At the start of the day today jury members were given an addition to their jury bundle which consisted of the agreed summaries of the police interviews conducted with the defendants in the case. Mr Herrmann, for the prosecution, called DC Gary Barnes to assist him with reading the interview summaries onto the record, and to answer any questions that counsel had.

Mr Herrmann explained to the jury that it would be a long day and that the rules required that interviews are read into the record. He said that the jury could listen, or follow them on the transcript that they’d been provided.

DC Barnes confirmed that ordinarily in a case parties work together to produce summaries of the interviews conducted, taken from transcriptions produced of the police interviews. Mr Herrmann told the court that in this case there were “around 20 interviews” and that “each defendant was interviewed on at least two occasions”.

MrH: Although the ladies and gentlemen have a large bundle of documents, 188 pages, this is a reduction from 1200 or more pages of transcripts of interviews?

DC B: That’s correct

Mr Herrmann spent some time on the first interview, explaining the format, which DC Barnes confirmed, so that it was understood. He said he would not repeat it for each interview that followed. Each record was headed ‘summarised record of interview’ and contains the information of who was interviewed, where they were interviewed, when they were interviewed – the date, time and duration, who the interviewing officer(s) were, and a record of anyone else present in the interview such as a solicitor.

Mr Herrmann put to DC Barnes that the purpose of the interview would be explained to the defendant, they were reminded of their rights to ongoing free legal representation, and the caution was broken down, explained to them and it was ascertained that the defendant understood the caution. DC Barnes confirmed that to be usual procedure and asked by Mr Herrmann he told the jury members that that caution is:

You do not have to say anything. However, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

Peter Bennett

The first interview read to the court was that of Peter Bennett which was conducted at Durham Police Station on 21 May 2019. He had a solicitor present. [I struggled to keep up with the speed with which these interviews were read to the court so what follows is partial, but I have done my best to report what the court was told]. The interview summary started with four questions which Mr Bennett responded no comment to.

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever abused any patients residing there?

PB: No comment

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever mistreat any patient in any way?

PB: No comment

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever been in any way responsible for the treatment of patients that could be described as cruel?

PB: No comment

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever witnessed the mistreatment or abuse of a patient?

PB: No comment

Mr Bennett was then asked a series of questions about his role, experience and training and “to each and every question asked he responded no comment”. He was then asked about the needs of specific residents, how he would know about those needs, the techniques used in the home to care for residents, and about restraints of residents; and to each and every questioned asked he responded no comment. He was asked if he’d seen the BBC Panorama documentary and if he wanted to comment on it, to which he responded no comment. At the end of his interview he was asked whether he wanted to say anything at all, clarify anything or ask any questions, to which he responded no comment.

The second interview was a second interview conducted with Mr Bennett at Darlington Police Station on 18 February 2020. He was interviewed by DC Smith and DC Simms, in the presence of his legal representative. Mr Herrmann told the court that he was “a voluntary attender on that occasion, was reminded if his ongoing rights to free legal representation, and cautioned in the same terms”. DC Barnes agreed.

Asked the same four questions at the start of his interview, he said no in response. Asked about careplans for service users, he explained what he remembered that they contained. Asked if they would contain everything that a healthcare worker would need to know to care for the residents, he responded “no probably not”. He explained that it would depend on how often that they were updated and how good staff members reporting skills were. He said that if he remembered correctly the plans were updated every six weeks. He told the officers more about careplans which I didn’t catch, apologies. Mr Bennett told the police that they had had “some real success stories” and had enabled people to move on to better places but that depended on treatment and medication, careplans and sometimes changes in the person themselves.

Mr Bennett confirmed that he was a senior healthcare assistant, but that he did not have any particular role in careplans. He explained that “when we get a new member of staff in, they would go through an induction, they’d have three days to go through and read the protocols from the hospital, they’d read the careplans…it sounds like you think I had a lot of involvement in careplans and I didn’t really”. He told the police that he’d incurred an injury, had been off sick and when he returned his role had changed a bit, he spent more time doing staff profiling and sitting at a computer, and working as a responder, he’d respond and try to talk people down.

Asked about use of agency staff he said that it was “massive, the type of patient we got in was so difficult, I think that’s why they couldn’t retain staff… at the last count there were over 100 agency staff on the books”, asked by the officers he said that he thought there were about 40 permanent members of staff.

