Key Facts
- •Matthew James Banner and Peter Bennett appealed their convictions for ill-treatment of persons in care under section 20 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
- •The appellants were senior healthcare workers at Whorlton Hall hospital, a facility for adults with learning disabilities.
- •The charges stemmed from footage obtained by an undercover reporter for a BBC Panorama documentary, showing interactions with two residents, AD and LH.
- •The prosecution argued that the appellants' actions, while not constant ill-treatment, were at times cruel and abusive, lacking the respect and kindness due to the residents.
- •The appellants argued their actions were distraction techniques or had innocent explanations.
- •The trial judge rejected the appellants' 'no case to answer' submissions and left the counts to the jury.
- •The jury convicted Banner on five counts and Bennett on two counts; they were acquitted on other counts.
Legal Principles
The term 'ill-treatment' in section 20 of the 2015 Act should be given its ordinary meaning and does not require judicial gloss.
R v Newington (1990) 91 Cr App R 247
For a conviction of ill-treatment, the prosecution must prove deliberate conduct properly described as ill-treatment and a guilty mind (knowledge or recklessness as to whether the act was inexcusably ill-treating).
R v Newington (1990) 91 Cr App R 247
Counsel's speeches, including the prosecution's opening, do not constitute directions of law; these come from the judge.
None explicitly stated, but implied.
Issues of fact are for the jury to decide; the judge's role is to ensure there is sufficient evidence for a case to answer.
R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039
Outcomes
Appeals dismissed.
The Court found the judge's directions on the meaning of 'ill-treatment' were adequate; the issues raised were matters of fact for the jury to decide, and there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict.