Invictus Games gold medallist Debbie O’Connell could face jail over dishonest disability claim against MoD
A former soldier who is a champion para-athlete could face prison for being “dishonest” about his injury, with a £1.74m compensation claim.
Debbie O’Connell fell from her horse and broke her collarbone in 2015 while she was with the Royal Horse Artillery’s ceremonial unit, the King’s Corps.
Ms O’Connell claimed the fall left her left arm almost useless.
After leaving the army, he began a successful para-athletic career. She won gold in cycling at the 2018 Invictus Games and in sprinting in competitions around the world.
In September 2018 he made a £2.4 million compensation claim against the Ministry of Defence, which was later reduced to £1.74 million. But his case was dismissed due to “fundamental fraud” even though the judge found he was injured.
At the High Court in 2025, Judge Christopher Kennedy KC said Ms O’Connell’s evidence of ongoing suffering “must be dishonest” because of video footage showing her doing a range of activities, including leading a horse and chopping vegetables, and slapped her with a £200,000 plus costs bill for the case.
But her case was returned to court on Friday after the Ministry of Defense applied to have Ms O’Connell jailed for contempt of court, accusing her of “lying” about the extent of her disability.
Ms O’Connell’s lawyers argued that the defamation bid should be blocked, telling the court she had already “suffered enough”.
But Mr Justice Coppel, who allowed the contempt proceedings to proceed, said it was “in the public interest” to pursue commitment applications where allegations were “prosecuted on false grounds, as seen in this case”.
Allowing a five-day contempt hearing to be held, he said: “It seems to me that the public interest clearly permits and requires that this application for commitment be made.”
During the trial of the case, the court heard the damage Ms O’Connell claimed she suffered when she fell in 2015, breaking her left collarbone in four places, resulting in chronic pain in her left arm and shoulder.
He was training as a mounted marksman in the King’s Corps of the Royal Horse Artillery, but was discharged from the forces after two years.
The King’s Troop is the ceremonial unit of the Royal Horse Artillery and is tasked with driving teams of six horses pulling First World War-era cannons during high-profile public demonstrations.
Soldiers wear a blue and gold uniform dating back to the Napoleonic wars and are called to give royal salutes that symbolize large-scale state events such as the Queen’s birthday and platinum jubilee.
In her claim, Ms O’Connell claimed that her fall was caused by riding boots two sizes too large and that the horse assigned to her had a tendency to lean.
But the Ministry of Defence, which disputed the claim, accused him of exaggerating the impact of his injuries while “dishonestly” pursuing a para athletics career in the T46 category for competitors with limb deformities comparable to “an athlete with a unilateral above-elbow amputation”.
Department of Defense lawyer Niazi Fetto KC said he “relied on his dishonest pursuit of a para-athletic career knowing that his situation did not fall within the T46 category.”
Giving evidence, Ms O’Connell, of Lincoln, denied being a fraud and insisted that the claim for damages was genuine and that allegations of “fraud” were “not credible” because she fit exactly within the T46 classification.
When asked in court, he simply said he “described my situation” and was given the classification.
He said that as a soldier he was taught to “endure the pain” and that he did his best to make the most of his life despite his injury, while pursuing his athletic career.
She competed at the Invictus Games in 2018, winning two gold and two silver medals; he previously competed in paraathletic as a sprinter and also in CrossFit, which tests athletes’ fitness and endurance.
In his ruling on the claim last year, Justice Kennedy said that as of 2022, when the security footage was taken, Ms O’Connell still “required assistance with cutting food and preparing hot drinks, as well as bathing and dressing/undressing”. He reported that his pain remained the same as before and limited his daily activities.
“[But] “The plaintiff’s presentation in the video is of someone with normal or near-normal function of the left upper extremity and shoulder,” he said.
“I think that is what the plaintiff had at the time. I do not accept her explanations of ongoing pain and hypersensitivity. I think her evidence about her symptoms must be false.”
Although the crash had “serious disabling consequences” for some time, there was “definitely” a difference between what he told experts on the case and what he was seen doing during surveillance footage in 2022.
“This is an allegation that I consider to be fundamentally dishonest. The claimant persisted in his dishonesty over a long period of time. He tried to implicate others and his attempts to conceal the truth were very sophisticated.”
On Friday, the case returned to court when Ministry of Defense lawyer Mr Fetto applied for permission to file contempt of court proceedings against Ms O’Connell.
KC said there was a “public interest” in allowing the defamation case, which could result in up to two years in prison, to proceed.
But solicitor Ian Denham, on behalf of Ms O’Connell, argued that the case should not go ahead and told Mr Justice Coppel that Ms O’Connell had “suffered enough already”.
He said he had lost his case, for which he was handed a huge bill for legal costs to the Ministry of Defence, and that being found “fundamentally dishonest” in a public judgment would subject him to further public backlash.
He also argued that some specific allegations of disrespect were not supported by the evidence because they involved statements made before the surveillance evidence.
He also said he was found dishonest only under the civil evidentiary standard, not the higher criminal standard that would apply in a defamation case.
But after a brief hearing in London on Friday afternoon, Mr Justice Coppel ruled against Ms O’Connell.
“There are strong findings in the judgment of fundamental dishonesty against the defendant,” he said.
“I will allow the plaintiff to pursue each of the claims for as long as necessary.”
A hearing to decide whether Ms O’Connell has been in contempt of court and should be jailed will be held at a later date.
The maximum sentence for contempt of court is two years behind bars.