Discussion then moved onto the patients who were residents at Whorlton Hall, and the role of careplans in their care. Mr Bennett said that “some of the patients had posters on the walls, it was like their wants and needs, what they wanted to do, where they are now and what they wanted to achieve, their goals and dreams, those sorts of things”. When the officers asked if it was important to stick to a careplan he replied yes, adding “the information is only as good as the reporting process to update that care plan”.

Asked about what training he’d had to deal with patients and the behaviours they presented he listed Maybo training and autism training, when asked if he’d had training in positive behaviour support he confirmed that he had, explaining that “you’re reinforcing good behaviour someone does and ignore the negative behaviour… try to get thought change from negative behaviour into something positive”. Mr Bennett then told the officers what he thought was meant by primary, secondary and tertiary strategies. He told officers that Maybo was a “last resort” and that staff would try talking, sometimes joking first. He said they would sometimes try changing the patient’s environment or member of staff.

When discussing Patient 1, Mr Bennett said he “had no idea she didn’t like balloons” and he said that she preferred women because it was her perception they were weaker and she’d attach them; asked if she had said that to him, he said no but it had happened. He said that Patient 1’s care plan was changed to female staff “where possible” but he couldn’t recall when that change happened. When asked by the officers he said that he believed it was changed to try and give her females to see if she could cope with it, he said that he’d spoken with her mother and she said that she didn’t like men and in a previous placement they’d put 6 men in her room conducting observations. Mr Bennett told the officers that he believed Patient 1 “picked and chose” when she liked and disliked men.

Asked by the officers if he’d seen the BBC Panorama and what his thoughts were on it, Mr Bennett said that there “was no context… there must have been good things we did and they didn’t show that”. Asked about him mentioning things like the ‘man button’ and what his thoughts were on that, he replied “let’s change her chain of thought, press that button and men would come, were only men on response that day. Was the only one time I actually said it and I don’t, I’d never used it before and never used it since”. He explained there was a picture of a man on the button and that he didn’t mean it as any type of threat. Asked if he thought it was appropriate he said he was “trying to get Patient 1 to stop screaming, to change her thought”.

Officers then showed him clips of footage, asked whether he thought it as appropriate to be speaking in those derogatory terms, he first replied “no comment” and then told them that he didn’t remember it. He was asked if he had anything to say about the next clip and he said no, unless they wanted to ask him questions and he’d do his best to answer. He told them that Patient 2 used Makaton to communicate, which he described as “well known in the field of learning disability”. Asked what she is asking, he tells the officers that she wants her staff back, suggesting it likely that they were on a break.

P: Does she understand French?

PB: There’s more to the clip, I was just wanting to talk to her, to see what her reaction was.

P: Does she understand French?

PB: I don’t know

P: Did you think it fair to talk to her in French, someone with limited vocabulary?

PB: No comment

Mr Bennett said that Patient 2 understood more than people thought. Asked what reason he had for speaking French to her, he responded no comment. Asked why he did a “mock lunge to her” as though he was going to get up, he explained that Patient 2 was a violent patient who scratches. Asked why he stopped half way up he said he didn’t know.

P: Were you trying to scare her Peter?

PB: No, no

P: Were you showing off in front of Niall and Olivia?

PB: No, no

P: Niall is there and he’s laughing… were you showing off?

PB: No comment

P: Is that how you normally treat XXX?

PB: No comment

P: Is that how you treat other patients?

PB: No comment

P: Is that a snapshot of your behaviour in Whorlton Hall?

PB: No comment

The officers then showed him another clip in which they said Patient 1 was very unsettled, had two female staff members on observations, she was screaming, Mr Bennett and Matthew Banner arrive and Patient 1 is clearly unsettled.

P: Yourself and Matthew stay behind, Olivia and Milly go off… Milly is after ear defenders, understandably because Patient 1 is screaming so high pitched. Anything to say about that clip?

PB: No

P: Anything you’d have done differently having seen it again?

PB: I’m sure you’ve got questions have you?

P: Anything you’d have done differently having seen it?

PB: When we arrived she was screaming, they were her balloons, don’t know exactly what you’re trying to pin point

P: She’s clearly unsettled, what were you and Mathew trying to do?

