[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)

As I have already set out a statement should have been obtained from Mr Graham, but that this was a mistake/error of judgment and not due to malice/bad faith.

It is the Claimants’ pleaded case that the relevant officers failed to give proper weight to and/or to take into account positive evidence and/or the absence of evidence of impropriety from the inspections carried out and the reports produced by the Healthcare Commission on Cawston Park. Again this is the language of negligence. In my view the enquiry believed that the important evidence as to staffing and conditions came from staff (which conflicted with the Claimants’ explanation). The result of the unannounced inspection (the fact that it was unannounced was believed to be important) merely supported the evidence obtained from staff.

The summary contained reference to the unannounced inspection in terms which were not challenged.

The Claimants (in particular Mr Breeze) believe that the HCC inspectors were “influenced” by the police and Operation Meridian, as the HCC inspection report following the unannounced inspection on 19 September 2006 was less positive than the previous reports (and it is a fair assessment that the previous inspection reports of the Health Care Commission and Mental Health Act Commission, dated November 2005 were largely positive). I see no valid basis for an allegation that the Inspectors gave a dishonest view. The report was at a specific moment in time and staffing/conditions may fluctuate over time.