[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)

In his witness statement DC Baker stated that;

“On Tuesday 24th of April I met Malcolm Savoury, together with Tony Chancellor, to take a statement from Mr Chancellor. Mr Savoury was Mr Chancellor's solicitor… the interview was taped recorded and I made notes in my rough book. It was recognised that Tony Chancellor's evidence was important. As a result, the tape recordings of his interview were subsequently transcribed verbatim and then transferred to an MG11 statement in readable statement form. Once the lengthy process was complete Mr Chancellor was provided with a copy to check over and amend as required before he signed when I visited him at home.”

And

“I recall that shortly before Mr Chancellor was scheduled to give evidence at the criminal trial, his solicitor, Malcolm Savoury called me to say that Mr Chancellor had seen his statement and thought it would be a good idea for me to speak to him. Mr Savoury put it in terms of avoiding “wrong footing the prosecuting barrister”. I spoke with Mr Chancellor and asked him about his issue. He explained that, following advice (which I presumed was from his legal team), he had some concerns over things in his statement. When I asked him to clarify he told me that he should not be giving his opinion on matters he had not witnessed first hand. As a result, my impression was that he had received advice about hearsay evidence. As a result of the phone call, I contacted my colleagues attending the trial at Ipswich Crown Court to ensure the matter was brought to the attention of Mr. John Farmer, Prosecuting Counsel. I subsequently received a return call from a colleague to tell me to inform Mr Chancellor that he would be taken through his evidence in chief and any hearsay evidence issues would be matters to be dealt with by the Judge and the legal teams”

And

“at no stage did I form the impression that Mr Chancellor wished fundamentally to change the contents of his evidence. I was as surprised as the rest of the investigation and prosecution teams when he gave different evidence in the witness box compared to that contained in his signed witness statement.”

When asked about the interview DC Baker pointed out that Mr Savoury was present and made comments. He denied that he spoke with venom about the Claimants or was at any time threatening; including during any cigarette breaks. When extracts were played they supported DC Baker’s evidence as to his demeanour and attitude (which was described by Mr Cooper as the “good cop”) and did not support Mr Chancellor’s account. By way of an example in an extract played Mr Chancellor described the extreme behaviour of one patient at Kelling Park and that as a result of it

“we would put some sort of costing to that based on how much, and it’s a very imprecise science but based on a rough estimate of what extra care…It's not to be confused with extra care at Cawston. That's a different thing”

to which DC Baker responded

“what you've brought up Tony will go with you whatever you want to go with because that does form a bit of the inquiry.”

Mr Chancellor then said “but extra care at Kelling I think was different to what was at Cawston” to which DC Baker said “let’s hope so”. When heard on playback the suggestion that this comment was an attempt to manipulate Mr Chancellor (who had already made his view clear unprompted) becomes unrealistic. Having considered the interview transcripts and the evidence of Mr Chancellor and DC Baker I reject without any hesitation the suggestion that Mr Chancellor (who had his solicitor present) was objectively or intentionally oppressed during the interview or that DC Baker spoke with venom at any time (including when the tape was not on).

I also reject the suggestion that DC Baker deliberately asked leading questions (the suggestion being that the question “but it would without a shadow of a doubt be something extra (?)” was an attempt to “manipulate” the evidence or trick evidence from Mr Chancellor that he was otherwise unwilling to give and showed malice. The suggestion that the shock expressed by DC Baker at the end of the interview was not at its damning content, rather shock that he had successfully managed to get answers that Mr Chancellor “did not set out to give you” is equally unrealistic.

I also accept the evidence of DC Baker that he was not particularly interested in Kelling Park save that was where “the Chancellor Way” began as it was in his honest view a completely different proposition to Cawston Park; very much smaller and therapeutic.

There was a suggestion that transcripts compiled were somehow “hidden” from the CPS. Given the content of Mr Chancellor’s statement (which was helpful to the prosecution and which fairly reflected the content of the interviews) and the fact that the transcripts would be on any disclosure schedule I reject this suggestion as without foundation.

DC Baker explained in his witness statement that;

“On 29th November 2007 I met with Tony Chancellor at his home address. We discussed Martin Ward. I had become aware of Martin Ward because DLA Piper had produced a statement from him and I was tasked with seeing him in interview as a result.”

Mr Chancellor signed a second statement dated 29^th November 2007 in which he noted at the outset that he had been asked about his knowledge of Martin Ward. The statement concluded:

“(Martin Ward…was an employee who is employed to transfer my working principle from Kelling to Cawston Park and demonstrate the positive results through recognised assessments and research tools. I would like to emphasise again that my views and practices could only be effective if the correct amount and quality of staff were available to deliver it.”

DC Baker was pressed as to whether Mr Chancellor had ever said this. I am satisfied that the statement properly reflected what Mr Chancellor said (Mr Chancellor did not contend otherwise in his statement for this action).

Having heard both Mr Chancellor and DC Baker; I find that DC Baker’s recollection about their interaction shortly before the trial is the accurate one and Mr Chancellor did not mention misinterpretation, specialling or extra care. For the avoidance of doubt I also reject without hesitation the suggestion that DC Baker supressed a clarification statement (that he had not seen) and did not obtain it as he knew he was not going to be helpful. This would be a rather hopeless attempt to assist the prosecution as DC Baker would have known that Mr Chancellor was going to give evidence and would obviously recognise the risk that any altered/new evidence would be a surprise which could “wrong foot” Prosecuting Counsel.