|4th May 2004|
The law and legal process of the United Kingdom contribute to maintaining a stable functioning society by providing a framework of rules to govern and regulate the lives of its citizens as enforced with the imposition of penalties. However, the law is very complex where its application, execution and enforcement can conflict with what is considered right. In this context Justice and the law conflict.
In considering the administration of justice, it must be recognised judges possess a difficult task in reaching a verdict and entering a judgement in accordance with the law of parties who are rarely in agreement. The emphasis “in accordance with the law” cannot be sufficiently stressed.
Where the evidence and/or issues involved give rise to disputing a judgement of the court, as outlined in the “Phoenix Report”, it is stressed such dispute is not a criticism of a particular judge unless specifically stated, particularly where such judgement was achieved by misleading the court with submission of false evidence.
The Phoenix Report is an accurate account of questionable actions of public authorities as directed against an entire family with 9 children, particularly the author who will forthwith be referred to as the claimant.
In accordance with protecting individual rights of public servants and to protect the children involved, the identities of the parties will be withheld unless the involvement of such a party necessitates that individuals name be publicly disclosed, as is the case with the then Secretary of State for Education Estelle Morris.
Estelle Morris chaired a planning meeting concerning Child4 at Princess Margaret Hospital Swindon on 31st July 2000. This in itself — although unusual — is not significant. What is significant is that Swindon Borough Council disclosed a false report of the meeting. Estelle Morris is not mentioned anywhere in the report with the meeting recorded as chaired by a social services manager who never even attended.
Evidence to support the content of “Phoenix Report” may be found in publicly recorded events and as filed by concerned parties in the Swindon Crown, Magistrates’ and County courts under case/claim numbers
Note: Format ‘Childn’ uses the syntax ‘n’ to refer to 1 eldest to 9 youngest of child’s place within the family where Child1 to Child4 had since attained the age of majority (18 years of age and older).
The family in question returned to the United Kingdom in 1994 due to concerns for the safety and welfare of their children with the youngest two children born in Swindon England.
Due to the housing shortage, the local authority placed the entire family in a homeless hostel until March 1996, an environment where child2, child3 and other residing children became victims of sexual assaults. Child2’s second such assault and child3’s third.
Out of concerns, the parents approached social services in an attempt to obtain counselling for the children, particularly child2 and child3 whom had been victims of sexual assaults. However, despite all efforts, the local authority continually failed to address the parents concerns and even failed to act on the recommendations of professionals.
By March 1996, the family managed to acquire a 6-bedroom home with a Housing Association, and although the local environment was suitable for raising children, the bully problem in schools, particularly at secondary level, continued to pose major problems.
In the lead up to the 1997 national elections, the claimant hired a minder to ensure the safety of child1 that attracted global media attention. The claimants concerns highlighted throughout the globe the situation that existed in schools that endangered the welfare and safety of tens of thousands of children and the impact those environments had on impairing their development. Concerns shared by millions of people in the United Kingdom that forced the Prime Minister John Major to introduce a Bill in Parliament to deal with unruly pupils.
By November 1997, the situation with child3 deteriorated significantly - particularly after being the victim of yet another sexual assault at school - to the point of posing a risk to siblings when assaulting child5.
Despite the parents concerns and repeated efforts, the local authority still failed to provide child3 with the professional treatment desperately required.
On 24th April 1999, child3 assaulted child7 forcing the parents to surrender him into the care of the local authority at the age of 14 due to the serious risk he posed to younger siblings. However, child3 was not ostracised from the family with the parents continuing their efforts in vain to obtain professional counselling.
On 28th October 1999, after years of living under chronically stressful conditions, the claimant suffered a nervous breakdown, and this is where his battles with authorities — in and out of court — and Phoenix Report really starts.
Note: Parents send their children to school to obtain an education not to become casualties of war. No matter the arguments, no parent can control what occurs at school or protect their child from harm while at school, and no teacher can be reasonably expected to undertake the task for which they are not qualified or trained in addressing a child’s psychological problems. A task attempted by many teachers — to their credit — out of concerns for their pupils in the absence of professional support and failures by government and local authorities to provide such support. This is particularly relevant to the policies and actions introduced by the Blair government against parents whose children truant out of fear of bullying and assaults at school of which parents are held liable to the extent of serving terms of imprisonment.
