A HAMPSHIRE woman has launched a £1m compensation bid after claiming laser surgery wrecked her dreams of a police career – and left her eyes so sensitive to light she has to wear sunglasses in the shower.

Stephanie Holloway, 28, spent £2,900 on the hi-tech treatment from Optical Express at their Southampton branch to rid her of poor eyesight which was blocking her fulfilling a childhood ambition of joining the police.

She is suing DMC Optical Ltd, the company behind Optical Express, as well as the surgeon who carried out the procedure, Dr Joanna McGraw.

Daily Echo:

Dr Joanna McGraw. Picture by Champion News

Central London County Court heard Miss Holloway, of Lee-On-Solent, now wears dark-tinted glasses almost constantly and her mother has to guide her when they are outdoors.

Her barrister Nicholas Yell said she decided to have the surgery at the Southampton branch when she was 21.

He said: “The procedure was intended to improve or correct her myopia. She wanted to join the police force.”

She experiences “severe dazzling in anything more than low illumination and wearing heavily tinted spectacles through the waking day”, he added.

Mr Yell argued that she was “in a considerably worse position than before treatment” and had also developed clinical depression as a result.

He also alleged the surgeon had “failed to obtain informed consent to the procedure which was actually performed”.

Speaking from the witness box, Miss Holloway said the surgery meant she lost her job in the antiques book trade and can no longer cook for fear of burning herself.

She said: “I was in a good position in my life. I loved to read, I loved to look at art – all of those things. I was unaware of the risks, I was never told of any of the risks.”

But Simon Cridland, representing Optical Express, told the court Miss Holloway was clearly warned by Dr McGraw that she risked being left with “a very bad result” because of the type of eyes she had.

He also claimed that Miss Holloway was “grossly exaggerating” her post-operative visual difficulties.

“You were able to see sufficiently well in 2011, and now, to dress yourself,” Mr Cridland said.

Mr Cridland told the judge that video surveillance evidence “entirely contradicted” her claims about the extent of her visual disability.

The hearing continues.