[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)

There was a review of the failed prosecution by Elizabeth Bailey (the head of Division, Fraud Group North) at the third stage of the CPS. In her letter to Mr Breeze dated 26^th July 2010 she stated;

“Having reviewed the available evidence, I have concluded that there are some factors that indicate dishonesty by both you and Mr Wilson. These factors include: a body of witness evidence to show a lack of understanding or knowledge of extra care by staff that one would expect to be involved in administering that type of care; evidence of low staffing levels to give enhanced care; no clear audit trail to show what a patient received to justify the extra charges made: and in particular there do not appear to be file notes on the patient’s files to cover the extra care aspect of their treatment. In addition, same patients were charged extra care premiums whilst away from Cawston Park and some were charged in advance.

However, there were also issues that undermined the evidence test namely whether there was a realistic prospect of conviction. These included your open dealings with the Primary Care Trusts (PCT's) exhibiting no evidence that you misled them as to what they were receiving for the payments made; no secret was made of the details of those patients who were attracting extra care charges: and missed opportunities to maximise profit, as there were some difficult patients that were not on extra care but could have been.

The collapse of the trial in June 2009 was attributed to the key witness changing his evidence. On balance this witness’s evidence was neither compelling nor convincing. Following your charge in February 2008, the case should have been kept under continuous review in order to ensure that the evidential limb of the Code was still satisfied. If, as is my view, there was not a realistic prospect of conviction following charge, the case should not have proceeded to the stage that it did.”