[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)

Given the content of the DLA Piper statement DC Baker was tasked with interviewing Mr Ward. He did not accept the suggestion that it was not necessary to do so (in my view a misconceived suggestion given the provenance of the statement) and denied that the purpose of the interview was to put pressure on him and to stop him being a helpful witness to the Claimants.

As the IPCC report set out DS Brownsell’s earlier work books (one being missing) state that Mr Ward should be informed of the police knowledge about his departure from the Royal College of Nursing; “DS Brownsell’s rationale was that it would only be fair to do so”. Ds Brownsell decided that Mr Ward’s interview would be tape recorded; but explained that this was normal practice during the investigation and therefore did not suggest Mr Ward was being treated as a significant witness. During his interview with the professional standards department DC Baker said that the interview was to be recorded because they had limited time available with Mr Ward because Mr Ward had an appointment later that day. I note difference in accounts given.

The IPCC report states:

“At 10.52 am 27^th March 2008 Mr Smyth arranged for a letter to be sent by fax to Mr Tarrant…Mr. Smyth stated the content of his letter indicated he was unaware of the date, time and location of Mr Ward’s interview. The letter…requested DLA Piper to be present at Mr Ward’s interview and made clear…the purpose was to observe the interview. Mr Smyth was away from the office for the rest of the day. However prior to leaving Mr Smyth tasked his paralegal Mr Adam Rasul, to pick up any messages from either the Crown Prosecution Service or the major incident team. Mr. Smyth explained that had Norfolk Constabulary given permission for DLA Piper to attend Mr Ward’s interview a local solicitor would have been contacted and ask to attend the interview on their behalf…Mr Smyth stated he was never informed by Mr Tarrant or the MIT a DLA Piper solicitor or representative could be present at Mr Ward's interview…”

Mr Tarrant stated following his receipt of Mr Smyth’s letter dated 27^th March he contacted “Kathy” at DLA Piper by telephone…and informed “Kathy” of the location of the interview which was to take place the following day.

…

By the morning of the interview DLA Piper had been made aware of the date, time and location of Mr Ward's interview.

…

Mr Rasul had contacted the Norfolk Constabulary control room to ask to speak to DC Baker…The control room operator could not connect Mr Rasul to DC Baker, but checked his telephone number for DC Baker to return his call. In conversation Mr Rasul told the control room operator DLA Piper would not be attending Mr Ward's interview. Mr Rasul explained that he needed to clarify something with the officer but did not say what…

The control room officer passed Mr Rasul’s number to DC Baker but failed to tell him that Mr Rasul had said DLA Piper would not be attending the interview.

While speaking to the control room operator, DC Baker said because DLA Piper had been very difficult towards him he was “…In no rush to help them…they want to play hardball…I'll play hardball back”. In his prepared statement provided at interview DC Baker referred to another comment he made “…Don't tell them where I'm going” which he described as a “little joke”.

In his statement DC Flynn corroborates DC Baker’s account that he returned Mr Rasul’s call but there was no reply.

The independent investigation accepts attempts were made to contact Mr Rasul. DC Baker delayed commencing the interview for an hour to facilitate Mr Rasul's attendance which Mr Ward could not recall.”

DC Baker stated in his oral evidence that it was never his understanding that DLA Piper wished to appoint a local solicitor and that he thought DLA Piper were going to arrive to sit in at the interview and that he had made attempts to contact them. He said that he made flippant remark to control room. He said that dealings with Mr Smythe had been difficult.

He also stated that in 29 years in the Police he had never experienced a defence solicitor attending at an interview of a witness so he was initially unhappy with the suggestion. He said that he did not think that another police officer would have reacted differently (DC Flynn said that he had not encountered it in 40 years in policing). He denied that this was because he did not want solicitors to see “his questionable practices”. Within his statement DC Baker set out that:

“Although not representing Mr Ward, DLA Piper wanted to be present to observe his interview. That request was unusual and as a result advice was sought from the CPS fraud prosecutor, Chris Tarrant, who expressed the view that nobody owned exclusive rights to a witness and that as a gesture of goodwill the inquiry team should allow a DLA Piper representative to be present if Mr Ward wanted them to be there…I recall making telephone calls to DLA Piper after I was informed that someone was en route and trying to contact me. I was unable to get through and with time moving on the interview had to start.”

It is unnecessary to make detailed factual findings about the attendance of a solicitor at the interview save that, although he was initially unhappy with the suggestion because it was so unusual (not because of any other reason), I am satisfied that by the beginning of the interview DC Baker was expecting DLA Piper to attend and delayed the start of the interview to enable this.

DC Baker denied that he intended to pressurise or “frighten off” Mr Ward because he had given a statement to DLA Piper which was positive. DC Baker said that Mr Ward had some things which were positive for the Claimants but “quite a lot of stuff not as positive” and what he said was not a problem for DC Baker (i.e. not a problem as far as he was concerned). He stated that he took a conscious decision to raise the issue of his dismissal at the end of the interview as otherwise it could have intimidated him. He set out in statement that:

“The issue of disciplinary charges had to be raised with Mr Ward. I was leading the interview with DC Flynn assisting, and decided that the most respectful way to raise the issue was to do so at the end of the interview, after the tape recording had concluded. My decision was to spare Mr Ward any embarrassment and I recall him thanking me for that approach and understanding at that time. I cannot now recall whether I discussed my intentions with DS Brownsell. Mr Ward asked if the disciplinary matter would come out in court if he should give evidence and I told him that was possible.”

DC Baker stated that he considered Mr Ward to be a “really relaxed man”, it was a well humoured interview and that they shook hands at the end. He said with the benefit of hindsight he should have recorded the exchange in relation to the dismissal. DC Baker pointed out that Mr Ward signed the statement when in Malta and could have altered the content if he was unhappy with any aspect of it.

DC Baker denied that he never had an honest belief in the Claimants’ guilt. He said that it was a properly brought prosecution and he thought that at the time and still does now.