[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)

DS Brownsell stated that;

“As is evident from my rough book entries, the process of obtaining a statement from the author of the due diligence report was somewhat arduous. The PwC report needed to be considered in the context in which it was produced. It was not, in my assessment, a forensic investigation into the extra care component of Chancellor Care’s business.”

He agreed that it was a substantial document also stated that he could not recall reading the report and did not know if he focused upon it. He said that they made inquiries at PwC and were met with “a wall of lawyers”.

In his witness statement DS Brownsell stated;

“On Sunday the 15^th April I held a briefing with members of the team. I noted that DC Baker had in hand statements from Tony Chancellor and Sandra Grunwald and also enquiries with regard to the due diligence report. I noted a question as to whether those who had produced the report had simply accepted what was said when compiling the report. I also noted the work being undertaken by DC Flynn and PC Doust.”

Mr Metzer suggested this substantive report was being immediately downplayed and not being given sufficient weight. DS Brownsell repeated that the team were having difficulties with the lawyers and were making enquiries of the PWC report authors. In re-examination DS Brownsell was taken to a statement which was obtained from Mark Benka, a senior manager within PwC. Mr Benka stated;

“We did not carry out an audit, nor, except where otherwise stated in the report, did we subject the financial or other information contained in the report to checking or verification procedures. The primary point of contact was the finance director, Dominic Wilson who provided the financial information we requested. Chief executive officer Andrew Breeze provided information on commercial and operational matters…During the course of our work, the team was made aware by management of the term “extra care”. For Chancellor, it represented a source of revenue…which was explained as follows based on the teams discussions with both Andrew Breeze and Dominic Wilson during April and May 2005;

An alternative to specialling – the practice of other mental health providers of providing extra staff to an individual on a one to one basis (or greater) if their behaviours warranted it. Unlike specialling however, extra care was differentiated in that instead of the patient being “shadowed” or “followed “closely (this was believed to exacerbate challenging behaviours) the behaviours were managed and contained through an increase in both observations made by care staff and interventions (treatment) delivered by the clinical team. This varied significantly from patient to patient depending on their clinical needs and included additional support worker time, greater input from psychologists/psychiatrists and mental health nurses. Patients were placed on extra care typically after an incident or following a move down to a less secure facility or after observing behaviour patterns that warrant it. The PCT's were informed either before or soon after the extra care was implemented. I should make clear that I have no medical, mental health or clinical qualification or experience – my understanding of extra care was based on the information provided to me in preparing the due diligence report and related to its effects on Chancellor’s financial position.”

Mr Benka’s unsigned statement was forwarded to Mr Tarrant on 25^th January 2008 as one of a number of further statements “to assist in your deliberations”. It was stated “Benka will talk about what information he received as part of the due diligence process and from whom”. In my judgment it is clear that the PwC report was not ignored and that appropriate steps were taken to gain evidence in relation to it which was submitted to the CPS. I shall return to this report.