Whorlton Hall Prosecution – 12 and 13 April 2023 – Sarah Banner

12 April 2023

Sarah Banner was the third defendant to give evidence to the court. HHJ Smith told the jury that he’d had a discussion with Ms Banner’s counsel, Mr Walker, and it would help her if she were seated to give her evidence. HHJ Smith said that she would need to keep her voice up because sitting down often means that the voice can drop a little.

Mrs Banner have an affirmation and told the court she was 33. When told by Mr Walker that she’d heard a written admission a matter of days ago and asked “that you’re a lady without caution, reprimand or conviction to your name, is that correct?” she responded it was correct.

Mr Walker told the jury that he’d be dealing with Counts 9, 10 and 19 and informed them which pages in the transcripts bundle related to each one. He told the court that there was an additional series of admissions that he’d liked placed before the jury. He said he’d refer to them in due course.

The first admission related to Mrs Banner’s employment at Whorlton Hall. She was interviewed for the post of healthcare assistant at Whorlton Hall in September 2017, following DBS checks and references being sought she was offered the job on 19 September. Her probation period was extended to 6 August 2018 as a result of ill health and records show that she met with the manager in June 2018 where he signed off her probation period.

Asked by Mr Walker what she had done prior to working at Whorlton Hall Mrs Banner said she was out of work for four or five months maybe, but prior to that she worked as an Intensive Mental Health Worker in Darlington for two years. She said that involved working with people who had been sectioned, from West Park Hospital, trying to integrate them back into the community. Mr Walker said that local people would know West Park was a psychiatric unit, Mrs Banner confirmed that it was on the outskirts of Darlington. Mrs Banner told the court she’d be allocated to patients at West Park and would try to find them housing, sort their benefits, sort medication blister packs for them, and get them into support groups if needed or get them back to work.

MrW: How did the role at Whorlton Hall come about?

SB: I was looking for a job and it was one of the first ones that came up

MrW: At that stage you were Sarah Jopling?

SB: That’s right

MrW: You later met Matthew at Whorlton Hall and have gone on to have a child together?

SB: Yes, a couple years later.

Asked by Mr Walker what she understood the role at Whorlton Hall to entail, Mrs Banner said it was “briefly described as just supporting the patients day to day living, activities, no personal hygiene, and that was about it”. Mr Walker checked with Mrs Banner about personal hygiene and she confirmed “we didn’t have to do things like wash them”.

Mrs Banner told the court that she completed in-house training at Whorlton Hall, including MAYBO conflict management and safeguarding adults training.

MrW: How was training dealt with? On a practical level, was it compressed into the working week or how was it dealt with?

SB: Haven’t had much training to be honest. Some training we were pulled off observations, had to go to the top floor and it lasted 20 minutes and we went straight back on observations.

The induction was 5 days.

MrW: And during that did you receive training on restraint?

SB: 3 days

HHJ: 3 of the 5 days?

SB: Yes

MrW: How did the training assist in the realities of life working at Whorlton Hall?

SB: We weren’t shown how to implement secondary strategies. The only part of the training really that benefitted was the MAYBO.

Mr Walker said he’d return to that in due course. Mr Walker said admission three was an extract taken from Mrs Banner’s personnel file in December 2017. He read it to the court [I’ve captured as fully as I was able].

MrW: Whorlton Hall personnel files for Sarah Banner documents an incident on 22 December 2017 in which “whilst supporting WH193/17”, I’ll stop there. Is that one of the service users or patients?

SB: Yes it is, initials were XX [I’ve withheld]

MrW: In the community, at a local sports centre… XX began to present with precursory behaviour while in a large group of peers and public. Unfortunately escalated which resulted in physical intervention taking place. Sarah was observed to demonstrate excellent support skills to the service user and staff… employed short period time, observed to act very confidently and in a calm manner throughout this experience… observed XX was treated with respect, dignity and kindness to a high standard by Sarah.

Mrs Banner described to the court what a working day was like, confirming that she had no choice in who she was supporting at work and all that was decided by nurses. She said the handover meetings would report how a patient had been in the previous 24 hours. Mr Walker then asked Mrs Banner for her views on a number of comments Olivia Davies had made about Whorlton Hall.

MrW: You’ll recall during my questioning of Olivia Davies I asked her, about Whorlton Hall, and the suggestion it was some sort of therapeutic unit. You’ll recall she rejected that suggestion?

SB: Yes

MrW: Was there any level of therapy offered?

SB: No

MrW: What input was in fact provided to the patients?

SB: There was a gentleman, can’t remember his name, who’d do sort of physical, what’s it called, physiotherapy, where he’d get them to do chair sit-ups. I remember two patients going to that [didn’t catch whether she said was once every other month or once a month].

MrW: In terms of psychiatric input?

SB: I’ve never seen.

Mr Walker asked Mrs Banner about shift patterns and Mrs Banner told the court somedays you’d work with the same person for an entire 12 hour shift. She said that Patient 1 didn’t go out often, but Patients 2 and 7 did.

MrW: So if a member of staff pulled 4 or 5 shifts in a week with Patient 1, what would that entail?

SB: Unfortunately Patient 1 didn’t like to do much other than sit on her bed and write stories, she didn’t venture to communal areas.

HHJ: She didn’t?

SB: No, she didn’t. So you’d be sat inside or outside her bedroom.

MrW: Were staff always alone or accompanied?

SB: Patient 1 was 2-1 so you had another staff member you could talk to.

MrW: So, any footage of you and Olivia Davies, derives because was only two members of staff with Patient 1?

SB: Yes, she was 2-1.

Mr Walker outlined the charges against Mrs Banner before asking her if she “inexcusably and cruelly ill-treated these patients” to which she responded “no”. Mr Walker then turned to agreed facts number four, which he described as an extract written after Mrs Banner “would have been at work effectively for six or so months”. She agreed.

MrW: On 27 November 2018 a member of management at Whorlton Hall recorded that Sarah has a positive attitude, takes her role and responsibilities very seriously… is reliable, helpful and supportive person with service users and staff… will reflect on situations been challenging and ask for support to learn from these… overall performance continues to grow… valued member of the team… is up to date with e-learning, completed or booked on training courses. Completed her Level 2 Health and Social Care and would like to complete Level 3. Do you recognise the contents of that paragraph?

SB: Yes

MrW: Is that an accurate reflection of your means of working at Whorlton Hall?

SB: Yes, this was done by one of the senior nurses.