On 28th October 1999, the claimant suffered a nervous breakdown at which time he destroyed his own property. Police attendance was requested and attended the scene at which time a fire started resulting in the claimant being arrested, charged and prosecuted with the offences of damaging by fire the study at… “the property”… intending to destroy or damage such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged.
The Mental Health service became involved with the claimant on 29th October 1999 prior to his appearance before the magistrates court on arson charges where he was offered admission to a local psychiatric unit due to his mental state. The claimant declined the offer and was remanded in custody where he spent his first month in the Bristol (Horfield) prison’s Health Care Centre.
Due to the nature of charge — with the evidence against the claimant appearing very damaging — his legal counsel pursued a defence of not guilty due the claimant’s mental state at time. However, the claimant continually insisted it was the wrong defence to the point of dismissing solicitors at least four times prior to trial.
A barrister — on examining the evidence — confirmed the evidence unsound. The matter proceeded to trial using the defence that the claimant did not start the fire. The claimant’s mental state was not an issue or an attempted defence.
On 2nd May 2000, the Swindon Crown Court (ref. no. 54DD0211399) ruled the claimant could not be charged with both offences — as the offences could not co-exist — and ordered the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to define which of the two offences the claimant was being charged with. The CPS selected arson with intent to destroy.
On 3rd May 2000, the claimant received a directed acquittal due to the collapse of the CPS’s case. The claimant’s evidence was never needed or heard. There was no case to answer. See Claimant -v- Wiltshire Constabulary (1)
Note: This marks the start of battles with public authorities — in and out of court — at a cost of over £1million to taxpayers.
The claimant managed a recovery under the worst possible conditions in a prison recorded as possessing the second highest suicide rate in the country, and while wrongly accused of arson. If this was not enough, the claimant also found himself wrongly accused of child abuse with social services wrongly placing his children on the child protection register under the category of emotional abuse.
On 15th March 2000 — while still remanded in custody — the claimant was informed child4 had been struck down by a double-decker bus and was not expected to survive due to the extent of injuries sustained. Child4 did survive but was kept unconscious for 2 weeks due to the seriousness of head injuries resulting in brain damage.
In the lead up to the arson trial, the CPS communicated with Swindon Borough Council stating expecting the claimant to be acquitted where on 25th April 2000 — just a week prior to the trial — the claimant found himself the subject of a Mental Health assessment team as organised by social services.
The CPS proceeded with the prosecution and attempted a conviction. Furthermore, no sooner acquitted of arson, the claimant found himself the subject of a Swindon Borough Council court application to have him detained in hospital under section 2 of the Mental Health Act for the specified reason of showing features of a depressive and paranoid illness. Concerns that only materialised a week prior to trial.
On 3rd May 2000, no sooner acquitted of arson, the council’s application was heard resulting in the court ordering the claimant be detained in hospital under section 2 of the Mental Health Act for a 28-day assessment.
The claimant appealed against his detention with Mental Health Tribunal hearings conducted on the 12th & 18th May 2000. As a result of evidence heard, the Mental Health Tribunal ruled that as the claimants allegations against public authorities were shown true, the claimant could not be considered paranoid. However, due to his refusal to co-operate with psychiatrist, the Mental Health Tribunal upheld his detention.
During the claimant’s involvement with mental health, it became apparent psychiatrists were breaching all doctor patient confidentiality and co-operating with social services to the extent of giving false evidence. Note that on 18th May 2000, a psychiatrist gave evidence to tribunal stating the claimant possessed a psychiatric condition and would benefit with use of psychotic drugs. However, after released, that same psychiatrist stated the claimant did not suffer from any mental illnesses.
On 15th June 2001, a psychiatrist wrote to a social services manager stating, “While I fully understand your concern about claimant and difficult relationship which exists between him and the Children and Families Team, the Mental Health Services cannot continue involvement with any patient purely on the grounds that they are providing a channel of communication to social services. Any individual under the care of the Mental Health Services has firstly to present with a mental disorder which is appropriate for management by psychiatry… Our team has overridden this directive on claimant’s part having conducted full discussions about him and the situation, and have taken the decision to breach confidentiality…
On 20th April 2000, prior to arson trial, a solicitor corresponded with claimant stating, “Social Services, for reasons known only to themselves, made a protection order in November last year. They told your wife in no uncertain terms that if you return home then they would remove the children.”
