Pressure to achieve a result
Pressure to achieve a result
Mr Brownsell also took particular objection to the suggestion that he was under pressure to achieve a successful prosecution responding “No, no I will not have that. There was no pressure to prosecute or get a result. Not at all.”
That the officers acted maliciously and in bad faith due to pressure from senior officers has been a view held by Mr Breeze from the early days of the long history of this matter. In the interview of 12th July 2007 Mr Breeze referred to an officer discussing the case at the City Cub and being in tears over it (this must have been a reference to DC Baker) and that Mr Breeze believed that was because his heart was telling him that he was innocent but his head was saying that the powers that be want a result. I pause to observe that the evidence about the City Club did not bear this out. Mr Breeze then referred to:
“A police force being driven by the Health Service that have spent a huge amount of resource on an investigation and they want a result, that result being us being charged.”
When asked by DS Brownsell during interview who the powers that be were Mr Breeze said “the Police and the Health Service”.
At this stage DI Cunningham had retired and the Officer in charge of the investigation was Detective Superintendent Hobley and Mr Breeze was of the view that he was “obviously the powers that be”.
DS Brownsell agreed that these extracts reflected Mr Breeze’s long held perception.
Asked if DS Hobley was alive and well DS Brownsell said that he had seen him about seven years ago. DC Baker stated that he knew that he had a heart attack. In closing submissions on behalf of the Claimant it was argued that an adverse inference should be drawn from the fact that the Defendant did not produce witness statements from DI Cunningham or DI Hobley. However in my judgment no inference can be drawn given that as Mr Warnock submitted the Defendants have produced as witnesses the officers who were directly criticised in the Claimants’ pleadings, including the officers centrally involved in the investigation and liaison with the CPS.
- Heading
- Evidence 14 - 16
- Defendant’s witnesses 124 - 169
- Law 201 - 203
- Analysis 215 - 216
- Introduction
- Facts; an overview
- The Parties’ Cases
- PARTICULARS OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
- PARTICULARS OF MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE
- Evidence
- Defendant’s witnesses
- Mr Deveney’s disclosure and associated evidence
- Lisa Vescio and Paul Vincent
- Case Summary and MG6
- To summarise At this juncture in the inquiry it is evident that
- MG6
- The drugs investigation
- Claimants witnesses
- Mr Breeze
- Mr Wilson
- However he also explained that
- The following points are noteworthy
- Mr Ward
- Mr Chancellor
- He continued
- Anthony Bull
- Mr Drewery
- Charles Bott KC
- Margaretha Gaisford
- Mr Cooper
- There was then a diversion into small talk and it was later stated by DS Brownsell that
- City Club Evidence
- Victor Miller
- Mr Pointer
- The restraint proceedings and the evidence of Mrs Breeze and DC Wilcox
- Other witnesses
- David Prior
- David Graham
- Mr Graham continued
- Susan Smith
- Raymond Adcock
- Sandra Grunwald
- James Braithwaite
- Richard Innes
- Sir Norman Lamb
- Corinne Scicluna
- Dr John Olive
- Defendant’s witnesses
- Closed mind
- Conduct of officers
- Pressure to achieve a result
- Health Care Commission
- Mr Cooper
- Ms Gaisford
- Deveney’s computer
- 14 th November 2006
- Linda Todd
- Mr Prior
- Dr Barker
- Missing Rough Book
- Dr Badcock
- Charges levied
- Kelling Park
- PwC
- Questionnaire
- Mr Bull
- Mr Drewery
- Exclusion from court
- Mr Breeze’s interviews
- Weight attached to other evidence
- DLA Piper letter
- Mr Ward
- DS Brownsell’s mindset
- Pleaded case
- DC Baker
- SIOs
- Mr Cooper
- 14 th November, Ms Gaisford and arrests
- City Club
- Mr Bull
- Mr Chancellor
- Mr Ward
- DC Deacon
- DC Wilcox
- DC Flynn
- Willan and Woodhead
- Mr Bull
- Mr Ward
- Judith Cass
- Draft, unsigned statement of Mr Tarrant
- Other Statements/Interviews
- Dr Barker
- And
- Linda Todd
- And in respect of the meeting to agree terms
- Documentary Evidence
- The Hird Report
- The trial and the failure of the prosecution
- After Mr Brook gave evidence Counsel took stock. As they stated
- Post Prosecution
- IPCC
- Reasonable and probable cause
- Honest belief
- Objective analysis
- Malice
- Misfeasance in public office
- Conduct in the exercise of public power
- Acting dishonestly/in bad faith
- Limitation for misfeasance in Public office
- Analysis
- The investigation and prosecution; a critique
- Interviews
- Witness tampering
- The honest belief of officers
- Other pleaded issues
- PwC
- Healthcare Commission
- Was the case summary deliberately “slanted”
- Was there reasonable and probable cause?
- Malice
- The prosecutor?
- Conclusion
- and
- Sept – Oct ’03 Cawston Park site purchased
- 25 May ’05 Management buy-out of Chancellor Care Ltd
- 15 Aug ’05 Mr Cooper commenced employment at Cawston Park as Operations Manager
- Dec 2005 (per Particulars of Claim)
- 27 Jan ’06 Allegation made by Mr Deveney to NHS CFS
- 4 July ’06 Report prepared by DS Kirkham re Operation Genus addressed to Det Supt Julian Blazeby
- 1 Aug ’06 Meeting between NHS CFS and the Major Investigation team
- 19 Sept ’06 Unannounced inspection of Cawston Park by HCC
- 29 March ’07 Statement signed by Mr Brook
- 23 Aug ’10 Outcome of Operation Meridian Review communicated to Claimants
- Letter of Response
- Amended Reply to Defence
- Conclusions
![[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AJKZXmE.png)