MrW: Could I go on to ask you please, are also aware of criticisms levelled at you, way you behaved and spoke towards or in the area of patients at Whorlton Hall. You’ve seen those a matter of weeks ago, will go through them in due course. Could I ask firstly before I go on to deal with the two patients, Patient 1 and Patient 4. Is Olivia Davies’ description of the administration at Whorlton Hall as “chaotic” fair?

SB: Yes

MrW: Did you in your view have ample time to go through the carefully drafted careplans?

SB: No

MrW: Do you agree that support workers were thrown in at the deep end from day one?

SB: That’s correct.

MrW: Do you agree that support workers learnt on the job?

SB: Yes

MrW: And operated on a trial and error basis from the very outset?

SB: Definitely, yes.

MrW: Did that extend to all areas of care and supervision of the patient?

SB: Sorry?

HHJ: I’m not sure I understood that Mr Walker, what did you mean by that?

MrW: Were care structures, or care plans in such order for you and other members of staff from the outset to care for patients in a coordinated manner?

SB: If and when careplans were updated we weren’t notified they were updated, so we wouldn’t be able to read if it had been amended.

MrW: What about at the morning meetings, were you given updates on care plans and changes? We’ve heard there were day to day variations.

SB: I honestly can’t remember but probably not to be honest.

Mr Walker read out agreed fact 5 which listed injuries that Mrs Banner sustained while dealing with patients: injury to chest – scratch; impact to left leg; impact to mouth – swelling bump; injury to right ankle – sprain; injury to right arm – scratch; injury to head – ache and pain; pinch to right hand side of head exacerbating pre-existing injury; injury to hand – scratch; injury to hand – scratch; injury to right ear; injury to head.

MrW: In what type of circumstances Ms Banner did those injuries come about?

SB: Patients when they were highly unsettled and attacking staff

MrW: On how regular basis was that in your experience?

SB: Near enough every day

MrW: Seems an obvious question, were some patients needing to be more regularly restrained than others?

SB: Yes definitely, for instance Patient 1 after her parents visit, two or three days after she was extremely volatile and constantly attacking and screaming.

MrW: Was she able to rationalise that?

SB: Who Patient 1?

MrW: Was Patient 1 able to rationalise that? What I mean by that was were you able to discuss that with her?

SB: No. no.

MrW: What impact did the repetitive nature of those incidents have on the staff and your colleagues?

SB: We would get down. Depressed. Even just leaving the shift and going home, you can’t switch off. It’s not like you can talk to your friends and family, you’ve only got your colleagues who you can talk to about it.

MrW: Olivia Davies used phrases like ‘everyone has lost their spark’, ‘everyone was on their toes’ and ‘Whorlton Hall took a massive toll on people’.

SB: Yes. I agree with that.

Mrs Banner told the court that there were actually one or two things missing from her list of injuries and explained the pre-existing condition she had was trigeminal neuralgia, pain in her face. After being punched by a patient, she told the court that she had a trigeminal neuralgia attack and the end result was she had to take about a week off work and increase her medication.

Mr Walker said that he then wanted to ask Mrs Banner some questions about Patient 1.

MrW: It’s clear complex is a phrase used in relation to her, she had quite a level of functioning herself?

SB: Yes, she was very intelligent

MrW: But it appears from clips she could spiral out of control very quickly, would that be fair?

SB: Yes, very unpredictable

MrW: We see and heard the noise Patient 1 made when she became dysregulated. I mean, how, what would be the usual pattern as far as Patient 1 was concerned in terms of her regulation and that changing please?

SB: Patient 1 would scream constantly. Yeh. It was ear pinching to be honest.

HHJ: When you say constantly, you might be with her for six hours

SB: Yeh

HHJ: Might there be shifts when you started at 8am she was screaming and screamed throughout to 2pm? Or do you mean it was rare to go through a shift without her screaming at some point?

SB: I’d say if I put a number, ten plus times of her screaming.

HHJ: During a shift?

SB: Yeh, during that six hours

HHJ: So relatively short episodes, but quite a lot of them?

SB: Yes

HHJ: Alright.

Mrs Banner told the court that she refused to repeat words to Patient 1 because her preferences changed daily “so if she wanted you to repeat a word one day and was fine with it, next day she might not be… then she escalated and might get violent”.

Mr Walker played the court a video clip AJS/33 Clip 4 and HHJ Smith directed the jury to the place in the transcript bundle. Mr Walker described it as a “discussion forum on the issue of repeating” and Mrs Banner confirmed that she were present, as was Olivia Davies and another staff member, Debbie James.

Mr Walker asked Mrs Banner her reasons for not repeating words to Patient 1 and she told the court:

We were the people stuck on that observation for six hours, we were the people who were directly working with Patient 1, um, we’d voiced our concerns about repeating to the nurses, urgh, that if we repeat she’s attacking and like I said prior shows on footage other staff members repeating and Patient 1 instantly escalating.

Mr Walker asked if Mrs Banner was simply giving her opinion to Olivia Davies about not repeating.

SB: She was asking for my opinion and I was voicing it, and I think I was in a little bit of a bad mood there because I’m a bit short

MrW: Does that shortness in your view demonstrate your view of the patients at Whorlton Hall?

SB: Trying to think. I would never want to cause any harm or ill feeling or make the patients feel unsafe in any way. At the end of the day that place is their home and we are there to try and support them.

Mr Walker said he wanted to show the jury the whole 17 minute clip relating to Counts 9 and 10 so they “see the lead up to the supposedly incriminating comments made”.

MrW: Ms Banner right at the outset of the clip you say carry on doing that, that’s fine. Little doubt prosecution will suggest you were trying to goad her into deliberately hitting herself?

SB: No

MrW: Why did you utter those words?

SB: Pardon

MrW: Why did you say them?

SB: We had secondary strategies we had to try implement, as states in file, humour, distraction, redirection and Patient 1 had file, red file separate to her normal file was called her ABC file. In that file was form we had to fill out whenever was incident with Patient 1, that basically asked what was lighting like, what was sound, who was staff members present, what happened just before and during. Was box that started, what did staff try and implement, to resolve the situation.

That was basically reverse psychology, it was like if a child swears, if you feed into it, react you’re going to continue. I’m calmly there saying carry on, and she stops.

When Mrs Banner was asked “in saying to Patient 1 “carry on doing that, enjoy” is that what you mean by a diversionary tactic?” she says it was and it worked because Patient 1 stopped hitting herself.

MrW: Had that succeeded in the past?

SB: Only one occasion I remember working with Patient 1 and another situation where she was hitting herself. Don’t know if that was the day she stabbed me with a pen.

