Expert Witness Journal Issue 65 February 2026 - Flipbook - Page 78
were keen to establish, if in my view, any residual
dampness in the bathroom area and ceiling void
below, was consistent with a bath over昀氀owing over
an extended period of time, as the three occupants,
(subsequent defendants), of the house had initially
stated.
course of justice, entered guilty pleas and each were
sentenced to 2 years custody. The Judge, concerned
at the potential for an inference that the Jury might
obtain from the co-defendant’s guilty pleas and the
possibility of a miss-trial, dismissed the Jury and
then set a date for a re-trial three week’s later with a
new Jury subsequently sworn in. I was requested to
provide my evidence again, along with all the other
original witnesses.
The survey that I completed established in my view
that very little water was on the bathroom 昀氀oor, in
the 昀氀oorboards, behind the bath panel, or within
the 昀氀oor void, (above the lounge ceiling below), even
taking into account evaporation rates and water 昀氀ow
volumes.
After relatively short deliberation, Cheryl
O’Callaghan was found guilty of the murder of
Adrian Swift and subsequently sentenced to life
imprisonment.
Additionally, the bath itself was 1520mm, (5ft) in
length and held 140 litres/30 gallons of water, (if
昀椀lled to the brim). Adrian was a tall man – 1930mm,
(6ft 4”), the likelihood of him drowning in the bath
was remote, and immediately arose suspicion with
the Police as to how Adrian had died.
It emerged in the trial that the day before Adrian was
found dead, Cheryl O’Callaghan had badly beaten
him with a baseball bat and pushed him down the
stairs in the house. Adrian was admitted to hospital
that Saturday night but had discharged himself the
following day without making a formal complaint
to the Police. When he was in the bathroom, on the
Sunday morning, Cheryl O’Callaghan, unprovoked,
beat him again with fatal consequences. To try and
conceal their crime, Adrian’s body, (which was lying
on the bathroom 昀氀oor), was soaked with water from
the 昀氀exible showerhead attached to the taps of the
bath to try to give the impression he had drowned,
and the supposedly over昀氀owing bath had alerted
the three defendants. Clearly, this deception was
unsuccessful. Paramedics who 昀椀rst arrived at the
scene described the bath being “dry” and no water in
Adrian’s mouth or eye sockets. The evidence against
Cheryl O’Callaghan from the paramedics, the
Coroner, and other Witnesses, (including myself),
assisted in proving beyond reasonable doubt that
Cheryl O’Callaghan was guilty of Adrian’s murder.
My view was that less than 1 litre of water had been
present shortly after Adrian was “discovered” –
lifeless in the bath. There were only two localized
areas of dampness – a small section below the vinyl
昀氀oor of the bathroom 昀氀oor and in the lower section
of the bath panel and timber support frame. Such a
small amount of water was in my view inconsistent
with an over昀氀owing bath, (as the defendants had
told the Police). This would form my opinion of the
Expert evidence I would provide in my Report and
the subsequent oral testimony I was to provide in
Liverpool Crown Court.
By all accounts Adrian was a talented musician,
often to be found busking in Liverpool City Centre
and was much loved by his family, and friends. He
was classed as frail, unwell and vulnerable at the
time he was murdered.
It was a sad and distressing case to be involved with,
and something that I have not in my 40 year career
as a Chartered Surveyor experienced previously. It
was however satisfying to have assisted the Police,
the Court, Judge and Jury with some of my technical
expertise, in the successful conviction of the three
defendants and ultimately to see justice duly served
for Adrian.
Section of 昀氀oorboard removed to access ceiling void below
The police charged Cheryl O’Collaghan with
Adrian’s murder and Adam Oldland and Steven
Hardaker were charged with perverting the course
of justice, and 昀椀les were passed to the CPS.
I was called to provide oral testimony evidence in
Liverpool Crown Court in the Trial, (in November
2022) and I was subject to cross examination by
three Barristers representing the three Defendants.
Tim Davies
BSc(Hons) MRICS MAE Cert EW (Civil & Criminal)
Chartered Building Surveyor, RICS Registered
Valuer
During the early stages of the trial the two codefendants that were accused of perverting the
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
76
FEBRUARY 2026