PB: Calm her down

P: How were you trying to do that?

PB: I was talking to her

Asked why Patient 1 was given the option of Matthew Banner and Peter Bennett or the girls, he replied saying that she was “given change of face”, when the officer asked if that was positive behaviour support and whether he thought that himself and Mr Banner helped the situation he said as responders they had no option but to attend. Asked why he’d ask the female workers to go out of sight in the corridor he said that was “change of face” and that they were only in the corridor. The officer pointed out that Patient 1 couldn’t see or know that, and then asked why one of the male staff members hadn’t swopped places with one of the female staff so she didn’t have only male staff members, Mr Bennett responded “I feel like you’re backing me into a corner with this, when you’re there and she’s screaming at you, could escalate very quickly”. Asked whether there were other options available to calm Patient 1 Mr Bennett said no, and that it had been a long time since he’d looked at her careplan.

When the officers suggest that men wind Patient 1 up, Mr Bennett responded pointing out that she was already wound up before the men attended.

P: Then you start twanging her balloons?

PB: I was only fiddling with them, it’s the same as flicking a pen, it’s just fiddling

P: You asked her if she liked balloons and she said no

PB: It’s an absolute lie she doesn’t like balloons, she’d made a skirt out of balloons… If I’m not on shift how am I meant to know she doesn’t like balloons now?

P: Because she’d just told you when you asked her

PB: I stopped didn’t I…

P: No you kept twanging the balloon after she said no. I’m asking you why?

PB: I can’t remember, I don’t know

Mr Bennett goes on to say he did stop.

P: Obviously you stopped because you couldn’t have spent all shift sat twanging a balloon

PB: They were her balloons, in her room on that day.

P: If she tells you she doesn’t like something why did you continue to do it?

PB: I don’t know. Was just fiddling, wasn’t intentional.

P: She then screams each time you say balloons

PB says he was trying to distract her and that Patient 1 also likes cats so he was going to make a balloon cat for her, to make a change.

P: You ask her why’s her mam brought her balloons if she didn’t like them. Do you recall that?

PB: No

P: Did you see it on there?

[missed answer]

P: Do you think you were tormenting Patient 1 Peter?

PB: No

P: Do you think you and Matthew were trying to wind her up?

PB: No, we were trying to calm her down

Mr Bennett told officers that he didn’t like being up there when Patient 1 was screaming, didn’t like being there at all, and “sometimes she was really nice to me and sometimes she was horrible”.

Officers then showed Mr Bennett another clip, from the same date, outside the same patient’s room. Asked if he thought the conversation in the clip was appropriate Mr Bennett said that Patient 1 had her ear defenders on so would not be able to hear. Asked if he was ok with having explicit conversations in front of mental health patients “as long as they can’t hear” Mr Bennett replied saying that if she can’t hear that’s what he was saying, when the officer asked how he knew she couldn’t hear, he said because she was wearing ear defenders.

Asked by what he’d meant in the clip when he said it was his “intervention” Mr Bennett responded:

I don’t know, don’t know what the context was, it wasn’t a technique used for any purpose… I know what you’re insinuating here, I’ll go in with balloons and mention man button every day and try to control Patient 1, it’s not like that at all.

Asked what patient that conversation was had in front of Mr Bennett responded Patient 2, asked by officers if he thought she knew what was going on he said he didn’t really know. The officer said to him that earlier he’d said that Patient 2 understands, and he said “not fully”. The officer said that in the clip Mr Bennett was telling Olivia about the ‘man button’ and asked him why he was doing so, he said because Olivia had asked him about it. The officer said that Olivia had said Darren mentioned it to her, and asked which Darren that would be, Mr Bennett suggested Darren Lawton and in response to a question said there were no other Darrens working there at the time.

P: How would Darren know about it?

PB: I don’t know

P: You mentioned she didn’t like men in a previous placement…. Do you think the man button would have a negative effect on her?

PB: No

Mr Rutter, counsel for Mr Bennett, had no questions.

Matthew Banner

The first interview of Mr Banner took place at Bishop Auckland on 24 May 2019 and lasted 39 minutes. Mr Banner was interviewed by two police officers and was represented by a solicitor. DC Barnes confirmed that he’d been reminded of his entitlement to free legal advice, cautioned under the same terms as explained before and that caution had been explained an understood.