HHJ: Mr Walker’s question was had it worked in the past?

SB: Yes on one occasion I can remember.

Asked by Mr Walker why she’d removed her glasses in the clip and appeared to be putting something on, Mrs Banner told the court:

Yes I was removing my glasses. Glasses are classed as a weapon and can be used as a weapon and I was putting a bite jacket on… because Patient 1 was unsettled. Was a major previous incident when Patient 1 had very badly bitten a staff member, that’s when bite jackets were implemented for Patient 1.

Mrs Banner in response to a question said she felt at this stage the likelihood of physical intervention was very high. Asked about the pattern of disregulation that Patient 1 would show she said:

If I remember rightly the parents had visited the day before, or one or two days before, she was in the period where she’d be quite constant and unsettled.

Mr Walker took Mrs Banner to the transcripts bundle of that clip and asked further questions, including:

MrW: In a rather unfair expression of opinion it’s said you were seen smirking, the jury will make of that what they will. Were you smirking, somehow getting enjoyment from this restraint?

SB: No, I wasn’t smirking at Patient 1. I was looking out the door, by the next page it was Waqa who was there. I can’t say what he was saying, I can’t remember.

Mr Walker then asked “how many people did this restraint take to subdue Patient 1” and Mrs Banner thought it was four. Mr Walker said that the jury members would see that “within the space of 5 or 6 minutes, Patient 1 goes from attempting to injure herself, spinning, clearly completely out of control to relatively calm and compliant” and Mrs Banner agreed. She said that this was a usual pattern for Patient 1 and agreed that there was spitting and biting. She told the court that she’d started off restraining Patient 1’s left arm but that she switched with Karen McGhee, and took over Patient 1’s head because Karen McGhee didn’t have enough leg room and got a leg cramp.

MrW: At the top of page 41 you’re heard to say, by this point Patient 1 is calming down, you make a comment “are we done” which was directed to Patient 1 and Karen McGhee says “think we’ll put two males on tonight, with this carry on”. Then you make then comment, when Patient 1 says no, your response is “yes, you always attack the females”. Is that really in keeping with your comment earlier?

SB: Yes

MrW: “You’re attacking them, so is that what we’re going to do, I think we’ve got Matthew on haven’t we?” and your response is what?

SB: I’m saying we’ve got Matthew on tonight, we worked opposite shifts because we were married… I think that was case of me saying yeh, he is on tonight, you’ll get Matthew.

MrW: Was this a threat in anyway, those words, you always attack the females, Matthew is on tonight, you’ll get my hubby?

SB: No

MrW: Were they intended as a threat, to cause her harm or show hostility towards her?

SB: Definitely not.

Asked by Mr Walker whether she intended to aggravate the situation that Patient 1 was already in, whether she sought to annoy her or inflame her in any way, whether she was using words with hostility, Mrs Banner responded no to all questions, adding that “even my tone in that clip is not aggressive”. Mr Walker suggested that Mrs Banner was “effectively encouraging” Patient 1 to calm down and Mrs Banner told the court that she was reiterating what Karen McGhee had said to Patient 1.

The court then adjourned for lunch.

On the jury’s return after lunch HHJ Smith discussed timetabling stating that it was difficult to guess how long was required but it seemed likely that the defence cases would finish by the early part of next week, which would be followed by a few days of closing addresses of the barristers, there will be 9 and the prosecution will make a speech dealing with their case. After that HHJ Smith said that he would provide his summary of the evidence, and then there needed to be deliberation time for the jury and that they must not be under any pressure. He said that this case had overrun, and sometimes that happens, but the court would work around jury member’s immovable commitments, such as medical appointments or job interviews. The current estimate for the case to conclude, including deliberation time, is between 3 and 4 weeks from when the jury returned on Tuesday of this week.

Then it was back to Mr Walker, taking Mrs Banner through her evidence.

He started by taking Mrs Banner and the members of the jury to a Danshell Group document relating to Patient 1, which he identified as an “additional care plan protocol to be read in conjunction with secondary strategies”. He read extracts to the court and Mrs Banner told the court that it would be practice for one member of staff to be in eyesight of Patient 1 if she were escalating, and for others to stand out of sight. Mr Walker describes Patient 1’s behaviour in the clip and asked if it would be “usual practice” for staff not to intervene at that point and Mrs Banner told the court that staff would not intervene if Patient 1 was “not doing it with sufficient force” [Mr Walker described how in the clip Patient 1 was seen to strike herself with her hand to her face and to slap her belly].

Mr Walker then moved on to ask Mrs Banner questions about the restraint conducted on Patient 4, where “it is said you as punishment took items out of his room and walked past him to aggravate and upset him”. Asked by Mr Walker how regularly she had dealings with Patient 4, Mrs Banner told the court that she was never on direction observations with him and that “he was on males only because of the high risk to females and his past history” so she only had dealings with him in the common areas of Whorlton Hall. She also told the court that Patient 4 was “well known for making false allegations towards staff and other patients” and Mr Walker asked if Patient 4 was quite open about his intentions to make complaints about members of staff, to which Mrs Banner agreed.

Mr Walker showed the court the video footage of a restraint of Patient 4. When asked by him what her intentions were at the point she left the restraint and went upstairs to Patient 4’s bedroom Mrs Banner said “to remove items of risk from Patient 4’s room” this included anything with glass in it, any plastics that could be snapped such as his CD player which opened at the top. Mrs Banner told the court that there needed to be another staff member there [Olivia Davies] to witness what items staff were removing from the room.

Once removed items from room because Patient 4 was well known for making false allegations, to cover my own back, I go back to show Karen what items had been removed and those usually went to the office.

Asked by Mr Walker if it were possible to go from Patient 4’s room to the office without going past Patient 4 being restrained, Mrs Banner told the court that was not possible. HHJ Smith asked that the court look at the floor plans and they do. Mrs Banner points out where the restraint took place on the plan, where the office is and where the stairway her and Olivia used was.

Mr Walker then returned to the video clip and Mrs Banner, in response to a question, told the court that she was holding a clock and razors and Olivia was holding a CD player. Asked if walking past Patient 4 with his belongings was designed to punish, demean or distract, Mrs Banner answered no to all questions. Asked what it was designed to do, Mrs Banner said it was to make staff members aware so they’d got their “backs covered” if Patient 4 made a complaint.

At that point court was adjourned for a short break to line up another piece of video footage. That adjournment turned into a longer break during which HHJ Smith and one of the counsel in this case were involved with another case. After a short break for them, technical difficulties meant that it was not possible to show the clip in court and court was adjourned at 15:35.

