[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)

Mr Drewery worked at Cawston Park from August 2003 until May 2007, initially in security and then as a support worker as he had a wider interest in arts and crafts, painting and modelling. He lived on site with his wife who was also the activities manager. Mr Drewery is not a mental health nurse (as he described it not a “person with keys”) but worked as support worker spend time with the patients including doing various activities including arts and crafts work and swimming. In his questionnaire he also referred to the mechanical workshop vehicle maintenance, fishing trips and breakfast and lunch trips and a range of other activities.

Mr Drewery recalled being interviewed (probably on 14^th December 2006) by two officers and in his witness statement for this action stated:

“I informed (the officers) what a fantastic facility (Cawston Park) was for patients and how I believe the care was second to none. In particular I was questioned about Andrew Breeze. I told them he was an excellent manager who put the patients first and was always looking to have the best possible care provided for them. I went on to inform them that Andrew, although being the chief executive, was constantly around the hospital and knew all the patients and staff by name. He took a keen interest in the patient's care and treatment and for a long period of time he lived on the hospital site… all of the staff that lived on the site were aware they could be called upon at any time if there was a problem with any of the patients. I myself was called out on many occasions and I witnessed others assisting we were all keen to respond.”

Mr Drewery also stated that Mark Deveney’s relationship with Andrew Breeze had been deteriorating as Deveney’s consumption of alcohol increased and his attitude to work changed. He was aware that he was setting up a rival facility and attempting to poach staff for the new venture. Mr Drewery said that it dawned on him that the police were losing interest in what he was saying about Mark Deveney and they stopped taking notes. He stated:

“They also appeared disappointed when I said positive things about the hospital and its management and negative things about Mark Deveney and the few members of staff who were his supporters.”

Mr Drewery said that during his interview staffing levels were a theme and the police returned to it “time and again” and he got the impression that they were desperate for him to say that there were too few staff. However that was not his view and he told them so.

As for extra care he stated:

“Another theme the police dwelt on was what I understood by the term extra care and who was receiving it and how this was linked to what was charged for the patient to be in the hospital. I told the police that I was completely unaware of how much it costs to keep a patient at Cawston Park Hospital. I also told them that I had not heard the term “extra care” before, other than the extra care suite…however I did explain that there were a group of patients who were extremely difficult to manage because of the severity of their illness and this group certainly took up more staff time as they required more input than others. I was one of the members of staff who spent more of my time with these patients. I named some of the patients I was talking about who I had observed to take up more staff time. I had written their names down on the questionnaire that all staff had been sent by police. The police appeared to be unhappy with the explanation that some patients got more than others and seemed to just dismiss it. I even gave examples of how particular patients took up more staff time.”

Mr Warnock KC pointed out that Mr Drewery filled in a questionnaire after the interview (on 17^th February 2007) and not before it. In the questionnaire he set out that he had never heard of the term “extra care”, but felt that the hospital was set up to treat patients in a very different and special way and that they had had a lot of success with very difficult people.

Mr Drewery said that after the interview he was told by the officers that they would go away and write up a statement for him to sign; but this did not happen. He telephoned the police and they said that it would happen in due course but he never heard from them again. He stated that he was:

“very angry because I believed I had something to offer the investigation.”

He added that on reflection he felt that the police did not return his statement because he did not say what they wanted to hear and they had made their minds up that fraud had occurred.

Mr Drewery’s wife was Ms Jean Johnson who was the activities manager so effectively his superior. The Police did take a statement from her (and her statement is referred to within the summary).

A draft but unsigned statement was prepared by DLA Piper. Within it Mr Drewery stated:

“I didn't know anything about extra care in terms of a charge being applied to patients, but to my mind extra care was what you gave the patient when they needed it.”

This statement was not served. Rather within a letter of 1^st February 2008 to Mr Tarrant DLA made reference to information they had received from David Graham, Susan Smith, Hugh Arnail, Martin Ward and Stephen Drewery. The letter stated:

“We have become increasingly concerned about the manner in which the Norfolk Constabulary have conducted this investigation. In particular, a number of witnesses of fact who have evidence in support of our clients have either not been approached by the police, or more worryingly, having indicated their support (of the Claimants) have not been revisited in order for formal statements to be obtained.”

In respect of Mr Drewery it was stated that at the interview he gave positive evidence in support of the Claimants. It was also stated that he had completed a questionnaire which referred to patients whom he spent the most time attending to; “which our clients understand mirrors almost exactly those patients for whom extra care charges were made.”