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever abused any patients residing there?

MB: No comment

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever mistreat any patient in any way?

MB: No comment

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever been in any way responsible for the treatment of patients that could be described as cruel?

MB: No comment

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever witnessed the mistreatment or abuse of a patient?

MB: No comment

Mr Herrmann told the court that Mr Banner was then asked a series of questions about training, his qualifications and experience and to all of those questions he answered no comment. DC Barnes agreed. He was then asked questions including about patients and their needs, co-workers and management hierarchy and to all of those questions he answered no comment. He was asked if there was anything that he wished to clarify, anything he wanted to say or ask and he responded “no comment”.

Mr Herrmann said that Mr Banner was given an opportunity for a further interview some months later, directing the jury to the pages in the transcript. This second interview took place on 11 February 2020 at Darlington Police Station and lasted 99 minutes. He was interviewed by two officers and his solicitor was present. He was present as a “voluntary attender” and was advised of his right to free legal advice, and he was cautioned and it was checked he understood the caution.

Asked if he had ever abused any patients at Whorlton Hall, mistreated a patient in any way, any way his treatment of a patient could be described as cruel, or ever witnessed the mistreatment or abuse of a patient, Mr Banner responded “no comment” to them all. Mr Herrmann said that asked about careplans, individual service user’s careplans, their specific needs and behaviours of individual service users and techniques used to deal with them, to all questions asked Mr Banner responded “no comment”.

Mr Banner was informed of the nature of the investigation, the recordings, asked whether he’d watched the BBC Panorama documentary and if he’d ever ill treated a patient at Whorlton Hall, and to all questions he responded “no comment”.

It was explained to him that he would be shown video clips of footage filmed at Whorlton Hall, and that was done. Mr Banner was asked about his understanding of Patient 1’s needs, about comments he was heard to say to Patient 1, asked whether he was mocking and belittling Patient 1, asked whether his asking Patient 1 if she liked balloons and otherwise talking about balloons was meant to antagonise her. He was also asked about sexualised comments about Olivia he made in front of Patient 1, and whether he thought it was appropriate or whether he thought that would calm Patient 1 and to all those questions he responded “no comment”.

When asked if he wanted to say anything, clarify anything or ask any questions, Mr Banner made no comment.

Mr Constantine, counsel for Mr Banner, had no questions.

Sarah Banner

Mr Herrmann said that the first interview of Mrs Banner took place at Bishop Auckland on 24 May 2019 and lasted 33 minutes. Mrs Banner was interviewed by two police officers and was represented by a solicitor. She was reminded of her right to free legal advice, which she’d taken up, she was cautioned in the same way and the caution was broken down, explained and ascertained it was understood. DC Barnes confirmed this to be the case.

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever abused any patients residing there?

SB: No comment

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever mistreat any patient in any way?

SB: No comment

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever been in any way responsible for the treatment of patients that could be described as cruel?

SB: No comment

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever witnessed the mistreatment of any patients?

SB: No comment

Asked about her role, experience, training, qualifications, staff hierarchy, how staff would know the specific needs of residents and careplans, Mr Herrmann said she responded “no comment” to all questions and DC Barnes agreed.

She was reminded that this was her opportunity to comment on the allegations, and she responded “no comment”.

Mr Herrmann said that Ms Banner had a further opportunity at interview at Darlington Police Office on 13 February 2020, a few months later. This second interview started just before 11am and lasted 1hr38mins. Ms Banner was interviewed by two officers and had a legal representative present. DC Barnes confirmed this to be the case.

She was reminded of her legal rights, cautioned in the same way and the caution was explained and it was checked that she understood. DC Barnes confirmed this. Asked the same four opening questions as above, she responded “no comment” to all.

Mr Herrmann said that when asked questions about careplans she responded “no comment”. Asked about her understanding of Patient 1’s behaviours, likes and dislikes, her understanding of deescalation techniques, and when asked if she ever acted in a way to antagonise a patient, to all questions she made no comment.

Mr Herrmann told the court that asked if she watched the BBC Panorama programme she made no comment. She was then shown a number of video clips and in response to all the clips she was shown and all associated questions she replied “no comment”.

