Please note the following,
The Police summery of the case is attached to this report, all other documentation is available on request.
All evidence referred to has been obtained from the Police, under The Freedom of Information Act 2005.
INTRODUCTION
There is only one reference to the events that were reported to Police by Social services in 1999, there are however no case notes of what investigation took place. Further evidence became available as the result of a court case, this evidence was handed to Bromley Police by myself on behalf of the Bupa Seven on June 8th 2001.
This evidence amounted to three bundles and contained the medical records of a number of elderly residents, including E.P, ( I ask that you note page 1, of my report on The Shipman Inquiry ) which clearly details that residents were being administered potentially lethal doses of drugs.
The following is taken directly from the Police investigation files and attached summery and is the extent of the investigation that was carried out.
1. Police Summery, Paragraph 3.
“ Bromley Senior Management tasked The community safety Unit with making
limited inquires into the allegations, the reason for this was to prevent
unnecessary use of Police time for an inquiry that was unlikely to be brought
before a court”.
My Response
From the outset it was decided that this case was never to be prosecuted and
that attitude is prevalent from the outset, this was a manslaughter investigation
and yet only limited inquires were instigated, furthermore the officers were
allocated from The Community Safety Unit, which primarily deals with domestic
violence.
2. Police Summery, Paragraph 4.
“ There was a brief report from the Coroners Office listing those deaths
of occupants from Isard House with cause, however it must be noted that the
victims named in this report were never the subject of an inquest. The examining
doctor issued the death certificates, it therefore must be assumed that no
suspicious circumstances were identified”.
3. Police summery, paragraph
7.
“ As indicated only limited inquiries have been made, no persons accused
have ever been interviewed, nor have Bupa formally been approached by Police
to assist in the inquiry, subject to C.P.S advice no further action will be
taken”.
My
Response
As stated in my Shipman report pages 1 to 2, how can the C.P.S decline to
prosecute on lack of evidence when no investigation to obtain the evidence
had taken place, none of the suspects were ever interviewed but went on to
admit in an Employment Tribunal cross examination that they had administered
the drugs and attempted to conceal the crimes after the act, none of the numerous
eye witnesses were ever interviewed, who were willing to give court testimony,
and none of the medical evidence was ever considered.
4. “ Police investigation
notes, page 1.
Entries for June 8th 2001,
“ 14.02Hrs, an allegation that the withholding of drugs and the administration
of more then the prescribed drugs had been administered “
Police case summery, paragraph
1.
“ On June 8th 2001 a formal allegation of manslaughter has been made,
in brief that the administration of drugs has led to the premature deaths
of a number of elderly residents”
Police investigation notes.
Entry for June 8th 2001.
“ 18.44Hrs. No crime confirmed “
My
Response
On the date of bringing these matters to the attention of the Police, the
last entry for that date in the Police record is “ No crime confirmed
“. This is indicative of the attitude that was taken throughout, that
attitude being that no prosecution would take place, the decision not to prosecute
should have been taken by the C.P.S , and been based on all the available
evidence, however no Police investigation to obtain this evidence took place.
As stated earlier the police considered that it would be a waste of their
time.
5. Police investigation
notes, pages 27 to 32.
The entries in these notes commence June 8th 2001 and end 17 days later, the
entries after this date refer to a case of suspected overdosing of a resident
which had recently taken place. The investigation details some 10 telephone
calls having been made.
My
Response
Not one reference is made to the medical evidence, the notes go on to detail
a separate case of drug overdosing which had just taken place, this case whilst
being relevant in that it highlighted the current situation at the home, it
was not part of the allegations made two years earlier by The Bupa seven,
nor did it relate to the evidence disclosed as a result of those events.
In effect the limited inquires that were carried out consisted of just ten Telephone calls and no more, the four suspects were all eliminated from the inquiry on the same date, 8th of June 2001, the Police notes record that no crime had been committed, this is also dated 8th of June 2001, it should be noted that this is just four hours after we reported the crimes on June 8th 2001. It therefore can be safely concluded that the main aim of the Police , ( paragraph 3 of case summery ) was achieved at the outset.
I therefore conclude that either
manslaughter is not a crime or that manslaughter of the elderly is not a crime.
SUMMARY
This of course is just part of what remains to be uncovered by a full public inquiry, which to date is still being denied by the Government, when the Bupa seven reported the abuse of residents, they did so because they felt a duty of care to the victims, that duty of care has not diminished, the evidence referred to in this document has only come to light as a result of determination to obtain justice for the residents of Isard House, residents such as E.P, who had no family to speak out for her.
The Government in their response to date have shown no such duty of care and remain unconcerned, I ask that you consider the facts that I have highlighted and if unlike the Government, you find them to be matters of concern that you will support our campaign for a full public inquiry,
Eileen Chubb 21/Feb/05