It is the Claimants’ case that the failure of the investigating officers to obtain a signed statement from Mr Drewery was a deliberate step, because it was recognized that he would undermine the prosecution case and would support the Claimants’ defence.

It was not specifically put to DS Brownsell that the failure to obtain a statement from Mr Drewery was a deliberate and malicious attempt to supress helpful evidence. The DLA Piper letter was forwarded to him by Mr Tarrant for comment and he responded. In respect of Mr Drewery he stated that;

“Drewery was seen as part of the inquiry. He had initially completed a questionnaire saying how brilliant Cawston Park was this will be sent to you. The main thrust of why we went to see Drewery was because of information received from Deveney. It was suggested that Breeze had a camper van worth about £40,000. This was not declared as part of the restraint proceedings. We knew from memory that there was one at Cawston Park so officers from the inquiry team went to have a look. As it turned out it was only an old camper van that Drewery lived in. It was also suggested that Stephen Demicoli had had a conversation with Drewery in which Drewery had said that Breeze was trying to sell his deposit on his flat in Norwich obviously contrary to the restraint. Drewery denied this conversation took place. Whilst there DC Henley and DC Horsborough took some notes regarding the general situation at Cawston Park. Drewery didn't have anything from our perspective, evidential to the inquiry other than Andrew breeze was a jolly good fellow. Mark Deveney was not. The patients were treated superbly; they got Easter eggs at Easter and Christmas presents at Christmas. He didn't like Leslie Reardon and Richard McKenzie. Drewery took patients out in the grounds and on trips. Drewery is the partner of Jean Johnstone. She was head of activities and very much supportive of Breeze and Wilson. A statement has been recorded from her.”

And

“It is of note that we sent out 259 questionnaires to Cawston Park staff past and present. We had 192 responses. Of those 10 gave positive feedback about Cawston Park (Including Drewery). From those 10 we have recorded 2 statements. I think it's fair to reflect that we have not recorded statements from every negative reply we received from the questionnaires. We still continue to record statements from staff… as (DLA Piper) have alluded to “positive” positions adopted by ex staff they have not been followed up by the enquiry team I will send to you copies of the 10 positive questionnaires to assist you with the decision making process.”

It is also of relevance that within the summary DS Brownsell gave the following precis of the statement of Jean Johnson which he described as “very supportive” of the Claimants;

“Jean Johnstone, the activities manager has said that a lot of time is spent taking patients off site or on trips to their homes, even if their home is a long distance away. She classes this as “extra care”. She has also spoken of a time when the hospital paid for a patient’s family from Shrewsbury to travel and stay overnight in a local bed and breakfast to see the patient. This is also what she classes as extra care. She has described at length the activities available to patients and has stated that she has always found the management were very supportive and open towards her. The exception being Mark Deveney whom she says undermined her position. She states that when Deveney was sacked, things got better. She states that Breeze instructed that's activities were to be focused on more an encouraged and she now believes that the activities are a major contributing factor within the recovery of patients at Cawston Park.”

I pause to observe that this is an example of the summary fairly setting out matters supportive of the Claimants case and not “ignoring” any such evidence.

Having heard DS Brownsell it is my judgment that it is likely that the response to Mr Tarrant constituted his honestly held view of the relative lack of importance of Mr Drewery (who was not a nurse). I also find that, in the full circumstances, it was a reasonable view with which few investigating officers would disagree. DS Brownsell had already fairly set out details of the “very supportive” statement of Mr Drewery’s wife and the activities manager. It was part of DS Brownsell’s background rationale that Mr Drewery had no knowledge of extra care. As Mr Tarrant stated in his review note

“DLA Piper…has accused the officers of failing to pursue lines of enquiry that will exonerate, as distinct from implicate, the accused. In particular it is asserted that, although a signed questionnaire was obtained from one “favourable” witness, no witness statement has been obtained. The signed questionnaire from that witness and other witnesses who give evidence “in favour” of the accused have been forwarded to this office and considered. These questionaires contend that the hospital was run efficiently and that some of the patients made a good recovery. However these potential witnesses cannot 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?”

Every enquiry must have a boundary and time and resources are not limitless. As DS Brownsell stated there were 192 questionnaire responses. Although Mr Drewery (who as he conceded, had no experience of other hospitals) was strongly supportive of Mr Breeze from the perspective of a support worker, and this was known from the questionnaire response, I do not find that the failure to take a statement was in any way due to malicious or improper motives. It is also my view that had a statement been taken it is highly unlikely that it would have had any significant effect upon Mr Tarrant’s view that charges were justified.