Asked to comment on the behaviour shown by Patient 4, her coworkers and herself, asked about the threat and carried out removal of person’s belongings from his room, to all of those she made no comment. She was shown a clip where she threatened Patient 1 with male care workers, encouraged her to keep hitting herself and used other derogatory terms. Mr Herrmann told the court that to all questions and associated clips she made no comment.

Mr Walker, counsel for Ms Banner, had no questions.

Ms Richardson then took Mr Herrmann’s place, to give him a chance to rest his voice.

Karen McGhee

Ms Richardson told the court that Karen McGhee’s first interview took place in the afternoon of 24 May 2019 and it lasted a little over an hour. She was interviewed by two officers and had her solicitor present. She was reminded of her right to free legal advice, was cautioned and she confirmed that she understood the caution. DC Barnes confirmed that was correct.

P: My first question to you is whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever abused any patients residing there?

KMcG: I certainly haven’t

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever mistreat any patient in any way?

KMcG: I haven’t no

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever been in any way responsible for the treatment of patients that could be described as cruel?

KMcG: I haven’t no

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever witnessed the mistreatment or abuse of any patients?

KMcG: No, I haven’t

Asked about her employment at Whorlton Hall, Ms McGhee said that she believed she’d started working there in December 2017 and she worked there until she was suspended in May 2019. She said that she worked 12 hour shifts on a shift pattern, she was a qualified learning disability nurse having achieved a specialist nursing degree from Teesside University three years earlier. When asked about training, Ms Richardson told the court that Ms McGhee had explained that staff received Maybo training and asked why that was necessary she said “because in the environment I work in is challenging behaviour, we get physical attacks on us” and she explained it was needed to keep everyone safe, patients and colleagues.

The court heard that she went on to describe different types of restraint and the training given. She explained that all patients were sectioned under the Mental Health Act and none were there voluntarily. Asked to explain her role and a typical day she did so, describing the handover, medication round, management meeting to discuss any issues, dinner time, another medication round and she explained she had to review files from each person’s observations and write up each day. She said of the 25 staff on shift, two would be nurses.

Asked how much contact she had with patients she said that “we do have to do our work in the office, then I like to go round, make sure everyone is ok… interact with patients… yes spend lots of time on careplans”. She was the named nurse for two patients, Patient 2 and 5.

She explained that an MDT meeting happened every Tuesday, consultants would come in, advocates would come in if required, and that if she were not on that day she would print paperwork off and a colleague would go in her place. She explained to the officers that even though she was named nurse for two particular patients, she would deal with all patients, “If something happened and a risk assessment needed altering I could go change it and write my name”.

She explained that nurses had responsibility for medication and for supervising healthcare assistants who reported to her. She told the officers that she also worked as a responder, and if there was a restraint a nurse should be present to oversee it and to make sure everything is correct. She said that the restraint may have started before the nurse arrived and healthcare assistants would document the incident in writing and then the nurses would review the incident and type it up onto Ulysses.

Asked by the officers to explain the hierarchy at Whorlton Hall from top to bottom she responded there was a manager, deputy manager, two charge nurses, then about 4 nurses, senior staff nurses then staff nurses, senior healthcare assistants and healthcare assistants. She told them that in December she’d been promoted to a senior staff member. Ms Richardson told the court that she was asked and did describe each role in the hierarchy. The Deputy Manager was responsible for staff rotas then the nurses were responsible for allocating staff to patients each shift and they would do that taking into account the needs of patients.

She then explained in more detail the role of the nursing staff and named nurses, in relation to documenting patients needs, risk assessments and behaviour. She explained primary strategies for challenging behaviour would be used when they noticed someone was off baseline or getting agitated, then they’d implement secondary strategies such as a low arousal environment, offer PRN, take person for a walk or change staff “that is secondary, where hopefully would stop it”. When asked by an officer Ms McGhee confirmed that if a person had fears or certain things they didn’t like that would be documented in their care plan.

P: If one of the patients always liked to go for a walk when feeling down and it lifted their spirits, would that sort of thing be in a careplan?

KMcG: Yes, because we have the strategies

P: And you’re saying its yourself, the nurse, who writes the care plan?

KMcG: If you work with person as healthcare asst know a lot about them, because you’re with them, you know as much as me…. It’s all teamwork but it’s my responsibly to document it

P Ok, did you abide by careplans?

