[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)

Mr Metzer also took DS Brownsell to the statement of Mr Chancellor. He referred to a number of extracts and suggested that what he was saying was clear. Mr Metzer stated that the comment in DS Brownsell’s witness statement in this action that:

“I recorded that Mr Chancellor had indicated that he would not distinguish between extra care and specialling. It was the same thing. Extra care, according to Mr Chancellor, was whatever it took to get the patient over the episode, the episode being a state of heightened mental ill-health, including suicide, violence self harm and so on. Extra care was the application the resources according to the patient’s needs. An episode lasted for as long as it lasted, from a few minutes to a couple of days. According to Mr Chancellor, an episode did not last for weeks months or years.”

was “slanted”.

However a problem with this line of questioning (DS Brownsell did not accept the suggestion made) is that Mr Metzer did not take DS Brownsell to his precis in the case summary of what Mr Chancellor had said. Also, as I have explained, Mr Chancellor thought it necessary to compile a “clarifying statement” because he believed what he had said was not clear and could be misunderstood. I do not accept that what DS Brownsell set out in the summary about Mr Chancellor was in any way “slanted”. The reality is that Mr Chancellor’s first statement provided support for the prosecution case.