13 April 2023

Mr Walker started today by showing two video clips to Mrs Banner and the court. He asked Mrs Banner to contextualise the comments that she made in a conversation with Olivia Davies, the undercover BBC Panorama reporter. Mrs Banner told the court that she was explaining to Olivia a situation where a staff member was “getting violently attacked by Patient 1. It was an extremely stressful situation in which I had to react immediately”. She went on to say that there were two staff members supervising Patient 1 but one was very inexperienced and not confident in using MAYBO.

SB: I basically had to go in and use instinct to try and protect the staff member.

MrW: Would strict adherence to MAYBO have succeeded in quelling a situation like that?

SB: No, because the other staff member was inexperienced, Patient 1 had hold of Sabah’s hair to the extent she was tucked in and couldn’t move so I had to just get Patient 1 down and off Sabah’s hair.

After playing a second clip Mr Walker suggested to Mrs Banner that he anticipated it would be suggested the conversation demonstrated “a certain attitude towards patients at Whorlton Hall” and asked her if she’d anything that she’d like to comment. She told the court:

Basically we’re debating on Patient 4 falling asleep stood up and whether we would, because Patient 4 was male only and we were females, whether we’d catch him or not and I said I would because the alternative was him falling and his face smashing, and the other staff member there was saying she wouldn’t because it was too much of a risk.

Asked if she’s ever made a decision not to support Patient 4 in that way she said no.

Mr Walker played a final clip to the court and Mrs Banner and asked her if there was anything she’d like to say about that. She replied saying that at the start of the footage Patient 8 was in a “jolly happy mood” and then he started to talk about Patient 4 who he was known to dislike, she told the court that she tried to “use humour and not engage in that conversation” to divert him away.

Asked by Mr Walker if she intended to belittle him she said no.

MrW: I’m guessing in a perfect world you wouldn’t behave in that way?

SB: No, I hold my hands up, it wasn’t appropriate. Anything like that would be dealt with vis a vis with a verbal warning but my tactic worked, he hasn’t escalated, or got angry.

MrW: Much like your tactics with Patient 1 you’d say?

SB: Yes.

Mr Walker then asked Mrs Banner if she could help with why she decided not to reply during the course of her two interviews with the police.

SB: First one the gentleman who showed up to support advised me to make no comment

HHJ: Do you mean the solictor?

SB: The solicitor sorry. The second one I’d made the police aware I had a newborn baby and had had complications during labour and didn’t know who was turning up that day from the solicitors and was advised no comment because I was sleep deprived and newborn baby and medical needs.

MrW: You’ve subsequently moved on from that firm of solicitors?

SB: Yes, I was getting response letters from numerous people and getting passed from pillar to post, so I moved on from them to a local one.

There were no further questions from Mr Walker. No questions from Mr Rutter for Peter Bennett and none from Mr Constantine for Matthew Banner.

Mr Normanton told Mrs Banner he’d ask her a question about the restraint of Patient 4 on 25 January 2019. Mr Normanton said that he was grateful to Mr Herrmann for showing the clip, and he asked the ladies and gentlemen of the jury to take out the floor plans that they had of Whorlton Hall. He checked with Mrs Banner where Patient 4 was being restrained, where the offices were and he played seconds of the clip before pausing and asking Mrs Banner confirmation questions. She told the court that Patient 4 was being held to the floor in such a way that he could not get up, or look down towards his legs. She then told the court which stairway she used to access Patient 4’s bedroom and where she stood on her return with his belongings.

MrN: You stop here? You don’t come through that door with those things can you, he cant see those things can he?

SB: No, all that Patient 4 could see would be the ceiling

MrN: And you don’t come through that doorway?

SB: No.

Mrs Banner agreed to Mr Normanton’s suggestion that Patient 4 couldn’t see what was in her hands when she returned from his room because Karen McGhee came over to her in the doorway. No further questions from Mr Normanton.

Mr Patton for Niall Mellor asked Mrs Banner which was the easiest shift, day or nights and Mrs Banner told the court that for her personally nights. Mr Patton clarified that he was not talking about domestic arrangements, he was asked what was the least demanding shift, and Mrs Banner answered again that it was nights “for me personally I preferred to do the night shift it was a lot less stress because some of the patients were sleeping”. Mr Patton asked about staffing numbers on night shift and Mrs Banner said that numbers of staff were lower as most patients would be asleep.

In response to a question from Mr Patton, Mrs Banner told the court that there weren’t any patients allowed to live at Whorlton Hall without constant supervision. Mr Patton went on to ask about the risk of self harm and harm to staff when patients were elevated.

MrP: Prosecution are suggesting these patients are deliberately antagonised or tormented by things said to them. Can I ask you was it in your interests to antagonise any of these patients?

SB: No

MrP: We know patients had attacked staff, kicking, punching, spitting, slapping, had you personally experienced that?

SB: Yes on many occasions

MrP: When patients were antagonised, or out of sorts as it were, were they at greater risk of harming staff then?

SB: Yes.

Asked by Mr Patton if she would say anything if anyone she was working with was winding patients up, Mrs Banner replied she would “without a shadow of a doubt” because she was at risk of being hurt and she didn’t want to go to work and get hurt.

In a number of questions from Mr Patton about patients moving rooms Mrs Banner said she couldn’t remember the specifics as it was a long time ago, she did remember being told on other occasions in handover meetings that moves were happening, but she could not remember the incident Mr Patton asked her about. Mr Patton’s final questions for Mrs Banner were about the alarm system, she told the court that there were displays on the walls at Whorlton Hall that would state the room number or area where an alarm went off, and that staff had key fobs with sensors on that you’d pull for an attack.

No questions from Ms Brown for Darren Lawton or from Mr Dryden for John Sanderson.

Mr Rooney for Sabah Mahmood wanted to ask Mrs Banner about the list kept in the staff room at Whorlton Hall known as the ‘service user core team members’. Mrs Banner confirmed she knew the list Mr Rooney was referring to. Asked what was meant by the term core members she told the court:

Every patient would have a named nurse, that would be top name on the core team for that patient. Every patient would have a senior. And the nurse would allocate staff members in that core team and we all had little jobs we had to do, like mine for Patient 3 was birthday presents and Christmas presents.

In response to Mr Rooney’s questions Mrs Banner told the court that Sabah Mahmood had started at Whorlton Hall as agency staff before becoming full time staff member and that she’d been placed on the core team members for Patient 7. Asked if she had much to do with Patient 7, Mrs Banner said that she worked with her every day if she was on a day shift.

