Wife of scuba diver who vanished off UK coast shares chilling last picture
A last photo of a scuba diver entering the water before he mysteriously disappeared off the south coast of England has been shared by his wife.
Steve Clowes, 57, was diving with friends on a shipwreck 15 miles off Portland Bill, Dorset, on May 25 last year when he suddenly vanished. The moment he stepped off the boat and plunged into the sea for his final tragic dive was caught on camera. At the time Mr Clowes, a qualified diving instructor with 25 years' experience, had been wearing his late father's Rolex Submariner watch he had hoped to pass on to his own son one day.
Mr Clowes was last seen 15 metres from the surface as he made a controlled ascent back up at the end of the routine dive. A large scale air and sea search was launched but sadly Mr Clowes was not found. The operation was called off the following day.
Fellow divers from the close-knit community carried out their own search of the wreck site but could not find him. As the anniversary of his disappearance approaches his wife Vivien said she will be 'forever searching' for her husband of 35 years.
Mrs Clowes, 57, said: "Steve was my rock, he was the one person that was always there for me. Despite extensive search efforts, his body has never been recovered. A year later I'm still searching. I still check the news every day, searching for diving incidents in Dorset, hoping someone might find Steve.
'I like to think he is safe on an island somewhere, sipping a coconut. But I know he is not with us anymore and I know if anything was found it would be a body. Part of me is desperate for him to be found so I can hold his ashes, but not having him home means I can pretend he's just stuck somewhere."
She added that finding his body would not only bring closure to her but also mean the return of a sentimental family heirloom. The couple met when they were teenagers and went on to have five children together - Beth, Becka, Kayla, Jack and Will.
Mr Clowes, from Sheffield, was an electrical engineer but had a passion for diving and had trained as a TecRec technical instructor and PADI Master Instructor. He was very outdoorsy and loved hiking, camping, rugby and spending time with his family and was also a scout leader.
Mrs Clowes also wants to highlight how stressful is the bureaucratic process loved ones have to go through when there is no body to prove someone is dead.
At the same time as dealing with the emotional trauma of losing her husband, she had to battle to get a presumption of death certificate from the High Court. Without it Mr Clowes' life insurance would not pay out and she would have lost their house.
Mrs Clowes said the process is long, costly and draining. She said: "You have to submit an application to the High Court, place public notices in the paper, often people need to hire legal representation, that can cost about £7,000.
"I was lucky I had a friend with a legal background to help me, I wouldn't have been able to afford it. But the public notice costs about £1,000 and you have travel costs to the High Court.
"All this at a time when you're grieving and barely functioning, the mental strain of it, it's a horrendous process. I raised the issue with my MP, hoping to spark reform but the response she got from government was just that's the process, it's the law."
Mrs Clowes added: "I hope to honour Steve's memory by sharing his story, keeping the possibility open that someone might come forward with information, or that future searches might be feasible with the right equipment. And to shine a light on the quiet, often invisible grief of families who lose loved ones at sea."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
3 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
High Court to hear bid to challenge Palestine Action ban
Huda Ammori is seeking to challenge Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe Palestine Action under anti-terror laws, after the group claimed an action which saw two Voyager planes damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20. On July 4, Ms Ammori failed in a High Court bid to temporarily block the ban coming into effect, with the Court of Appeal dismissing a challenge to that decision less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, under the Terrorism Act 2000. The Government is opposing the bid for the legal challenge to be allowed to proceed, with the hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain due to begin at 10.30am on Monday at the Royal Courts of Justice. Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident, and are due to face trial in early 2027. Since the ban came into force, dozens of people have been arrested at protests in cities including London, Manchester and Cardiff, including an 83-year-old reverend. At the hearing earlier this month, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, said the proscription was an 'ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power'. He also said that the Home Office 'has still not sufficiently articulated or evidenced a national security reason that proscription should be brought into effect now'. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that the harm caused by the ban would be 'far-reaching' and could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Mr Justice Chamberlain said that an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and 'preceded' the incident at RAF Brize Norton. Dismissing the bid for a temporary block, the judge said that the 'harm which would ensue' if a block was not ordered was 'insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force'. He added that some of the 'consequences feared by the claimant' were 'overstated'. At a late-night Court of Appeal hearing, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis threw out a bid to challenge the High Court's decision, finding that there was 'no real prospect of a successful appeal'.
Rhyl Journal
3 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
High Court to hear bid to challenge Palestine Action ban
Huda Ammori is seeking to challenge Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe Palestine Action under anti-terror laws, after the group claimed an action which saw two Voyager planes damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20. On July 4, Ms Ammori failed in a High Court bid to temporarily block the ban coming into effect, with the Court of Appeal dismissing a challenge to that decision less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, under the Terrorism Act 2000. The Government is opposing the bid for the legal challenge to be allowed to proceed, with the hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain due to begin at 10.30am on Monday at the Royal Courts of Justice. Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident, and are due to face trial in early 2027. Since the ban came into force, dozens of people have been arrested at protests in cities including London, Manchester and Cardiff, including an 83-year-old reverend. At the hearing earlier this month, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, said the proscription was an 'ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power'. He also said that the Home Office 'has still not sufficiently articulated or evidenced a national security reason that proscription should be brought into effect now'. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that the harm caused by the ban would be 'far-reaching' and could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Mr Justice Chamberlain said that an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and 'preceded' the incident at RAF Brize Norton. Dismissing the bid for a temporary block, the judge said that the 'harm which would ensue' if a block was not ordered was 'insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force'. He added that some of the 'consequences feared by the claimant' were 'overstated'. At a late-night Court of Appeal hearing, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis threw out a bid to challenge the High Court's decision, finding that there was 'no real prospect of a successful appeal'.
South Wales Argus
4 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
High Court to hear bid to challenge Palestine Action ban
Huda Ammori is seeking to challenge Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe Palestine Action under anti-terror laws, after the group claimed an action which saw two Voyager planes damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20. On July 4, Ms Ammori failed in a High Court bid to temporarily block the ban coming into effect, with the Court of Appeal dismissing a challenge to that decision less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, under the Terrorism Act 2000. The Government is opposing the bid for the legal challenge to be allowed to proceed, with the hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain due to begin at 10.30am on Monday at the Royal Courts of Justice. Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident, and are due to face trial in early 2027. Protesters outside the Royal Courts of Justice on The Strand, central London, earlier in July (Lucy North/PA) Since the ban came into force, dozens of people have been arrested at protests in cities including London, Manchester and Cardiff, including an 83-year-old reverend. At the hearing earlier this month, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, said the proscription was an 'ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power'. He also said that the Home Office 'has still not sufficiently articulated or evidenced a national security reason that proscription should be brought into effect now'. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that the harm caused by the ban would be 'far-reaching' and could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Mr Justice Chamberlain said that an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and 'preceded' the incident at RAF Brize Norton. Dismissing the bid for a temporary block, the judge said that the 'harm which would ensue' if a block was not ordered was 'insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force'. He added that some of the 'consequences feared by the claimant' were 'overstated'. At a late-night Court of Appeal hearing, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis threw out a bid to challenge the High Court's decision, finding that there was 'no real prospect of a successful appeal'.