KMcG: Yes

P: Did you follow them as instructed?

KMcG: Yes

Asked by the officers to explain her duty, in addition to providing medication, she explained that she would talk to patients if she had time, she might “do things with them like having a game of pool”. She said she had had autism training, personality disorder training and would use skills such as Makaton. She was asked, and described, Maybo and restraint techniques. She said she restrained people “a lot” and that if anyone say any danger they’d pull their alarms and there were always people responding. When officers asked Ms McGhee in the lead up to a restraint what options were available she said that you could:

Ask them to go to a low stimulus environment, take to another room, take them upstairs, some service users like to go to their bedroom to self-regulate, take outside… use all those strategies first.

Ms Richardson told the court and DC Barnes confirmed that Ms McGhee was asked and explained incident reporting processes. Asked if she ever received injuries herself she listed them.

P: When were injuries caused, when was the most recent?

KMcG: 7 weeks ago when I got a black eye, I went to hospital

P: Have you had any conversations with other workers at Whorlton Hall where mistreatment of patients was discussed?

KMcG: No. If anything was reported to me I’d go to the Deputy Manager, or my charge nurses

P: Were you ever present when mistreatment of patients was discussed?

KMcG: Not mistreatment no.

At the end of Ms McGhee’s first interview she was asked if there was anything that she wanted to say that they hadn’t covered or anything she wanted to say in relation to herself, she said there wasn’t.

At that point court adjourned for a short break. When the jury returned DC Alex Simms had returned to court, taking DC Barnes’ place.

The second interview of Karen McGhee took place at Darlington Police Station on 25 June 2020, starting just before 11am. Ms McGhee was interviewed by two officers, one of which was DC Simms, and she had her legal representative present in the form of her solicitor. DC Simms confirmed that Ms McGhee was present as a voluntary attender, was reminded of her legal rights and cautioned in the terms previously described.

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever abused any patients residing there?

KMcG: No I haven’t

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever mistreated any patients in any way?

KMcG: No I haven’t

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever wilfully neglected any patients?

KMcG: No I haven’t

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever witnessed the mistreatment or abuse of any patients?

KMcG: [Apologies I can’t tell from my note whether she said no or no comment]

When officers asked Ms McGhee if she thought care plans were important she replied “100% yes” and asked how she emphasised that to staff she responded that because of the challenging behaviour staff “had to know the PBS was really vital… and any health issues also in careplan… stressed how vital it is… people could come get careplans and if changed would say in briefing”.

Ms McGhee explained to officers the primary, secondary and tertiary hierarchy of responses stating “obviously you don’t want to get to that tertiary level where we have to step in and do something, a restraint”. She said that her role in a restraint was to observe service users, see if they’re breathing, see if the holds are correct “I’m not in that hold, don’t know what’s happened in that hold, or why it’s done. Am there to make sure everyone is safe and protect everyone’s physical health”.

Officers then discussed some of the patients at Whorlton Hall with Ms McGhee. She said that diabetes was “a massive trigger” for Patient 4, asked about other triggers she said “some of his staff he didn’t like them… sometimes have to talk to him and say this is the only staff we have XXX”. With regards to Patient 1 she described her as “very bright… she had capacity… she spent a lot of time in her room, tried to encourage her to come out… would do cooking with her in the ladies kitchen. She had her phone… she had her knitting, but she did go to attack people with knitting needles”. Asked if she could recall what Patient 1’s triggers were she said:

P: Do you remember what her triggers were, or does anything come to mind?

KMcG: Anything, staff she didn’t like, because Patient 1 did have good capacity, would explain to her, sometimes she would accept it, but once she hit a trigger, she could be very unpredictable, could walk past and just hit you. She grabbed me once and I had to go to hospital, can’t think of her triggers, the kettle her mum said she didn’t like, had to get her to do these things…

Ms McGhee told officers that sometimes Patient 1 liked balloons, sometimes she didn’t. She said that she sometimes liked men, sometimes she didn’t, commenting “it’s like everyone, you don’t have to get on with everyone do you”.

Asked by officers how many service users were resident at Whorlton Hall at one time she said 11 or 12. And in response to a question about whether there is any reason not to follow a careplan she said “If something arises, and not usual thing, you can and then you’d have to discuss later, can’t just keep it to yourself”.

