A tech millionaire shot a 16-year-old boy after thinking he was an urban explorer searching his £30million country estate for the infamous "underwater ballroom".
Gary Steele, 63, made his fortune from a successful superfast broadband tech firm and lived at the swanky 1,300 acre Witley Estate, near Godalming, Surrey.
But back in July 2019, he shot Tom Frearson, then 16, in the back with a shotgun, and the teen was rushed to hospital.
The youngster had his back, hand, arm and buttock peppered with steel pellets from the 20-gauge Beretta shotgun, which was licensed to Mr Steele's partner Amanda Karn, but not him.
Mr Frearson, now 21, said he “feared for his life” after being shot, but Mr Steele claimed he acted out of fear because his estate had been targeted by urban explorers.
Gangsters ‘call for ceasefire’ after deadly Christmas Eve pub shooting
Tech mogul Gary Steele (Supplied by Champion News)They had been acting as apart of an online campaign challenging people to break into eccentric buildings and post pictures - and Mr Steele’s estate had been a particular target due to its bizarre “underwater ballroom”.
This was a glass-domed room accessible via a tunnel submerged beneath one of the man-made lakes on the grounds and surmounted by a "floating" statue, his lawyers said in documents submitted to London's High Court.
Now the 21-year-old is suing Mr Steele for £3million, claiming he was “deliberate or reckless” in firing the gun, which he said left him struggling for work and needing lifelong care and assistance.
Mr Steele is defending the action, claiming he "accidentally" shot the youngster whilst feeling "isolated and afraid" after his estate had been targeted by the online campaign.
He has claimed the youngster ran into the path of a “warning shot” he had fired to scare intruders off.
Mr Steele was found guilty of possession of a shotgun without a licence, having been acquitted of attempted murder, wounding with intent and unlawful wounding by a jury at Guildford Crown Court in October 2019.
The tycoon, who reportedly sold the Witley Estate in 2019 for £30m and now lives at £12m Roundhurst Farm, Lurgashall, Surrey, was sentenced to 15 months in prison, suspended for 12 months, and ordered to pay a total of £11,140 in fines and costs.
He was also told to forfeit the shotgun and ammunition.
But Mr Frearson is now claiming around £2.9m in compensation, plus interest, for the injuries he suffered.
He says his intended career path as a mechanic, as well as his ability to care for himself, has been blighted because he cannot grip properly with his injured left hand.
Four human skulls wrapped in tin foil found in package going from Mexico to US
He has also been left traumatised and with scarring which makes him self-conscious and faces up to 50 more operations to dig the shot out of his body.
In papers submitted to the High Court, Mr Steele's barrister Laura Johnson KC says: "Due to its follies, in particular the underground ballroom and the 'Ice House,' the estate attracted trespassers looking to explore the grounds.
"Although some of these individuals left when requested, the defendant and his partner also encountered incidents of criminal damage, antisocial behaviour and theft.
"One of the follies, the Ice House, was repeatedly targeted as a destination for parties and illegal raves. The Boat House was also targeted by people breaking in, stealing - and eventually sinking - the defendant's boat and seeking to gain access to the Underwater Ballroom or the Ice House.”
It was during a police investigation into two incidents in November 2014, that Mr Steele learned of the social media challenge to break into the Underwater Ballroom.
This was described as “very upsetting” to the defendant, who tried to have the challenge taken offline, but the intruders were said to have kept coming.
Then, during the summer of 2018, a year before the shooting, these issues were said to have escalated, leaving Mr Steele and his partner feeling “unsafe in their home”.
On the night of the shooting, a group of youths - whom Mr Frearson knew but was not with - had been spotted within the grounds of the estate, with youths having also been in the grounds the previous night, the barrister claims.
"The claimant's friends entered the estate whilst the defendant and his partner were having dinner on the terrace," Ms Johnson said.
This left Mr Steele and his partner worrying for their safety, the barrister said, as they had intruded onto the property the night before and police hadn't attended when called.
Mr Steele took a quad bike and went down to ask them to leave, bringing the shotgun with him "for reassurance" as he worried their behaviour was escalating as he had previously had stones thrown at him and been threatened.
The pensioner was also aware of a security camera that had been disabled and drove down into the woods on a quad bike to see if he could find the youths but he couldn’t so decided to try and fix the camera.
It was then he heard voices near the Turbine House, close to a wall, and began to realise the intruders were still present.
His defence claim he felt fearful they were spreading out around him and closing in and decided to fire a warning shot.
It is then Mr Steele claimed that the youngster ran into the shot.
His defence said: "The defendant did not fire the shotgun at the claimant. He fired a warning shot when he believed it was safe to do so, with the intention of scaring the intruders away with the sound. He accidentally hit the claimant who was running.”
In documents lodged with the court Mr Frearson's barrister Colm Nugent says he was "walking outside the perimeter wall of the estate along or near a public footpath" when he was "shot by the defendant without any forewarning from an elevated position within the grounds.
"It later transpired that the defendant wrongly believed or claimed to believe that the claimant had been trespassing on his land earlier that same day.
"The defendant fired the shotgun at the claimant from a distance of approximately 12 metres.
"After he had shot the claimant he said to him over the wall "I told you not to come back," the barrister says.
The submissions in the documents submitted to the court have yet to be tested in evidence before a judge.
Read more similar news:
Comments:
comments powered by Disqus
