Former elite soldier William Isherwood sues Ministry of Defence for £75k claiming hearing was damaged during the Troubles

A former elite soldier is suing the Ministry of Defense for more than £75,000, claiming his hearing was permanently damaged during his 16-year military career.

William Isherwood claims inadequate protection led to injuries during rebel duty training in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.

Mr Isherwood, whose Regiment of Irish Guards is known for protecting the Royal Family, claims he was exposed to the deafening roar of helicopters, heavy gunfire, rockets and explosions without proper ear protection.

He claims that during his service, substandard ear protection plugs either fell out or were not provided at all.

Mr Isherwood, who left the army in 1999, took legal action, citing permanent hearing loss, persistent tinnitus and increased sensitivity to certain types of sounds as a direct result of his service.

But Defense Department lawyers dispute his claim, arguing that ear defenders are “reasonable and appropriate” and that it is impossible to “supervise the wearing of hearing protection at all times.”

Mr Isherwood, now 60 and living in Widnes, Cheshire, joined the Irish Guards in 1983 and did his basic training at Pirbight in Surrey before joining the Irish Guards and first serving in Germany, according to documents lodged at the High Court.

The Irish Guards, known in the military as “Micks”, are an elite infantry regiment of the British Army, founded by Queen Victoria in 1900, serving a dual role as front-line combat soldiers and ceremonial guards for the Royal Family.

After a period performing ceremonial duties in the United Kingdom, he was stationed in Belize before embarking on a tour of Northern Ireland in 1992, and later worked as a physical training instructor at Chelsea Barracks until he left in 1999.

The old guard says the gunfire began shortly after he entered basic training, becoming familiar with a variety of loud firearms, including the SLR infantry assault rifle, the Browning pistol and the general-purpose machine gun that can fire up to 1,000 rounds per minute.

Although recruits are issued with ear protection, their lawyers say they are often substandard and prone to falling off during use.

Mr Isherwood said there was a break from disturbing noise during “ceremonial duties” as part of the royal bodyguard, but that exposure increased again in the later years of his service.

“The period at Pirbright before the Northern Ireland tour was tumultuous,” lawyer Philip De Berry said in court documents.

“He underwent pre-deployment training for Northern Ireland, which included riot training, combat training in populated areas, ambush drills and various other scenarios.

“The main exposure to noise in Northern Ireland occurred when the claimant was transported by Chinook or Puma helicopter.

“This was happening several times a week. No hearing protection was provided or used.

“The main exposures during basic training were using the range to fire weapons and participating in field exercises.

“The plaintiff’s weapon was the SLR. He was also introduced to the GPMG, the Sterling machine gun and the Browning 9mm pistol.

“The use of pyrotechnics has become more apparent during training and exercises with grenades.

“At the range, the plaintiff and his colleagues would each fire several magazines. Many more rounds would be fired using general-purpose and submachine guns.

“Green ear defenders or push-in earplugs were available. The earplugs frequently fell out. Both ear defenders were of poor quality.

“Exercises typically involved firing blanks and exposure to pyrotechnics. Hearing protection was generally not used and a variety of weapons were used.”

Mr Isherwood claims the MOD was negligent by failing to provide effective ear protection, failing to carry out appropriate noise assessments and failing to adequately test his hearing.

Overall, his lawyers say, the Department of Defense “caused or permitted plaintiff to be exposed to harmful levels of noise that damaged his hearing.”

It is also claimed that the person, who is described by his lawyers as “both disabled and disadvantaged in the open labor market”, may be a hearing aid candidate due to his condition.

But the Ministry of Defense denies responsibility for any ear damage he may have suffered, saying his superiors did everything possible to minimize the risks, that lethal weapons are “inherently noisy” and that “exposure to noise cannot be reduced to zero” in the context of realistic combat training.

Defending the claim, MOD lawyer Dominic Collingwood said: “The defendant had to give the plaintiff rigorous and realistic training that simulated a war scene as accurately as possible.”

“Accordingly, training exercises were conducted over large areas and over long periods of time, and the use of weapons, pyrotechnics and explosives was used to simulate combat conditions.

“In many training scenarios, close supervision to ensure that hearing protection is worn at all times is impossible.

“Training would take place over large geographic areas, at night, or in other situations where it may be difficult to tell whether hearing protection is worn.

“Additionally, training will involve fast-paced combat-type situations that are both counterproductive to the training objective and, frankly, would be impossible to stop and control the frequent wearing of hearing protection.”

He added: “During training exercises, as well as operations, members of the armed forces, including the plaintiff, needed to be able to communicate with each other and maintain situational awareness.

“If noise exposure were reduced to levels where situational awareness would be lost and/or communications would be compromised by the provision of hearing protection, operational capacity would be significantly affected and the plaintiff and/or colleagues would be put at risk.

“The need for situational awareness is shared among the armed forces, and its loss could compromise safety in a combat situation or during training. Accordingly, noise exposure cannot be reduced to zero.”

As well as denying any wrongdoing, the Ministry of Defense also denies there was any connection between the shooting of the shots and Mr Isherwood’s condition, arguing that his claim was already “time-barred” because he left it too late to file a lawsuit.

On top of that, his hearing was routinely tested under the military’s “health surveillance program,” the attorney said.

The hearing on Mr Isherwood’s claim against the Ministry of Defense has not yet reached the court.