Officers then played the video clip to Ms McGhee of Patient 4 being restrained in the corridor, saying he was clearly abusive, upset and doesn’t want to move out of the corridor, he’s taken to the ground. Ms McGhee confirms that she is in the footage, and that staff had called for the nurse and emergency responders. Officers then played a second clip involving Patient 1, asked if there’s anything she wants to say about that video clip she responds “no comment”.

P: Obviously XXX he’s a patient or service user at Whorlton Hall, he has mental health problems, autism, learning disability, OCD traits, can be easily wound up and restrained if he goes past stage two?

KMcG: Yes

Officer says he is restrained on the floor

KMcG: Yes, in open supine

P: Clearly agitated, shouting ‘bastards bastards’ at everyone, no one in particular, during the restraint Ryan offers chewing gum, hands it round. Is that acceptable do you think?

KMcG: No, I’ve reflected on that

P: In what way?

KMcG: When see it in restraint don’t know where things are… that was unprofessional, I’ve looked at it and wrote reflection on it since… that wasn’t acceptable in the restraint

P: Can you tell me why it’s not acceptable?

KMcG: Because we’re in a restraint and when you look at it it’s not professional, something we shouldn’t have been doing.

P: Would you have felt competent to challenge Ryan at that stage?

KMcG: Yes certainly wouldn’t happen again

The officer suggested to Ms McGhee when Ryan is restraining Patient 4 and mocks him, if he were trying to minimise and make light of the situation, taking on board Patient 4 and the issues he had, don’t know he’d get sarcasm. She responds “he did get sarcasm, was quite a funny gentleman XXX” and that he says a lot of things, it happens so quick and is so intense. Asked if she thought it was appropriate what Ryan was saying she responded “no comment, that’s for Ryan”. Asked if she should have challenged him at the time, she said that she didn’t remember him saying it. She explained that it would be standard practice to remove anything that could be thrown from Patient 4’s room after a restraint, before he returned to it.

Asked about the second video clip she was shown Ms McGhee explained a male worker would sometimes be required to restraint Patient 1.

P: Obviously she’s an adult, a big lady, you know, sometimes not being sexist, you may need someone equal size or stronger?

KMcG: Stronger yeh

P: During the clip you say to Patient 1, if she doesn’t calm down you’ll bring her men

KMcG: I don’t remember that

P: Did you recall it on the footage?

KMcG: I’ve never seen the footage.

P: Just now. Can you remember why you said it to her?

KMcG: Because male responders were on that day, or they’re stronger in the hold

P: You also mention Matthew Banner, any reason?

KMcG: He was senior healthcare worker, stronger in the hold

P: It wasn’t a threat?

KMcG: No, I don’t use people as a threat like that, perhaps Matthew was the male senior responder

P: In some footage, Patient 1 clearly makes known she doesn’t like Matthew Banner… she will change the fire exit sign to say Matthew Banner is a shit

KMcG: I don’t recall that

P: I’ve seen when Matthew Banner attends again, I know you’ve not seen that footage

KMcG: No

P: Was just wondering if you were aware that she didn’t like Matthew Banner?

KMcG: No

P: So you didn’t mention Matthew Banner and men as a threat to Patient 1?

KMcG: No, I wouldn’t

Asked what she thought about the conversation between Ryan Fuller and Sarah Banner she said “looking at it, but at the moment I think I was focusing on… no comment”.

P: Your job description says you should uphold and encourage in others required standards…. Not challenged by you as senior staff nurse?

KMcG: I think nothing, the moment is so intense, people don’t recognise it, that’s why we need CCTV footage, so can go over…. Not done with malice…. Taking that chewy, now you look, that’s not professional, I think we do need to think and scrutinise what went on in that day or week. One thing I think we did lack was the cameras.

Asked if she thought things had become so relaxed at Whorlton Hall that the culture became mixed she said she thought people worked hard, did lots of hours and lots of restraints”.

P: Do you think a culture had developed within Whorlton Hall?

KMcG: No, we all had different shifts,. Quite a lot of them, they were all split up, senior staff weren’t on the floor all the time, senior staff were our eyes.

P: Do you believe your own standard had fallen well below what expected of you?