MrR: How would you describe Patient 7 to deal with please?

SB: She was very complex and very intelligent. With her diagnosis she would self-sabotage, say for instance she was due to go out, she’d try to create a situation to escalate so that would be taken away from her.

MrR: Is that what you mean by she was quite intelligent?

SB: Yes

MrR: Is it fair to say another word for that would be manipulating?

SB: Yes

MrR: When she was manipulating staff did you notice any change in her approach to different members of staff?

SB: Yes. For example I remember being on Patient 1’s observations, sat outside, and she had Debbie James and another staff member. Patient 7 was high pitched, shouting, effing and jeffing in her room and then she said I want to go in the garden, the staff member said let’s go for a walk in the garden and came out the room and I said to staff members she’s not settled, staff member said I’ve got this, 10-15 mins later alarms are going, Patient 7 ran down the garden and tried to abscond, and get something to self-harm.

When Mr Rooney asked further questions Mrs Banner explained that the staff members were inexperienced and she could tell that Patient 7 was unsettled by listening to the conversation from the corridor outside Patient 1’s room.

Mr Rooney asked Mrs Banner whether she meant swearing when she said effing and jeffing, and she responded “yes, she swore all the time, but she was using the C word”.

MrR: You said she was swearing all the time, was that constantly when she was interacting with staff members?

SB: Yes

MrR: We’ve seen a video of Sabah Mahmood swearing at Patient 7 do you remember that?

SB: Yes

MrR: Have you ever heard other members of staff swearing at Patient 7?

SB: When talking to her yes. Patient 7 responded better to staff members who’d get on her level, she didn’t like if you’d approach her in a very vanilla professional way. She didn’t respond well to that.

MrR: So if a staff member was talking to her at her level that would include swearing?

SB: Yes

MrR: What effect did it have on Patient 7 when staff members talk to her at that level?

SB: Can only say what she said to me, which was she preferred it. She knows what she can get away with from staff members, whoever walks into her room that morning what she can get away with.

Mr Rooney then asked Mrs Banner about the relationship between Patient 7 and her family and she told the court that when she started at Whorlton Hall she was told that Patient 7 should have no contact with her family.

Ms Richardson followed with her cross examination. She started by asking Mrs Banner if she accepted the words her counsel, Mr Walker, put to Olivia Davies to describe her.

MsR: Brash

SB: Yes

MsR: Confident

SB: Yes

MsR: One of the lads?

SB: A tom boy, yes

MsR: Whorlton Hall had something of a lads culture didn’t it?

SB: It was predominantly large number of male employees, very limited females, so lots of men.

MsR: Lot of men is different to a lads culture… mean routine use of swear words and explicit sexual innuendo, we’ve heard some of that on the clips

SB: I wouldn’t just put that to the men.

HHJ: No, I think Ms Richardson is saying that is what’s described sometimes as a laddish culture and Ms Richardson is saying a laddish culture is marked by quite a lot of swearing and sexual innuendo. Do you agree that’s a good description of a laddish culture?

SB: To a degree

MsR: Was there such a culture at Whorlton Hall?

SB: We had an extremely stressful job, if we were decompressing, using swear words, talking to one another.

MsR: It wasn’t something you resented or minded?

SB: If it’s staff talking to one another, and nothing more serious risk, like for instance no one is saying they want to do X, Y or Z to a patient or somebody else, then that’s fine as long as it’s… you’re going to have to repeat the question again, my mind has gone blank.

MsR: That was not something you resented or minded?

SB: No

MsR: Did you think such language was appropriate in the hearing of patients?

SB: No, yes it can be deemed as inappropriate yes. Probably shouldn’t have done it, but at the same time, these are adults and they swear as well, we don’t tell them off for swearing because they are adults

MsR: No. And they’re in there under section of the Mental Health Act. Would you agree that very phrase means they have something wrong with their mental health?

SB: Yes

Mrs Banner agreed with Ms Richardson’s suggestion that there was a hierarchy of staff at Whorlton Hall and senior workers were in a position above her, as were trained nurses.

MsR: And do you accept trained nurses would have more training than you in the care of mental health and other vulnerabilities?

SB: Yes. I haven’t done any NVQs.

MsR: Do you think patients’ mental health was amusing?

SB: No

MsR: Were there times you made fun of these patients?

SB: Not to their faces, no.

Ms Richardson said that she didn’t wish to play any video clips to the court as Mr Walker had already played those that she’d intended to show. She discussed one of them with Mrs Banner.

MsR: We’ve seen a clip recently, you are coming in, Patient 8 is being there, divider 8 page 15 where it would appear you are mocking, or mimicking …down at the bottom

SB: Yes, got that

MsR: Right at the bottom it says Patient 8 stutters whilst he speaks and at this point Banner, you, mimics him.

SB: Yes

MsR: Is that an accurate description of what we saw on the clip?

SB: At the beginning of that clip you see Patient 8 quite jolly, happy. Patient 8 could switch very quickly, he started talking about Patient 4, him and Patient 4 did not get on, would try to attack one another in communal areas.

MsR: Yes

SB: Because he started talking about Patient 4 could hear his tone was changing, was going to be escalated so I’ve tried to use secondary strategies of humour to deescalate and it’s worked

MsR: What like you say ‘you like fucking arseholes’

SB: Where does it say that on transcript

Ms Richardson takes Mrs Banner to the reference and reads an extract.

MsR: You say ‘what, you like fucking arseholes’

SB: I think it was a question.

MsR: Yes. Why were you putting that to Patient 8?

SB: Not sure what he said in that inaudible bit, by me responding.

MsR: What are you trying to do?

SB: Asking him a question

MsR: Not trying to use humour to divert him?

SB: No humour was further on

MsR: Where the transcript says Banner mimics him, Patient 8, was that what you were doing mimicking Patient 8 or Patient 4?

SB: Mimicking Patient 8 and another staff member Daniel

MsR: Did Daniel have a stutter?

SB: Yes

MsR: Help us with how making fun of a man’s stutter assists in diverting what you say is an escalating situation?

SB: Patient 8 had a brilliant sense of humour, that had worked prior on another occasion

MsR: You mimicking his stutter?

SB: Patient 8 mimics himself and it brings him back to baseline and it works

MsR: Was it appropriate do you think?

SB: I could have used another humour tactic

MsR: Was it appropriate?

SB: No.

