POLICE FIXATED ON
They wrongly thought GP was another ‘lone wolf’– but still didn’t act
BUNGLING police failed the relatives of those who died in Gosport as they narrowly focused on whether one ‘ rogue doctor’ was guilty of murder.
Officers at every level were obsessed with the ‘long shadow’ of the case of GP Harold Shipman, who was convicted of killing 15 patients.
They suspected Dr Jane Barton might be a ‘lone wolf’ operating without authorisation – but failed to bring a criminal case. In its damning report, the independent panel laid bare how Hampshire police failed to pursue a ‘wider investigation’ into failings despite three inquiries over 12 years.
As Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt faced calls for an outside force to be brought in to launch a fresh inquiry, it was revealed that:
Within 11 days of the first complaints about care, a junior officer remarked that relatives were simply ‘out to stir up trouble’;
Police gave senior medical staff special treatment and dismissed serious allegations as matters for their employer;
Detectives ‘ignored the possibility’ that senior colleagues of Bartions ton could also be subject to investigation;
The standard of police investigation was ‘consistently poor’;
A senior officer was accused of gross failings for following the wishes of ‘the corporate entity of the force’ rather than startling evidence of wrongdoing.
The family of Gladys Richards first alerted Hampshire Constabulary to concerns about her care in September 1998 – the month of Shipman’s arrest. They claimed the 91-year-old was unlawfully killed as she was treated for a hip fracture.
A junior detective was assigned to the case, but quickly adopted a ‘dismissive’ attitude.
In one note uncovered by the inquiry, the officer wrote: ‘I have no idea why these two sisters are so out to stir up trouble’, before recommending no further action.
Over the next 12 years, police inquiries did little to improve, despite drafting in officers of increasing seniority and considering a total of 91 deaths.
As their inquiries grew, investigators were bogged down in complaints from angry families and inquiries into their conduct by the police watchdog. ‘It is clear that awareness of the Shipman case cast a shadow over how concerns were viewed,’ the panel wrote.
‘Shipman was first arrested in 1998. Whether for that or some other reason, the police focused on the allegation that Barton was guilty of unlawful killing, rather than pursuing a wider investigation.’
Among the officers criticised was ex-Deputy Chief Constable Ian Readhead, whose review of the first investigation exonerated the junior officer. He recommended the officer receive ‘operation advice’ as there was ‘no impropriety’. Another officer, Det Chief Supt John James, was criticised for shutting down police inquiries in 2002 and faced misconduct proceedings, but retired before they concluded. A later review slammed his work, accusing him of following the wishes of ‘the corporate entity of the force’ to close the inquiry, rather than pursuing justice.
Overall, the panel found appalling shortcomings across all the police work and criticised the response of prosecutors to cases which were presented. Officials said that the ‘protracted’ investigations were ‘limited in the range of possible offences pursued.’
Highlighting how it is ‘no surprise’ they failed to satisfy grieving families ‘from the start’, the report said the quality of the police work was ‘consistently poor’.
The panel added: ‘From the start, the mindset was one of seeing the family members as stirring up trouble, and seeing the hospital as the natural place to go for guidance. As such, the police did not attempt to conduct enquiries in the same way as they would have done in a different setting.
‘The police viewed the allega-
‘Stirring up trouble’ ‘Limited in range’
as matters for the Trust and the regulatory bodies.’
The panel said police struggled to cope with the complexities of investigating claims of unlawful killing in a ‘hospital setting’, and failed to consider whether corporate or health and safety cases could be brought to court.
Responding to the report, Hampshire Constabulary Chief Constable Olivia Pinkney said she would ‘take the time to read its findings carefully’. She insisted cases were presented to the Crown Prosecution Service but senior lawyers concluded the ‘evidential test for prosecution’ was not met.
Speaking about broader official failings yesterday, the Health Secretary said there appeared to have been an ‘institutional desire’ to ‘protect organisational reputations’. He added: ‘Was there an institutional desire to blame one rogue doctor rather than examine systemic failings?’