eventual trial of Mr Gould’s claim.
It will return for a full trial in 2027, unless settled outside of court.