Ms Richardson then asked Mrs Banner why she had throughout her evidence referred to Patient 4 by his surname only, even when her counsel had asked a question only mentioning his first name. Ms Richardson asked if it was indicative of how she felt about the patient, and Mrs Banner responded that there were two patients with the same first name and when Patient 4 arrived he liked to be called by his surname. Ms Richardson pointed out that the nursing staff did not refer to patients by their surnames.

MsR: You said Patient 7 would respond better if you spoke to someone on her level by swearing

SB: Yes

MsR: Would you agree you can talk to someone at their level without swearing?

SB: With Patient 7 would come across as in professional capacity, she responded better if you’d speak in the way she spoke to you.

MsR: Was that written up in a careplan, that new people could speak to her like that?

SB: I’m not sure, her careplans aren’t in the file

MsR: So would you say to new person you can say whatever you like to Patient 7 because that’s fine with her?

SB: Unfortunately was a learning on the job situation

When Ms Richardson asked Mrs Banner if she heard trained nurses like Karen McGhee swearing at Patient 7 she said that she couldn’t remember. Ms Richardson then asked her what her opinion of Patient 1 was and she replied “Patient 1 was a very complex individual, extremely challenging and highly unpredictable”.

Mrs Banner told the court she couldn’t remember whether Patient 1 was at a geographical distance from her family. When Ms Richardson asked if she agreed that patients on a section had little control over their own lives, and couldn’t go to the shops, pop to the pub or see their friends when they wanted to, Mrs Banner said that they could with support.

Mrs Banner confirmed that she was aware it was Patient 1’s preference to be supported by female staff. Asked what deescalation techniques she’d use to ensure Patient 1 didn’t get to a state where she needed restraining, Mrs Banner told the court “humour, distraction, redirection to maybe pleasurable activities they enjoy, or tell them stories about things they have enjoyment”.

Mrs Banner confirmed that her stance was to not repeat words to Patient 1, and she said she couldn’t remember whether the trained nurse Karen McGhee repeated words in the clips, or from memory of their time working together. She said that she did work with Karen McGhee often.

Ms Richardson then discussed another video clip which Mrs Banner had been shown previously. Asked why she said ‘ahh fuck that’ Mrs Banner was not sure why she said it. She wasn’t sure if it was in response in the conversation or whether she was “looking for something from the mess outside her room”.

MsR: Had she made a mess outside her room?

SB: No her activity stuff was all outside, just outside the fire exit

MsR: Debbie James says later on “it is isn’t it” when Patient 1 says “it’s a nice night today” and she says “Wendy says we have to say it”. Who’s Wendy?

SB: More senior nurse

MsR: Nurses in charge say you have to repeat, you say “if you say it she’s got one over on you” could you help us with what you meant please?

SB: Patient 1 had phrases she’d want you to repeat in order to escalate, I think I remember Marilyn Monroe, asking if someone else had died, she’d say phrases and want you to repeat it knowing full well that was going to unsettle her

MsR: “It is isn’t it” isn’t going to unsettle her is it? That’s not a phrase like Marilyn Monroe or word that ends in -ly?

SB: Patient 1 had a long list, they changed daily, I don’t know if prior that phrase might have unsettled her.

MsR: Mrs Banner you’re saying “if you say it she’s got one over on you”, did you want to be in control and not allow her to get one over on you?

SB: No

MsR: She doesn’t even have control over her brain and impulses does she?

SB: She’s a very intelligent lady

MsR: You’ve seen her turning around, making odd noises, slapping her head, slapping her stomach and grabbing her vaginal area, do you have any understanding of what that is like?

SB: No I don’t

MsR: It was hard work wasn’t it constantly repeating?

SB: No.

Ms Richardson told the jury that she was moving on to discuss Counts 9 and 10. Asked by Ms Richardson if it would be a concern if Patient 1 was hitting herself repeatedly in her face, Mrs Banner said it would if she was doing it with force. She agreed that if Patient 1 was hitting herself it had the possibility to escalate. She agreed that it would be something that she would want to try and get her to stop.

Ms Richardson said she wouldn’t play the clip again but would refer to the transcript.

MsR: You, at the top there it says Patient 1 is hitting herself to chin, you say “carry on doing that, that’s fine, enjoy”

SB: Yes I do

MsR: You said in answer to Mr Walker’s question why you said that, you were using reverse psychology and it worked because she stopped. But it didn’t did it, we’ve had to listen to her escalate, continue hitting herself, going round and round, it didn’t work at all did it?

SB: It did in that moment because Patient 1 was hitting her face, in front of staff, I said it in a very low tone, not aggressive at all. “Right carry on doing that” it’s like a child swearing, the more you feed into and react the more they go on to do it, so my tone is low, I’m just like “fine, do it” and she stopped in that moment

MsR: Your tone doesn’t remain low though does it?

SB: It does in that moment

MsR: And further down you shout “white noise”, “white noise”, “go sit down”

SB: I’m not shouting in the footage

MsR: You’re not? We can have a look again if you like?

SB: I’ve got an assertive tone in my voice but I’m not shouting

MsR: Why did you find her behaviour funny?

SB: On that footage you see me looking down and you can hear Ryan, is inaudible, I was laughing at whatever was happening down there, when I turned back to observations I’ve got my hand covering my face.

MsR: Bearing in mind you’re dealing with an extremely agitated screaming woman, who’s situation has escalated, with severe mental health and complex problems, did you think it was appropriate to be laughing? Even if you were laughing you say at someone else, to be like that in her sight and hearing?

SB: It probably wasn’t the best thing to do. I have got my hand covering my face so she can’t see me laughing, on footage I’m to the side so Patient 1 can’t hear me.

MsR: And after you laugh you shouted “sit down”

SB: I did. Well I didn’t shout shout. I raised my voice a little bit but I don’t shout shout.

Ms Richardson requests that the clip is played to the court, it is.

MsR: How did you think saying to her sit down when she’s screaming her head off like that is going to help?

SB: In that footage you see Patient 1 getting up from her bed, escalating, she was well known to charge, even though she was a bigger lady she’s incredibly fast

Ms Richardson says that is what happens and plays more of the clip.

MsR: Repeatedly saying to her sit down, sit down, sit down isn’t working is it? You can see her getting more and more and more het up

SB: Just because you say something one time doesn’t mean they listen. Patient 1 has clearly got her ear defenders on at that time, whether I thought she didn’t hear me I repeated myself

MsR: Whatever the patient was doing you were supposed to speak in a calm manner weren’t you?

SB: Not all the time, you needed to be assertive in that job.

