[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)

It is the Claimants’ case that officers failed to include relevant material in the case summary (deliberately and maliciously left things out) and/or inserted things which had not been said by witnesses.

I have set out an overview of content of the case summary and MG6 and explained that DS Brownsell was not taken to any specific part of the precis of the statements or comments within either documents which, on the Claimants’ case was deliberately inaccurate so as to create a false picture to mislead the CPS. However I have considered relevant aspects of the evidence (and DS Brownsell’s cross-examination) against the content of the summary/MG6.

I have already made findings of fact concerning Ms Gaisford, Mr Prior, Mr Cooper, Mr Chancellor, Mr Bull, Mr Ward and the interviews of the Claimants.

Having considered all the evidence in detail (significant parts of which I have already set out) I am satisfied that the summary was an honest attempt to summarise what was believed to be a case against the Claimants which justified charges and prosecution. I am not satisfied that it was deliberately “slanted” and/or intentionally misleading. It is also important to note, as regards omissions in respect of what witnesses had said in witness statements or the Claimants had said in interviews that the statements, and the Claimants’ interviews at the least, accompanied the summary. This is not to say that the summary cannot be the subject of legitimate criticism, although care must be exercised to exclude the benefit of knowledge of matters which transpired after it was submitted or to submit it to an unreasonable level of forensic analysis given its purpose (and that it was accompanied by the full materials).

I have considered the significant inadequacies in the summary, including the failure to mention Ms Gaisford’s evidence or to adequately consider the evidence of Mr Prior and Mr Cooper and find that these were (after careful consideration of all the relevant evidence, including the entirety of the summary and MG6) not as a result of any deliberate attempt to mislead or downplay or conceal evidence.

I also reject the submission that the case summary (and accompanying documentation) as presented to the CPS, left the CPS with (in effect) no choice but to charge. DS Brownsell explained the issues with Mr Deveney’s evidence (and in proving dishonesty) and it was a matter for Mr Tarrant’s independent assessment of the whole of the evidence. As proved by his approach to charging Dr Barker and the drugs offences Mr Tarrant was capable of disagreeing with the police view.