For a bereaved family, discovering that those responsible for a deceased’s relative’s care have deliberately concealed what happened can cause distress distinct from the loss itself. In R v Foster [2026] EWCA Crim 1088, the Court of Appeal recognised that additional harm when considering the sentence imposed on a care home manager for perverting the course of justice.
The Court also addressed the wider consequences of concealment – particularly its capacity to undermine public confidence in regulatory and Coronial investigations and the Coroner’s ability to establish safely how someone died.
Although the appeal succeeded and the sentence was reduced from 43 to 38 months’ imprisonment, the Court upheld the sentencing judge’s assessment of the offending as involving high culpability and the highest category of harm.
The death of Mrs Froggett
Mrs Froggett was 84 and lived at New Lodge Nursing Home. She had suffered a significant stroke, required full-time care and used a wheelchair. Her family had raised concerns about the chair’s suitability. Although it had a lap belt, there were no fastenings, and relatives had never seen it fastened during their visits.
On 19 September 2018, Mrs Froggett fell from the wheelchair while unattended. Lindsey Ann Foster, the home’s manager and a registered nurse, telephoned Mrs Froggett’s daughter-in-law that evening. She described a small bruise to the head and said there was no need for concern.
When the family visited the following day, they saw substantial bruising. Mrs Froggett was subsequently admitted to hospital, where a fractured femur was eventually diagnosed. She died on 8 November 2018. The recorded cause of death was bronchopneumonia arising as a complication following the fracture.
Foster and two carers at the home produced false written accounts asserting that the lap belt had been fastened. Foster’s responses to the Coroner went further. They suggested that Mrs Froggett might have unfastened the belt herself and that the buckle had been found missing after the fall, creating a misleading impression about the condition of the wheelchair.
The deception only emerged because another member of staff overheard the carers discussing their false accounts and reported the matter. Following an investigation, fresh accounts were provided approximately six months after the incident. Foster admitted that she had advised the carers to say they had fastened the belt.
The prosecution and appeal
Foster had already been prosecuted by the Care Quality Commission for failing to provide safe care and treatment. She pleaded guilty and received an £800 fine, together with a surcharge and costs.
A subsequent Crown Court charge of wilful neglect was stayed as an abuse of process following that earlier prosecution. Foster then pleaded guilty to the separate charge of perverting the course of justice.
The sentencing judge assessed the offending as category A culpability and category 1 harm. After allowing for aggravating features, personal mitigation and a 20% reduction for the guilty plea, he imposed 43 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, the Court upheld the categorisation but identified double counting of Mrs Froggett’s vulnerability and insufficient allowance for substantial personal mitigation. This included Foster’s previous good character, a 40-year nursing career, health difficulties and pronounced remorse. The Court retained the 20% reduction for the plea and substituted a sentence of 38 months.
The successful appeal therefore concerned the proportionate sentence within the accepted category. It did not displace the Court’s assessment of the serious harm caused by the concealment.
The additional distress caused to the family
A central issue was whether the sentencing judge had properly distinguished the distress caused by Mrs Froggett’s death and inadequate care from the distress caused by the subsequent lies.
That distinction was material. Foster was being sentenced for perverting the course of justice. The harm relevant to that offence had to arise from the deception, rather than simply from the underlying events.
The Court expressly accepted that approach at §25:
“the focus must be on the harm caused by the offence in issue, not for that to which it related.”
It nevertheless found that the family had suffered additional distress through learning of the attempted cover-up. The family’s victim statement provided evidence of the aggravation of their distress.
The Court recognised that separating these sources of distress could be difficult. It was satisfied, however, that the sentencing judge had understood the distinction and had focused on the harm arising from the family’s knowledge that those involved had concealed their neglect, rather than the neglectful act itself.
For families, this is a significant part of the judgment. Discovering that an account was deliberately false can itself be a serious further injury to trust. The distress does not cease to matter because the family was already grieving, or because the deception was eventually exposed.
The reasoning was also grounded in evidence. The Court referred specifically to the family’s victim statement. It did not simply assume that every false account would produce the same degree of harm.
Confidence in the investigation
At §26, the Court addressed harm to the administration of justice.
It emphasised that this could not be measured solely by the additional investigative work or delay resulting from false statements. The wider impact on public confidence also mattered, including confidence in the CQC’s investigation of care provided to vulnerable people and in the Coroner’s ability to determine the true cause of death.
That concern is particularly apparent here. Mrs Froggett depended on others for her care. The people providing information about the incident included those whose conduct required investigation. Their false accounts could have distorted the factual basis on which the investigating bodies proceeded.
The Court’s reasoning recognises the public importance of a reliable investigative process; whether the CQC, an Inquest or anything else. Where a person cannot readily speak for themselves, confidence in that process depends heavily on the evidence being accurate and capable of proper examination.
The fact that a whistleblower exposed the deception did not remove its seriousness. By then, the false account had persisted for months and had been repeated in responses to the Coroner.
What the case means for families and their representatives
The practical significance of R v Foster begins with the early evidence.
The false account concerned an apparently straightforward factual question: whether a wheelchair belt had been fastened. Yet that question was central to understanding the fall, the adequacy of the care and the reliability of the explanations subsequently offered.
For those representing families, the case illustrates the importance of examining how an account developed. Relevant questions may include who first recorded it, whether the author witnessed the event, what information came from others, and whether later accounts can be reconciled with the records and physical evidence.
Consistency between several statements does not necessarily establish that each provides independent support for the others. In Foster, the agreement between accounts reflected an agreement to lie. That finding depended on the evidence and admissions in this particular case; it should not become a presumption applied whenever witnesses give similar accounts.
The family’s own observations also formed a material part of the factual history. They had raised concerns about the wheelchair, had never seen the belt fastened and saw the bruising when they visited. Such observations deserve careful recording and consideration alongside institutional records.
Where concerns arise about the completeness or reliability of an account, they should be translated into specific evidential questions. What document is missing? Which witness can address the discrepancy? What further explanation is required? These are matters which may need to be raised when preparing for a Pre-Inquest Review.
An inconsistency alone does not establish deliberate dishonesty. Memories may be incomplete, records may contain mistakes and accounts may properly change when further information becomes available. Careful scrutiny should always remain fair and directed to establishing what the evidence supports.
The significance of the decision
Foster was a sentencing appeal following a guilty plea. It was not a decision establishing a new test for when an inaccurate witness account becomes a criminal offence, nor did it determine the outcome of the coronial investigation.
Its importance for inquest practice lies in the Court’s express recognition of two consequences of deliberate concealment: the additional distress inflicted on the bereaved family and the damage to confidence in the Coronial investigation itself.
For Mrs Froggett’s family, the wrongdoing included having to discover that the explanations offered about her care were false. The Court treated that experience as a material part of the harm.
For families seeking answers after a death, that recognition matters.