[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)

The prosecution was determined in the Claimants’ favour when they were acquitted as stated above.

The Defendant's officers approached the investigation with a mindset of guilt.

The Defendant's officers systematically ignored and discarded evidence which pointed towards the First Claimant and the Second Claimant’s innocence.

(It was clarified that the Claimant relied on

The workbook of DS Brownsell for the time Mr Ward was interviewed has never been made available to the Claimants and no proper explanation has been provided for the same.

The computer used by Mr Deveney at Cawston Park was not seized.

Three files on Dr Barker’s work computer were corrupted (this was not pursued).

One file from Dr Barker’s laptop computer has disappeared (this was not pursued).

The Defendant’s officers deliberately minimised and/or failed to record in witness statements the positive comments about Cawston Park and the Claimants made during interviews with witnesses.

The Defendant’s officers changed wholly positive comments made in interview.

The Defendant's officers failed to include relevant material in the case summary.

The Defendant’s officers failed to give proper weight to and/or to take into account positive evidence and/or the absence of evidence of impropriety that was available to them about the extra care charging system that was in place at Kelling Park.

The Defendant’s officers failed to give proper weight to and/or to take into account positive evidence and/or the absence of evidence of impropriety from the audit of Cawston Park that was carried out by PwC as part of the due diligence process.

The Defendant’s officers failed to give proper weight to and/or to take into account positive evidence and/or the absence of evidence of impropriety from the fact that PwC had raised no concerns about the extra care charge in the due diligence process.

The Defendant’s officers failed to give proper weight to and/or to take into account positive evidence and/or the absence of evidence of impropriety from the inspections carried out and the reports produced by the Healthcare Commission on Cawston Park.

The Defendant’s officers failed to give proper weight to and/or to take into account positive evidence and/or the absence of evidence of impropriety from the inspections carried out and the reports produced by the Mental Health Act Commission on Cawston Park.

The Defendant’s officers failed to give proper weight to and/or to consider that all of the statutory Individual Patient Care Plans had been fully adhered to.

The Defendant's officers collected evidence which they manipulated, and in some cases changed, in their efforts to demonstrate that the Claimants were guilty. In particular:

Throughout the investigation and prosecution, the Defendant’s officers demonstrated malice by engaging in intimidating and oppressive behaviour. For example, the Defendant’s officers threatened Mr Ward after the tape had been turned off in interview.

Further, the Defendant’s officers failed to interview witnesses that they knew or believed would be likely to undermine the prosecution and/or assist the Claimants’ defence. In particular:

The Defendant by his officers knew that there was no evidence, or no sufficient evidence that the Claimants had committed the offences with which they were charged but proceeded nevertheless to instigate the prosecution against them.

The Defendant’s officers suppressed and/or manipulated and/or changed evidence so as to create a false picture that misled the CPS and which caused the CPS to charge the Claimants. The false picture created by the Defendant's officers caused the CPS to believe that, inter alia, the following:

Consequently, there was no evidence upon which the Claimants could be properly and lawfully charged with the aforementioned offences and in the circumstances, this prosecution should not have been brought.

The Claimants will invite the court to infer that police officers who were responsible for the decision to charge them and who were instrumental in the collation of evidence and putting the same before the CPS, were instrumental in the bringing of this prosecution and/or were the persons responsible and/or a person responsible for the prosecution, which was brought by the Defendant’s officers acting with malice.

Evidence of malice and an improper purpose or motive towards the Claimants by the Defendant’s officers can be seen in the following:

As such, the prosecution was brought without just and reasonable cause. The Defendant’s officers so acted intending that the Claimants should be convicted of an offence regardless of whether the evidence indicated guilt or otherwise.