[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)

Ms Gaisford worked for Chancellor Care at Cawston Park from November 2003 to May 2008 in the role of communications manager (having initially been the PA to Dr Barker). Prior to this she was the PA to Mr Chancellor.

She described her general day-to-day duties as administrative and that she was the member of staff on site who was in charge of, and knew most about, the organisation’s computer system.

In her police statement Ms Gaisford stated:

“A few months after opening the first unit at Cawston Park we admitted some patients who were high risk, more challenging than other patients, very demanding, sometimes violent and it was agreed that the number of staff on each shift would need to be increased in order for these patients to receive the care they needed. There were several meetings between Tony, Andrew, Dominic and Mark to discuss different options; I was present at a preliminary discussion. This was prior to the management buyout in 2004. The directors did not want to go down the same route as the NHS and many private hospitals by providing one to one care called specialling…I know there were a few meetings I did not attend where the subject was discussed further…

I was not present when or if a final definition of “Extra Care" was produced however my understanding is that you need enough staff present on each shift to provide effective care for all the patients including the more demanding patients without resorting to a "permanent" (custodial type) extra presence. All the patients referred to Cawston Park were assessed before admission, the assessment report and contract were sent to each referrer stating the level of risk the patient was presenting and the level of extra care needed to manage that risk, patients were admitted after the contract was agreed. We also gave non clinical staff like Phil Spinks the grounds man basic training in mental health and engagement with patients so that it he could interact with patients during activities such as gardening and caring for the livestock.”

These extracts were clearly supportive of, and consistent with, the Claimants’ defence.

Ms Gaisford referred to the discovery that Mr Deveney was preparing to set up a business in the same industry and that she was called in to shut down the servers. She stated that she isolated Mark Deveney's computer and made a copy of everything and began to look through it to see if there was anything untoward. She found a business plan but also evidence that Mr Deveney was on the habit of visiting pornographic websites. She reported what she found to the directors and the original hard drive to his computer was, in due course, given to the lawyers DLA Piper.

Ms Gaisford also stated:

“when Mark left the company I understand that Simon (Barker) was then expected to sign clinical reports for all of his patients including those that received “extra care”. He refused to take that responsibility alone and Andrew's name also appeared on the report that went to the PCT's. Simon was not the only person I heard voice concerns over “extra care”. Gary Cooper had spoken of it before and when he left the company. He had taken responsibility for some of the clinical work after Mark’s departure, one of the things that Richard McKenzie did soon after starting work with the company was to recommend the practice of charging for extra care was stopped.”

And

“I have been asked my opinion and the problem that I can see with the old system is that it is difficult to audit or prove what care was provided for which patient.”

During cross-examination Ms Gaisford agreed that she was given every opportunity to say what she wanted to say about Mr Deveney.

In his summary DS Brownsell made no mention of the statement of Ms Gaisford and Mr Tarrant made no mention of her evidence in either of his Advice notes. I view this as a surprising omission. Because DS Brownsell was not cross-examined on the detailed content of the summary (he was not taken to this omission in context but it was pointed out that Ms Gaisford’s statement was supportive of the issue of extra care) he has given no explanation for its omission (and has been given no opportunity do so) – but the issue still arises as to whether this was because of a deliberate attempt to supress the evidence or mislead Mr Tarrant or a mistake. Having heard all the evidence and carefully considered this point I am not satisfied on balance that it was a deliberate attempt to suppress/mislead. However it was a mistake.

After the arrest of the Claimants in November 2006 Ms Gaisford was given the task of liaising with the investigating officers as they searched through Cawston Park’s computer records. She had frequent contact with the officers and most regularly dealt with DC Baker.

In her 2018 statement in this action Ms Gaisford recalled one conversation in January 2007 when DC Baker came to collect some documents. She stated that she asked him “where is the investigation going?” and that his response was

“I don’t know where this investigation is going. The problem we have is that the powers that be want a result on this one.”

She set out that she got the impression the superior officers wanted a result which meant pinning the blame on people that they had decided were guilty and

“From my perspective (DC Baker) and his superior officers had clearly made their mind up that Andrew and Dominic were guilty of committing fraud.”

On the 14^th October 2009 and after she had moved to Australia, Ms Gaisford was sent an e-mail by DS Frost who was investigating Mr Breeze’s complaint that DC Baker had made an unprofessional and inappropriate comment to her “that the powers that be want a result”. Ms Gaisford’s reply (by e-mail of 18^th October 2009), after she said that she gave the issue time it deserved was that

“…I cannot recall any discussion with Detective Constable Sean Baker clearly anymore but I have the impression that (he) was aware this was a very important case and that it was very important that no stone was left unturned. We discussed the investigation on several occasions…DC Baker was also the officer who conducted my interview. In all my dealings with DC Baker I found him to be helpful where he could be within the boundaries of professional conduct…I found the whole experience, the raid, investigation etc very stressful due to the final years in Zimbabwe which left me with a distrust of authority. Detective Constable Baker overcame this with his continuing professional manner and behaviour. I am sorry I am not able to be more conclusive or certain about our conversations but since the investigation I have been unwell and my memories of the last two years, before I fell ill tend to be general or impressions not details. I am glad to be fully recovered able to work again.”

The statement produced in 2018 (nine years later) in this action is very different in material aspects to the e-mail sent in 2009 in that it is critical of DC Baker and sets out a clear recollection of a conversation which she stated in 2009 that she could not remember. In her 2018 statement Ms Gaisford stated that she felt “put on the spot” by DS Frost’s request and at the time she was on medication and was suffering from PTSD and that she was fearful of the police generally and the response was “the path of least resistance”. In her oral evidence she also said that she was fearful that DC Baker could lose his job. However her e-mail response, which was sent after she had moved to Australia was sent four days after Mr Frost’s e-mail and she stated that she was fully recovered from ill health. It gave a full and balanced explanation which was not in any way critical of DC Baker; quite the reverse and there was no need for her to be so complimentary unless she felt it was justified.

In a further statement dated 27^th April 2023 Ms Gaisford covered the issue of the whereabouts of Mark Deveney's computer on the day of the police raid (14^th November 2006). She stated that she had a copy of the hard drive kept in a locked drawer in her desk and it was still there on the day of the police raid. She later provided a copy of the hard drive to DLA Piper (the Claimants’ solicitors) sometime after the raid, but the police had not asked about Mr Deveney’s computer on the day and

“…If they had, I could and would have very easily given them a copy of the whole of the hard drive, this would have included his assessments of patients prior to their arrival at Cawston Park.”

In her oral evidence Ms Gaisford stated that the police had been more interested in the server but that she had actually told them that they needed to look for Mr Deveney’s computer, but that they did not take it up further and just ignored what she said. This was very different to what she had set out in her witness statement and she agreed that this was the first time that she had mentioned actually telling the Police about the computer; over eighteen years after the event.

Having heard Ms Gaisford give oral evidence I formed the view that it was not possible to rely on what she set out in her statements in 2018 and 2023 in respect of the detail of DC Baker’s alleged comment or the raid. The 2009 e-mail was clear and I do not accept the reasons given for its content and she could also give no explanation as to why she was mentioning for the first time that she had told the police about Mr Deveney’s computer during evidence over eighteen years after the event. Also, there is the obvious point that if she had thought the matter important she could have taken the hard drive out of her drawer and given it to the Police.

It is distinctly possible in my view that as a result of exchanges with DC Baker Ms Gaisford formed the view that DC Baker believed that the Claimants were guilty (which is inconsistent with him having a view that he had no idea where the investigation was going) and that she passed her view on at the time and subsequently. However such a view does not materially advance the Claimant’s case which is that DC Baker and others had no honest belief in the Claimant’s guilt. Even if DC Baker had said that his superiors “wanted a result” such a statement would be consistent with senior officers expressing a view that given the evidence the case against the Claimants should proceed to trial (in line with Ms Gaisford’s belief that such senior officers had decided that they were guilty). It cannot realistically be seen as clear evidence that any such senior officers wanted a result even though it was appreciated that the Claimants had not committed any offence and/or that there was insufficient evidence to justify a prosecution. In any event without accurate detail and context any comment of the broad nature alleged is very far from the damaging admission which it has been portrayed as.

As for Mr Deveney’s computer it is in my view important to take into account the fact that at the time of the Police raid Mr Deveney had not worked at Cawston Park for over a year and the Police would have no reason to suspect that a copy of a hard drive had been retained unless told and in oral evidence Ms Gaisford said that she did not specifically say to the Police that she had a copy of the hard drive. The unsatisfactory evidence of Ms Gaisford fell very far short of supporting the pleaded allegation that the failure to seize Mr Deveney’s computer was a deliberate act of ignoring/supressing evidence.