[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)

There was a failure to adequately analyse what Mr Cooper had said in his interview and statement and to recognize in particular the impact that his strongly held views about Mr Deveney and his obvious support of the Claimants had on the prosecution case.

Ms Smith and Mr Graham should have been interviewed and statements taken. In a letter to Mr Tarrant DLA Piper set out extracts of statements and/or information taken from David Graham, Susan Smith and Stephen Drewery. This letter was forwarded to DS Brownsell who provided Mr Tarrant with his assessment of what had been set out. As I have already set out I accept that it was DS Brownsell’s honest assessment that;

“these potential witnesses cannot assist on the vital issue, namely, what “Extra Care” did such patients receive compared to other patients and why was such Extra care billed on a weekly or monthly basis rather than on a ‘one off’ daily basis?”

It was not specifically put to DS Brownsell in cross-examination that this was not his honest assessment. Mr Tarrant was in possession of all relevant information and agreed with this view (as he set out in the advice of 8^th February 2008). However, the evidence of Mr Graham was important in the context of staffing, which was a matter relied upon within the analysis of the case against the Claimants’. Also the Healthcare Commission’s unannounced inspection should have been seen in the light of previous inspections. Ms Smith was present in the office used by the Claimants for meetings and claimed knowledge of how extra care had been approached. In my judgment adopting the standard of not only a balanced but thorough investigation (and bearing in mind the limit of resources) this was an error on the part of both DS Brownsell and Mr Tarrant. However I do not find that the view taken as regards Mr Drewery to have been an error. Although the failure to obtain statements from Ms Smith and Mr Graham was an error of judgment, I am satisfied that this failure was not a deliberate and malicious attempt to avoid relevant evidence which may be helpful to the Claimants. I am also satisfied that if the statements had been obtained, that, given the information Mr Graham and Ms Smith have provided in this claim, they would not have altered Mr Tarrant’s decision. However the impact of their evidence would have had to be carefully considered (including the detail of previous announced Healthcare inspections) and potentially further evidence obtained.

Dr Barker’s reluctance to sign a witness statement with patient details in it should have been addressed at an early stage and the content reviewed with Dr Badcock (see below).

Ms Todd’s evidence (as contained in four statements) was not adequately analysed. Consideration should have been given as to whether any fraud based on her being misled as to the nature of extra care could only have occurred prior to her knowing what was happening i.e. if she was misled initially was this then rectified? Also more detailed consideration should have been given to the impact of the evidence of Ms Wakefield and Mr Brook on what Ms Todd set out.

Anything said to Mr Ward about his dismissal should have been on tape.

Knowledge of the civil proceedings should have resulted in a review given the obvious potential conflict of interest it created for Mr Chancellor in particular.

On the basis of the prosecution case the Indictment should have contained more than a single count. There should have been detailed counts including specific count for each PCT and/or per patient and in relation to periods when patients were on leave from Cawston Park.

There should have been a detailed review of the combined effect of the credibility issues upon the evidence of Mr Deveney after DS Horburgh submitted the further details to Mr Tarrant and once it was known that Ms Vescio had become hostile to Mr Deveney.

Dr Badcock was not experienced in the running of a private hospital and how care regimes were provided in these private institutions. An alternative expert should have been sought.

It is difficult to see the justification for the arrest of Mr Prior. Also his witness statement was not adequately considered.