Ex-soldier faces jail for false trench foot claims

A FORMER soldier who falsely claimed he had trench foot that left him “waddling like a penguin” could face jail for lying to a judge.

Brian Muyepa, 34, claimed “non-freezing cold injuries” to his feet – sustained on duty – were so severe he had been rendered disabled.

His case was kicked out after Facebook footage emerged, showing him dancing at a barbecue and seemingly walking “normally” at a friend’s wedding party.

The Ministry of Defence has launched an application to commit Mr Muyepa to prison for contempt of court.

Last October, Mr Justice Cotter dismissed Mr Muyepa’s case at the High Court, finding his case to have been “fundamentally dishonest” due to him “hugely exaggerating” his injuries. MOD lawyers told the High Court yesterday that 79 separate allegations of misleading statements and documents had been put forward, in an “egregious” example of dishonesty in a court claim. Mr Muyepa denies any wrongdoing.

The former Royal Artillery gunner’s case revolved around a promotion exercise in a cold water-filled tunnel in Sennybridge, Wales, in March 2016, after which he was left in wet boots for fiveand-a-half hours.

He was later diagnosed with non-freezing cold injury, a disabling condition which is characterised by pain in the extremities.

Following his diagnosis, it was recommended that he be protected from cold in future, but he was exposed again at Salisbury Plain in 2017, when he was working outdoors on vehicles, he claimed. His condition subsequently worsened. He claimed damages of around £3.7 million, but later dropped it to £1.7million.

At the end of the trial, Mr Justice Cotter found that Mr Muyepa had suffered minor genuine non-freezing cold injures during his army service and would have been entitled to damages of £97,595.33. But he stripped him of that compensation and handed him a massive costs bill after finding that he had seriously exaggerated the impact of his condition.

When the case returned to court yesterday after the MOD launched their case, Mr Justice Cotter declined to hear the application and said it would be heard at a later date. He pointed out that he had found Mr Muyepa dishonest using the civil standard of proof and that the allegations would have to be proven to the higher criminal standard for contempt to be found. If found in contempt, Mr Muyepa could be jailed for up to two years.