[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)

The Claimants’ case in relation to the restraint proceedings also lacked focus and in my judgment had not been adequately thought through. Mr Metzer described it as “background” and not the primary focus of the Claimants’ case. The merits of the restraint order were not analysed before me in any detail.

The fact that DC Wilcox prepared a statement on 9^th November 2006 in support of restraint proceedings was pleaded. This followed on from the CPS taking advice from Counsel about the appointment of a receiver. It was also pleaded (as a fact) that he communicated with HMRC and that “throughout the investigation DC Wilcox refused a number of requests to make amendments to the restraint orders preventing the Claimants from dealing with their assets”.

However the very purpose of a restraint order is to prevent the person under restraint from dealing with his/her assets. The order was made by a Judge and was unsuccessfully challenged by leading Counsel and DC Wilcox explained that thereafter a number of variations were made.

DC Wilcox took advice as to liability as to HMRC and acted accordingly.

It is pleaded that Dc Wilcox refused to meet Mr Breeze despite repeated requests and Ms Morris suggested to DC Wilcox that he should have met Mr Breeze. DC Wilcox pointed out (in my view unsurprisingly) how inappropriate it would have been for him to agree to meet a defendant on bail to discuss whatever Mr Breeze wanted to discuss rather than for all communication to be in writing.

I can well accept that DC Wilcox came across to Mr Breeze, Mrs Breeze and Mr Wilson as unsympathetic and a strict adherent to the law in relation to restraint of assets. He candidly stated that it was his view that the rules were “draconian” and could put a person subject to them under enormous strain, but as he repeatedly stated his job was to apply the law not make it. As an overview that is what he did.

Given that there is no pleaded allegation that any aspect of, or step within, the restraint proceedings was improper or any mention within the particulars of malicious prosecution or misfeasance in public office the relevance of how the proceedings were conducted was something I found difficult to understand at the outset of the trial and matters became no clearer as the evidence progressed.

I am sure that the Claimants and Mrs Breeze have maintained a very strong dislike of DC Wilcox. They also challenged his recollection of certain details of their interactions with him. However the difficulty which I had, and still have, with the evidence in relation to him is that it is difficult to see how this materially advances the Claimants’ case in relation to malicious prosecution/misfeasance in public office as DC Wilcox was clearly not part of the MIT investigating the allegation of fraud in relation to extra care.

Ms Morris suggested in questioning of DC Wilcox and DC Flynn that DC Wilcox had been consulted/had input in relation to DC Flynn’s investigation of the potential drugs’ fraud. Firstly I should state that I unhesitatingly accept the evidence of DC Flynn that he consulted DC Wilcox as he had been the officer dealing with pharmacies and therefore had a store of specialised knowledge in relation to prescription drugs and that this was the limit of his involvement. Secondly there was no pleaded allegation in relation to the drugs fraud investigation and as a result it received no detailed consideration during the trial (although it was covered in Mr Wilson’s witness statement). When I clarified matters with Ms Morris during her cross examination of DC Flynn she conceded that it was not the Claimants’ case that the drugs investigation provided evidence of malice.

Apart from DC Wilcox also helping DS Brownsell on his request (it must be borne in mind who was the senior officer) to undertake a discrete task; an enquiry of the NMC in relation to Mr Ward as DC Wilcox knew the relevant people at the NMC, DC Wilcox had no involvement in, and more importantly, no influence over, the fraud inquiry at all. It has always been difficult to see the relevance of issues such as whether DC Wilcox told Mrs Breeze that her then estranged husband was giving her raw deal as to maintenance to the central issues in this case. I shall therefore only briefly deal with the evidence of Mrs Breeze and DC Wilcox.

Mrs Breeze produced two statements (the second explaining the provenance of her notes which were contained within a supplementary bundle). She explained that she was divorced from Mr Breeze from 2004 until 2012 when they remarried. She was previously a pharmacist for many years and knew DC Wilcox professionally as he was the drug enforcement officer and she had regular contact with him. After Mr Breeze’s arrest and over the course of the criminal investigation she stated that she had several (she thought five) conversations with DC Wilcox who stated that he was not involved in the investigation itself and he was just collecting financial information. She got the impression that DC Wilcox assumed that there would be antagonism between her and Mr Breeze as they were divorced. She said that during an early conversation DC Wilcox informed her that Mr Breeze was guilty and that he had been making lots of money and that he had not been paying her enough maintenance. Mrs Breeze stated that “it was very clear to me that DC Wilcox had already decided Andrew’s guilt” and that he advised her to seek legal advice in relation to a possible confiscation order.

Mrs Breeze gave details of conversations about specific elements of the restraint proceedings and the order including the repayment of a loan by Mr Breeze to her, the payment of school fees and the placing of a charge on the house (as explained by DC Wilcox in a letter of 5^th February 2008) and stated that she formed the impression that DC Wilcox

“became deliberately obstructive during Andrew’s attempts to get variation orders to the restriction order.”

And

“the impression I got was that DC Wilcox was condescending and completely unconcerned about the upset he had caused.”

Mrs Breeze drafted a letter of complaint about DC Wilcox, but never sent it.

Mrs Breeze’s view, formed only from interaction with DC Wilcox, was that the Police had formed a mind set of guilt about Mr Breeze from a very early stage. For what it adds, this is inconsistent with officers holding any view that the Claimants were not guilty and/or that there was insufficient evidence that they had committed the offence of fraud but that they should be taken to trial to secure convictions in any event.