Asked by Ms Richardson if she were familiar with the document that Mr Walker had taken her to, Mrs Banner said that it would be in Patient 1’s file but she told the court “not necessarily when its updated would we get the chance to read it or be notified it was updated”.

The plan was described as “pretty much the nuts and bolts of how to care for Patient 1”. Mrs Banner then told the court that a lot of the careplans might have been copied and pasted:

Speaking about careplans, a lot of people’s careplans might have been copied and pasted, I know and remember reading a careplan for one of the other girls and it had the other females name on it, so some nurses would copy and paste.

Ms Richardson then asked Mrs Banner about the plan.

MsR: Can you help with where on the page it says if Patient 1 is getting escalated, staff should shout at her repeatedly?

SB: It’s in secondary strategies we should use redirection, I’m not full on shouting at Patient 1. I’ve got a very strong stance in my tone and I’m redirecting her to sit down, trying to minimise the risk to staff.

MsR: “Staff should speak to Patient 1 in a calm manner, should let Patient 1 know they’re listening to her, and give her verbal reassurance”. Were you giving her verbal reassurance Mrs Banner?

SB: That’s primary, this is Patient 1 in the back end of secondary, going into tertiary.

MsR: But one of the reasons you told us you were using reverse psychology when Patient 1 was hitting her face, was because she wasn’t hitting with any force. So at that stage is that using a primary strategy?

Mrs Banner told the court that primary strategies were at baseline and that these forms were for recording what staff had tried so Stacey could collect them and take them to the multi disciplinary team meeting.

Ms Richardson discusses the video in more detail with Mrs Banner and asks her whether it shows her employing to the best of her ability secondary strategies, Mrs Banner says that she was not shouting.

Ms Richardson points out that the approach taken doesn’t work because Patient 1 has to be restrained. Asked if the aim at that point would be to calm Patient 1 to let her out of the restraint as soon as possible, Mrs Banner told the court:

SB: We’d hope people wouldn’t be on the floor for long, we’d hope them to come back to baseline to be settled enough to come off the floor, so when they came off floor don’t attack again. Some patients as soon as get off floor they attacked again.

MsR: Just want to know about this situation please, not other patients, at this time. This is not criticism but when she’s on the floor in restraint, the idea of the restraint is to control her, so she can calm down, come out of restraint and go back to life as normal as possible in Whorlton Hall?

SB: Yes, we want them to calm down so they can go back to the day to day.

Asked by Ms Richardson how Mrs Banner singing Hey there Mr Postman would help Patient 1 when she was being restrained she told the court that she was not full on singing.

MsR: Why? Do you think its appropriate when woman is on the floor in a restraint?

SB: Maybe use humour tactics to try get Patient 1 to listen to what I’m singing, because she did like music.

MsR: Is that your evidence? That’s you using humour tactics?

SB: Yes

MsR: And speaking about how big she’s got in front of her, how did that mesh with your role as a carer please?

SB: I said under my breath she’s got huge.

MsR: Why did you need to say it at that point?

SB: Because she had got huge

MsR: Why didn’t you say that in the staff room or elsewhere?

SB: Because that was the conversation at the time.

Ms Richardson moved on to asking Mrs Banner whether she thought that Patient 1 liked her.

MsR: Did you think she liked you?

SB: She did and didn’t. I had the same approach with her and other patients, I was firm but fair. Patient 1 knew, she liked agency staff

MsR: I’m asking you do you think she liked you? I’m not interested in agency staff Mrs Banner

SB: Yes and no, it varied to be honest with you. I think she was probably sick of working with me, I was one of the only females at that moment in time, was guaranteed if I was on day shift I’d have Patient 1 in the morning or afternoon

MsR: You told Olivia Davies that Patient 1 didn’t like you.

SB: In that moment I don’t think she might have done.

Ms Richardson took her to the conversation she had with Olivia Davies in the transcript.

MsR: “because I fucking rugby tackled the cunt down, that’s why” you said to Mr Walker when he asked you about that, you had said that because your instinct was to protect another member of staff, that was what you’d done?

SB: Yes

MsR: But here you are telling Olivia about what you’d done, how do you think saying “I fucking rugby tackled the cunt”, is consistent with your MAYBO restraint training please?

SB: It’s an extremely violent situation where Patient 1 had grabbed hold of Sabah’s hair. I was around the coroner with Patient 2, was screaming, both staff members, Debbie James was only on her second restraint.

MsR: Forgive me for interrupting, that wasn’t the question asked. I want to know why you described what you’d done as “fucking rugby tackled the cunt”

SB: Sorry, I responded to that situation in the moment, can’t describe bit by bit what I’ve done. I was able to sort the situation out, free Sabah who was hurt from this incident, got Patient 1 to the floor. Them words, yeh inappropriate, definitely should have phrased it another way. Don’t know what happened at that time, if I was upset or angry or something else had happened that day but I should have used more professional words.

MsR: This is going on outside Patient 1’s open door isn’t it, this conversation between you and Olivia Davies?

SB: You can hear Patient 1 in the background, she’s telling stories or headphones on, listening to music or white noise.

MsR: In that conversation you describe getting someone in a headlock and slamming them to the floor, think its Patient 3 … if someone in charge walked past at that precise moment, do you know whether they’d have taken you to task about words you were using and the way you were describing events?

SB: That incident with Patient 3

HHJ: No I don’t think she’s asking about the incident, she was asking about the language.

SB: Management were aware I needed to grab Patient 3 from behind

MsR: Yes, but in a headlock and slamming him to the floor?

SB: like I said before probably could have used more professional words, in the meeting Steve showed the footage and said MAYBO doesn’t work, it wasn’t working for Patient 3 at that point. It was taking up to 8 people to hold Patient 3, who was so strong, scarily strong. He’d injured numerous staff members, on night shift five staff members were seriously hurt, needed to seek medical attention, in his MDT meeting they decided, I don’t know how, they decided to take him off his medication.

HHJ: I don’t want to lose sight.. it’s not about the incident, it’s about the language you used, Ms Richardson wants to know what they’d have done if they heard you say that?

SB: They could have said to me there and then

MrW: it’s not clear how Ms Banner could answer that, she’s said language wasn’t particularly impressive [fuller statement, didn’t catch]

HHJ: Alright Mr Walker

At that point court was adjourned for a mid morning break.

On the return to court Ms Richardson asks Mrs Banner about the end of the incident of restraint with Patient 1.

MsR: Mrs McGhee is still having problems with cramp in her toe, Patient 1 makes a noise, Sarah Banner mimics it and says “are we done”… that was to show are we finished here, are you calm, can we get off?

