THE quick actions of staff at a Worcester shop prevented a three-year-old boy suffering worse burns in an alleged acid attack said one of the country’s leading experts in his field.

Expert witness professor Simon Richard Myers gave evidence at Worcester Crown Court today during the acid attack trial of seven defendants, including the boy's own father. The 40-year-old Afghan and co-defendants Adam Cech, Jan Dudi, Jabar Paktia, Martina Badiova, Norbert Pulko and Saied Hussini all deny conspiracy to apply a corrosive fluid.

The professor said the actions of staff at Home Bargains in the wake of the alleged acid attack, one of whom applied wet paper towels to the boy’s burns, would have helped dilute the acid, reducing the depth of the burn. Sales assistant James Colbourne applied wet paper towels to the boy’s arm before paramedics arrived. Mr Colbourne said in his statement, read out yesterday, that he was not first aid trained.

However, he added: “I thought I needed to do something and went to the back of the store and got some wet paper towels and took them back to the little boy and put them on his arm.”

Staff noticed that the boy had pink dots on his t-shirt and found further pink dots on the basket that contained the footballs, the place where he was standing when sprayed with a fluid by Adam Cech at around 2.15pm on Saturday, July 21.

Burns and plastic surgeon Mr Myers, a professor at the medical school of Barts Hospital in London, was asked by prosecutor Jonathan Rees QC if the actions of staff and paramedics will have affected the final result as far as the injury to the boy.

Mr Myers answered: “Yes, it will, absolutely.”

The professor described dilution as the first stage in the treatment of acid burns. He told the jury his injuries were ‘completely consistent’ with exposure to sulphuric acid at between 10 and 30 per cent in concentration.

The lecturer and fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons added: “It’s difficult to be precise about the percentage but this was strong acid.”

Photographs of the boy’s injuries were also shown to the jury. Mr Myers said the burn to the boy’s forearm was ‘consistent with a narrow stream of strong acid from above and behind’ which struck him first just below the elbow.

He explained that the injury to the boy’s forehead could have been caused by direct spray or as a result of indirect transfer from the boy's left forearm.

Judge Robert Juckes QC described the injury to the boy's arm as ‘clearly delineated’ which ‘suggested the acid acted very quickly, giving an indication of its strength'.

“Exactly that” said the professor.

Mr Rees asked the professor about the provenance of sulphuric acid in such an attack and he replied: “Car battery acid is very common and becoming more common.”

He said the concentration of car battery acid was usually between 30 and 50 per cent and generally around 40 per cent.

Initially the boy’s mother had thought her son had suffered an allergic reaction. A transcript of the 999 call read to the jury. The boy was said to be screaming in the background as a staff member helped the mother describe what had happened.

PC Daniel Young, first officer on the scene at 2.59pm, appeared as a witness, describing the boy as having ‘tears in his eyes’ when he saw him on a stretcher in the ambulance. The ball pit where the alleged attack happened was cordoned off and he requested the help of the fire service who are experts in responding to chemical hazards. The officer viewed the CCTV and requested that the shop be evacuated.

“The whole area of the shop was treated as a cordon to be secured” he said.

The trial continues.