[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)

Mr Tarrant qualified as a solicitor in 1977 and joined the office of the director of public prosecutions in October 1978. He stated for the last 13 years he had worked exclusively in the CPS specialist division dealing with fraud cases.

Having been allocated Operation Meridian Mr Tarrant advised in relation to the potential appointment of a managing receiver once the suspects had been arrested given the potential effect upon the running of the hospital. There was a conference on the 19^th October 2006 following which Mr Tarrant instructed specialist Counsel. Following Counsel's advice a decision was taken to commence restraint proceedings and Mr Tarrant represented the CPS at the hearing before His Honour Judge Elwen on the 10^th November 2006. The statement set out that after that:

“The investigation team continued to conduct their inquiries. They approached me for ad hoc advice when necessary but for the most part they simply got on with their job.”

The statement continues;

“I was sent the interview transcripts and a detailed 204 page case summary In the autumn of 2007 which I considered. I set out my advice in a review note dated 19th of November 2007. Although in this review note it was anticipated that there may be proceedings against the Claimants its main focus was on whether proceedings could be justified against doctor Simon Barker…

…taking into account Simon Barker’s interviews under caution Also taking into account the evidence obtained from other witnesses during the course of the investigation I concluded that he was a clinician with no knowledge of the financial side of Cawston Park. In the circumstances I took the view that there was not enough evidence to charge.”

Mr Tarrant’s statement set out that there was a conference on 20^th November 2007 when the cases against Linda Todd and Dr Simon Barker were considered. It was agreed that the police would interview Ms Todd under caution in respect of conspiracy to defraud and depending upon how that went she could be called as a prosecution witness.

The statement sets out that on the 25th of January 2008 the enquiry team provided him with additional evidence gathered since the case summary sent in October 2007. This included an addendum report from Dr Badcock and a statement from Christopher Hird.

It is also stated that Mr Tarrant considered the response of DS Brownsell to the DLA Piper letter of 1^st February 2008 and that in his view DS Brownsell

“set out what I considered (and still consider) to be reasonable explanations for all of these concerns. In addition he sent me the 10 questionnaires specifically referred to in the letter. I took this into account at paragraph 3. 9.1 of my review note in which I concluded these potential witnesses were unable to assist on the vital issue, namely what extra care did such patients receive compared to other patients and why was such extra care billed on a weekly or monthly basis rather than a one off daily basis. They simply contended that the hospital was run efficiently and some of the patients made a good recovery.”

As I have set out I do not agree with this analysis as regards Mr Graham and Ms Smith.

Mr Tarrant stated that on 3^rd February 2008 DC Horsburgh sent a report concerning Mark Deveney that set out numerous allegations, including misconduct, incorporating financial allegations, driving matters, and viewings of porn whilst at work. He said that given that Deveney was a key witness it was right, professionally and ethically that he brought this to his attention. Mr Tarrant stated that he considered all of the evidence provided and concluded his findings and advice in his review note of the 8th February 2008. The statement states that:

“In summary, in my opinion, the position was that Mark

Deveney was the ‘whistle blower.

His contention was that the concept of nominating specific patients on ‘extra care’ was a financial tool and had no link to the actual care given to those specific patients. There were concerns about his credibility and I openly acknowledge this at paragraph 2.5 of the Review Note [Exhibit CKT2]. There was, therefore, a need to seek corroboration of his account of events.

I came to the view that Mr Deveney’s assertions were corroborated by a number of staff witnesses because, as a starting point, other than the Claimants, they all gave different explanations for the term ‘extra care’. In addition few of the staff, apart from the Claimants and Deveney, were aware which patients were on ‘extra care’. I believed that it would be reasonable to assume that the staff actually involved with the patients would have some knowledge as to which patients were on extra care or, at least, be aware that additional staff would be needed to cope with the resources required for the long term needs of particular patients. A summary of this evidence is set out at paragraph 3.6 of the Note [Exhibit CKT2]. ”

It appeared that many staff thought that ‘extra care’ was a means of giving a patient ‘extra care’ as and when needed as distinct from categorising certain patients as needing ‘extra care’ on a daily or weekly basis. Some thought that this term referred to specialling’ i.e. one on one or two on one care. Others thought it simply meant that they were aware of the Extra Care Suite at Cawston.

The evidence that I analysed had been taken from the staff; I understand that questionnaires were sent out to everybody, the PCTs that financed these payments and from external and internal audits.

I also took into account the explanations of ‘Extra Care’ provided by the suspects which is evidenced at paragraph 2.8 of the Note [Exhibit CKT2]. However I took the view, which was endorsed by Counsel, that given the funds incurred in extra care costs were considerable, at the very least the PCTs should have understood the system by which Cawston Park operated in claiming these.

The conclusion reached in my Review Note was that proceedings should be instituted against Andrew Breeze and Dominic Wilson. I applied the Code of Evidence Test which is set out at paragraph 4 of the Review Note [CKT2]. I took into account the different explanations provided of ‘extra care’, of the motive of Deveney, the positive comments made by some members of staff and the likelihood that the Claimants would defend the matter on the basis that it had all been a misunderstanding. I believed that there was a reasonable prospect of conviction at that time and until the matter unfolded during the trial in June 2009.

I have considered whether the police could have suppressed evidence and therefore created a false picture of the case. I have come to the conclusion that this would not have been plausible, taking into account the detailed interviews under caution of the suspects and the abundance of evidence obtained from prosecution witnesses.

In my view it was a thorough investigation and I said so in my covering letter to the investigation team when I attached the draft indictment on 12 February [Exhibit CTK5].

I did not consider that there was a need to seek advice from Counsel at this stage, as in my view it was a straightforward allegation, which clearly merited the institution of proceedings. Counsel John Farmer was not instructed until the case had already been sent to the crown court.”

And also;