KMcG: I’ve reflected on that myself… I could have done better. I worked there for a year, year and half, some days, how many days did I do, do you know? It was a hard environment.

P: Do you think in not challenging behaviours you committed an offence, ill treatment or wilful neglect?

KMcG: I’d never do that to my patients, I love my job, I went into nursing late on.

Ms Richardson told the court that Ms McGhee mentioned professionalism, stating what was needed was “supervision and training. Wasn’t done with malice, and wasn’t nasty”. Asked if she had anything else that she wanted to say, she said no.

Mr Normanton, counsel for Ms McGhee had a number of questions. Firstly he checked with DC Simms that when he played the video clip of the restraint of Patient 4 to Ms McGhee in the interview, it was the first time that he had played it to her.

MrN: That was first time you played that for Ms McGhee wasn’t it in the interview?

DC S: Yes

MrN: She hadn’t seen it before that?

DC S: No

MrN: You’d have asked did she wanted to see it again?

DC S: Yes

MrN: And she didn’t?

DC S: No

MrN: She saw it on a single occasion and was asked questions about it?

DC S: Yes

Mr Normanton then moved forward to when Ms McGhee had been asked about Patient 1 not liking Matthew Banner.

MrN: Jump forward to p57, she was asked questions about what did she know of Patient 1 not liking Matthew Banner…

DC S: Yes

MrN: There’s reference that police have got, further down, say she gets upset quite a lot on footage we’ve seen where Matthew Banner attends, but Karen McGhee wasn’t shown that footage?

DC S: No

MrN: Prior to this interview, as with many other interviews, Karen McGhee and her solicitor were given a pre-interview briefing weren’t they?

DC S: Yes

MrN: Purpose of that, to set out very basic summary questions or topics would be asked questions about?

DC S: Yes we wouldn’t give questions, give an outline so the person interviewing has understanding of what will ask them…. Would never show CCTV to defendant before interviewing them because they’d tailor their account potentially to the footage

MrN: That’s helpful, thank you, so wasn’t said what was in the CCTV?

DC S: No

Mr Normanton then discussed no comment responses.

MrN: We know that certainly I’m sure you know, in interview someone can say no comment throughout the entire interview?

DC S: Yes they’re entitled to say no comment

MrN: In this interview we can see Karen McGhee answers almost all questions but on noccasion says no comment?

DC S: Yes

MrN: That’s obvious, people might say that when they don’t have a comment or a question?

HHJ: I’ll give ladies and gentleman direction of how they should approach that in due course.

Ryan Fuller

The court heard that Mr Fuller’s first interview was conducted at lunchtime on 24 May 2019 and it was a short interview lasting 16 minutes. He was interviewed by two officers and had a solicitor present. He was cautioned and it was explained to him and checked he understood.

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever abused any patients residing there?

RF: No comment

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever mistreat any patient in any way?

RF: No comment

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever been in any way responsible for the treatment of patients that could be described as cruel?

RF: No comment

P: Whilst employed at Whorlton Hall, have you ever witnessed the mistreatment or abuse of any patients?

RF: No comment

Officers asked Mr Fuller about his employment at Whorlton Hall, dates, working patterns, training and experience to which he had no comment. Asked about the residents at Whorlton Hall, their specific needs, how their needs were known by staff members, care plans, his physical interactions with residents, and whether he had seen the BBC Panorama documentary and whether he wanted to comment on that. To all questions he answered “no comment”. Asked if he had anything to say he said “no comment”.

A second interview was conducted with Ryan Fuller on 3 March 2020. The second interview lasted 112 minutes and two officers were present, including DC Simms, and Mr Fuller’s solicitor was also present. The offer of free legal advice was made and the caution, as before.

Asked the same four introductory questions Mr Fuller again answered “no comment” to all of them. Asked about careplans, training, residents individual needs, to all questions he replied “no comment”. Shown a number of clips of footage of his interaction with patients. In response to all footage shown and questions asked about the footage and behaviours demonstrated by the footage, Mr Fuller said “no comment”.

Asked if there was anything he wanted to say, and told this was his opportunity and he might not get another one, Mr Fuller responded “no comment”.

Counsel for Mr Fuller had no questions.

At that point court was adjourned for lunch. After lunch defendant’s interviews continued but as the next defendant was not completed today I’ll report it tomorrow when complete.