SB: Yes

MsR: Then Ms McGhee says “two males tonight with this carry on” and Patient 1 says “no”. Why did you feel the need to join in and say [didn’t catch] and say “you’ll get my hubby tonight” and make that movement with your arms?

SB: I’m reiterating all she does is attack the females, Patient 1 unfortunately did, she was a large lady, much taller than myself

MsR: Sorry to interrupt, I didn’t ask what was said, asked why you felt the need to say it?

SB: Am talking to Karen, saying all she does is attack females, which is true, she does attack females. You see on footage she goes to hit Olivia, is males on the footage and she’s not trying to attack them.

MsR: Why do you feel the need to say “you’ll get my hubby, yeh”

SB: Basically Karen has said Matthew is on tonight, I’ve said it’s not a large voice, I say Matthew’s on tonight because we worked opposite shifts… by the sound of my tone and everything I’m “oh yeh Matthew is on tonight”

MsR: You wouldn’t be on shift while he was on?

SB: At that point we were married, so no, married couples aren’t allowed to work the same shift

MsR: So at the time finishing the restraint with Patient 1, Matthew wouldn’t be on that shift?

SB: He wouldn’t be on that shift no.

Mrs Banner told the court she didn’t know how long would be between the end of the restraint and Mr Banner coming on shift. Asked by Ms Richardson why she felt the need to say that to Patient 1 she said she said it in response to Ms McGhee’s comment.

Ms Richardson then asked Mrs Banner about Patient 4. Mrs Banner told the court she didn’t have a lot to do with him because he was “males only”, she couldn’t remember if she’s read his careplan but from what she understood in handover meetings and staff talking and from seeing Patient 4 in communal areas “he was a very complex, volatile individual”.

Ms Richardson talks through the transcript of footage linked to Count 19. Mrs Banner told the court when she arrived Patient 4 was already being restrained and she was never hands on in it. Patient 4 was being restrained, on the floor, with his head up facing the ceiling.

MsR: We see from that transcript Ryan Fuller asks Karen if he’s this aggressive do you think everything in his room would be too much, should we pull everything out? And she replies yes, yes… music and you say do you want me to empty his room? Mr Fuller saying make sure the CD player goes, right I’ll take that. All within Patient 4’s hearing wasn’t it?

SB: Yes

MsR: So he’d know where you were going and what you’d do?

SB: Yes that’s correct

MsR: You and Olivia went upstairs together. Am I right you took Olivia with you as an insurance policy so Patient 4 couldn’t say Sarah Banner went upstairs and took X, Y and Z and you took nothing of the sort?

SB: Yes was always advised if had to remove property from resident’s rooms to take someone with you… Patient 4 was known to make false allegations.

Ms Richardson checked the purpose of having someone with her, was for safety.

SB: Yes, and to protect myself from Patient 4, he has made false allegations and chased staff members around the communal lounge

MsR: Yes, you’ve made that point several times. When you say we’ll take these and walk past him, your evidence was so he could see them and you wouldn’t leave yourself open to false allegations being made?

SB: So he could see them and the nurse in charge knew what items were taken from his room. Items were initially put in the office and then up to the nurse in charge to deem whether it was OK to have items returned

MsR: So practice is you take someone with you in someone’s room, your insurance policy, so cant falsely be accused?

SB: That’s true

MsR: Then you then have to show them to the nurse in charge?

SB: Yes

MsR: Is that always the case?

SB: Yes

MsR: Then you’d walk past Patient 4 to show him, so he knew what you’d taken and wasn’t able to accuse you of taking more?

SB: Yes so he knew what was taken from his room

MsR: Was that policy or particularly for Patient 4?

SB: As far as I know policy. If someone was to remove items from my bedroom I’d want to know what was taken, less distress than returning to room and not knowing what was taken.

MsR: But Ms Banner he didn’t see could he?

SB: No. I asked Karen where she wanted me to put it.

MsR: So how would that deal with false allegations?

SB: The nurse in charge could shut it down

MsR: There was no need to walk past him to get to the office was there?

SB: Yes there was, where he was situated was in obscure place, at the bottom of two staircase so regardless of one take he’d still be at bottom.

You’ve got ladies area, I’ve got razors, you’re not allowed in ladies area with anything remotely sharp

MsR: You didn’t like Patient 4 did you?

SB: I’ve never really worked with Patient 4 one on one

MsR: Did you just want to antagonise him and let him know you could do what you wanted with his things?

SB: I wouldn’t want to cause any distress.

Mrs Banner told the court, in response to Ms Richardson’s questions, she couldn’t remember what the room was where she placed Patient 4’s belongings, it might have been a storage cupboard.

MsR: Do you think you were suited to be a care worker Mrs Banner?

SB: Yes

MsR: Do you believe you had a caring attitude towards those patients?

SB: I did have a caring and empathic attitude, as agreed in the agreed facts, I showed dignity and kindness to a high standard

MsR: Did you have a problem with your own patience?

SB: I’ve got very high patience I think.

Ms Richardson took Mrs Banner to a further transcript relating to another clip she’d been shown by Mr Walker. Asked who she was talking about when she said “loads of slamming doors, she looks so fucking shattered, have a nap” she said she thought she was referring to Patient 2.

MsR: Did you say those words to Patient 2 “I know you’re fucking autistic but howay and have a nap”?

SB: No I’m speaking to Christina

MsR: So why did you say those words to Christina if you didn’t say them to Patient 2?

SB: I’m not working with Patient 2 at that point

MsR: How did this conversation come about?

SB: Don’t know don’t see footage prior to that

MsR: You’re telling Christina something about you and Patient 2

SB: No I’m talking to Christina about Patient 2

MsR: Why are you talking to Christina about Patient 2 in that way please?

SB: Footage doesn’t show prior, so I don’t know

MsR: Is your answer you don’t know why you’re talking in that way about Patient 2?

SB: There’s no prior footage… if there was something that happened prior to that?

HHJ: I don’t quite understand, do you mean prior in your interactions with Christina, or do you mean in your interactions with Patient 2?

SB: Both to be honest, the transcript starts from me saying loads of slamming doors, she looks effing shattered

MsR: Who did you mean?

SB: That Patient 2 looked absolutely shattered

MsR: What I’m asking you is you’re telling Christina about this conversation, did you have this conversation with Patient 2? Yes, no or can’t remember?

SB: I can’t remember

MsR: No further questions

There was no re-examination from Mr Walker and he closed Mrs Banner’s case.

Write a reply or comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *