[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)

Mr Chancellor worked in the NHS for approximately 25 years. He was the founder and chairman of Chancellor Care, a company he set up in 1999 to deal with people with mental health issues. He opened and successfully ran a facility at Kelling Park. In 2003 he acquired the premises at Cawston Park, which was opened as the psychiatric hospital. He recruited the Claimants and eventually sold his company to them in the management buyout in 2005.

Before descending into the detail of Mr Chancellor’s evidence before me it is important to recognize that his Police statement was an important pillar of the case against Mr Breeze and Mr Wilson as presented by the Police to Mr Tarrant. Mr Chancellor recognized, as he stated in the interview, that what he had said did the Claimants no “favours” although during cross-examination he said, very unconvincingly, that he did not know what he meant when he said this.

The impact of Mr Chancellor’s police statement was not lost on the Claimants. As is set out within the case summary, the statement was read through and Mr Breeze described himself as “gobsmacked” and that it was

“…a misinterpretation of what happened and all the conversations that he had had with Chancellor…Breeze said that Chancellor had misrepresented what was happening.”

In his police statement Mr Chancellor gave his view about the extra care charge in these straightforward and damning terms;

“The term extra care was defined by a combination, I think Mark led on it, certainly Andrew would have had input, and well all of them Mark, Andrew, Dominic and Simon were the key people that would have coined the term ‘extra care’.

To be honest I didn't care what they called it as long as they didn't call it 'specialling'.

The 'Specialling' or 'extra care’ in addition to the usual enhanced level of care we did at Kelling was the level of care that someone would get when they're at risk. Either at risk to themselves or at risk to somebody else, or risk of absconding, so ‘extra care' to me would be a description of the level of care someone would require to prevent them from harming themselves or harming someone else.

This could be extra staff, extra psychiatric treatment, extra activity whatever it takes to stop this person harming themselves, harming someone else, to lessen their distress.

But it would, without any shadow of any doubt, be something extra.

It wouldn't be the standard level of care for somebody who isn't going to do something right now.

If you are in a position whereby you have established that somebody needs extra care it would manifest itself in one of many ways, but it would very much involve extra use of people no matter what...Extra people would be needed to get them through the crisis whatever it was.

You may not always use the term ‘specialling’ or extra care or enhanced care so a care worker for example may not hear the term. It’s the hand over of clinical care throughout the twenty four hour period that would define it.”

It is difficult to see how this passage can be interpreted other than, as Mr Chancellor stating that extra care required something readily identifiable beyond the standard level of care and that required extra people. This was totally at odds with the Claimants’ explanation of the extra care charge.

It was the view of trial Counsel (in his review of 12^th June 2009) that:

“Once the investigation started, the police gathered a body of evidence which appeared strongly to support the account given by Mr. Devaney. This included Mr Chanceller, (sic) the founder of the company, who made a statement trenchantly supporting the Crown position.”

Within his witness statement prepared for this action Mr Chancellor stated that;

“At the start of the interview, the atmosphere was extremely formal and to some extent, I felt it was oppressive. I was informed that I was a key witness and what I had to say was very important to the investigation. This made me think very carefully about what I should be saying.”

He also referred to asking if he was going to be arrested and was told “we’ll see…I’ll interview you now it depends on what you say” and described this as a “clear attempt to intimidate me and it worked” and “I was made to feel that any answer the police did not want to hear would lead me into trouble”. However, it is important to note that Mr Chancellor was accompanied by a solicitor. He may well have found the formality somewhat oppressive, but this was largely unavoidable. Significantly, bearing in mind what was to later transpire with Mr Chancellor “clarifying” what he had said; he was fully aware of the need to be accurate in what he said; to be “very careful.”

I have had the benefit of listening to extracts of the interview (during which Mr Chancellor appeared to be relatively relaxed) and of hearing DC Baker’s evidence and I have considerable difficulty with Mr Chancellor’s assertion that DC Baker “spoke with venom” at any stage on or off the tape. If there was anything improper about the interview process Mr Chancellor’s solicitor would surely have intervened (no complaint was made at the time or prior to these proceedings). The suggestion is also at direct odds with what Mr Chancellor was to state when interviewed by DS Frost and Mr Fernandes on 6^th November 2009 in respect of Mr Breeze’s complaints (which had been outlined in an e-mail the day before);

“Mr Chancellor concluded the meeting by stating that in respect of DC Baker he found him to be totally professional in his meetings with him and that he displayed good skills in interviewing him and searching for answers around difficult and complex issues.”

I also do not accept as accurate the assessment that “the officer tried to turn (him) against the Claimants. In my view having heard his evidence it is clear that Mr Chancellor gave answers which he well knew were unfavourable to the Claimants and subsequently that he wished to lessen the damage he knew that he had caused to the Claimants’ defence.

When interviewed by DS Frost and Mr Fernandes Mr Chancellor did not mention feeling oppressed

“Mr Chancellor was asked about the alleged comment made when he asked if he was under arrest i.e. “No not yet, but it depends on what you tell us”. He confirmed the comments or words to that effect were said but it didn't affect what he said in his statement and he didn't feel threatened or intimidated.”

During cross-examination of DC Baker it was suggested that there was something improper about the use of the comment that extra care would, “without any shadow of any doubt, be something extra” within the witness statement as this was a proposition put forward by DC Baker within the interview and agreed by Mr Chancellor and was not Mr Chancellor’s own wording. In my view this criticism is unjustified as;

Mr Chancellor also explained that members of staff would know who had received additional care;

“So staff would not necessarily know what each client was costing but they would certainly know if additional care was given because they would be giving it!

And my expectation is this is how it should have happened at Cawston. This is my view and belief as a clinician.

Clearly there are cost implications to this and this is how I perceive that that worked at Cawston Park.”

There was criticism raised (it was not raised by Mr Chancellor in his written or oral evidence) that this phrase did not tally exactly with what was said at interview; the main divergence being the; “so staff would not necessarily know what each client was costing”. However Mr Chancellor signed the statement after he made amendments (and this may have been one), Also, it is in line with the balance of what he said, and it is not the Claimants’ case that the staff knew what each client cost and specifically those with extra care charges applied to them. This was a criticism going nowhere in terms of advancing the Claimants’ case.

Mr Chancellor brought up the subject of specialling in the interview and within his Police statement he set out an unequivocal view that also saw any charge for extra care as justified only if linked to a patient having had some form of “ episode”. He said that he “personally was only aware of one person having an Extra care charge applied to them and that was a patient named NH she was at the unit she was in subject to four to one specialling (and the PCT charged £16-£18 thousand pounds a week)”.