Note: The public authorities expected the claimant to be acquitted 5 months prior to trial.
On 4th May 2000, the family visited claimant at hospital. Social services — learning of visit — held a conference on 5th May 2000 and applied pressure on mother to terminate contact stating, “… she [social worker manager] would want Claimant to be excluded from the home. This would initially involve either Claimant’s wife obtaining an injunction or social services obtaining an exclusion order, following the obtaining of Interim Care Orders. The latter option would prevent Claimant returning to the home address but not to other places as school or hospital.”
Note the claimant possessed a short criminal record — involving protests — that only once involved destroying property (the window of Swindon Magistrates’ Court in 1996). More important is fact there is no record with police of his being associated with violence or being involved in any criminal action resulting in another person receiving injury. At claimant’s age of over 50 those facts cannot be ignored. Neither can fact that social services had been involved with family since 1994 with recorded meetings confirming the following.
A Conference dated 22nd February 1996 stated, “Claimant is still expecting a lot of problems with Child3… Claimant cannot understand why the counselling for the children has not happened.
A Conference dated 21st May 1999 stated, “Both parents have responded appropriately to Child7’s allegation and have supported her. They have also supported Child3 so that he has not been ostracised by the family, and there is a very strong sense of family, which needs to be maintained… The family are close knit and there is a lot of love and loyalty within it… The parents try to give each child some individual time and the children are relaxed around their parents”.
A Conference dated 23rd September 1999 stated, “Mr & Mrs Claimant work together in caring for the children and are able to discuss issues relating to the children’s care… Mr & Mrs Claimant experiences of violence in the past have been extreme. As a result they tend to keep their children insulated from the outside world. This can on occasion make them appear over protective… Conference concluded that it is inappropriate for Child3 to return home because of the high risk he poses. Social services manager stressed that people cannot live in families when they are constantly preventing something disastrous from happening. The parents did their best and a message needs to be past to Mr Claimant that the agencies do not believe he was to blame.”
Social services intentions and preferences of excluding the claimant from his home and family were clearly stated and clearly not justifiable or achievable without manipulation of the law or submission of false evidence. What followed is without a doubt one of the most abused and malicious uses of the Children Act by a local authority ever witnessed.
The Family Law Act 1996 amended the Children Act to include a section that gave the power for an alleged abuser to leave the house in which the child is living. However, the local authority needed to satisfy certain requirements before able to exclude the claimant from home and family.
Note that within the British Judicial system family proceedings involving children are conducted in private and rarely involve children giving evidence with social services entrusted to represent the children’s interest. A trust violated by deliberately misrepresenting and exploiting the children to satisfy their own interest and first test.
Satisfying the third test was more difficult as the mother refused to have the claimant excluded from home or family insisting he was not a risk to the children and would never do anything to harm them.
The main aspect that could justify actions relied on the claimant’s mental state. However, the Mental Health Tribunal hearing of 12th May 2000 torpedoed that justification resulting in social services visiting the claimant in hospital on 16th May 2000 — two days prior to tribunal’s final hearing of 18th May 2000 — in an attempt to intimidate the claimant into providing them with a forensic psychiatric report. The claimant refused and immediately filed a statement with tribunal stating intentions to terminate co-operation with psychiatrists.
On 23rd May 2000, the local authority filed an application for Interim Care Orders in the Swindon Family Proceedings Court stating the mother indicated consent to the exclusion requirement where their own records confirms otherwise. To quote from social services statement of 14th June 2000 “Mrs Claimant refused to sign the statement written by social services to agree to the exclusion of claimant from the family home.”
The reasons supporting the local authority’s applications for Interim Care Orders came in 3 parts:
On 25th May 2000, the local authority issued the claimant with a notice by hand of a court hearing listed for 26th May 2000 with regard childcare proceedings. Given the claimant was detained in hospital, the claimant could not attend and was denied the opportunity to legal representation.
On 26th May 2000, the mother — under duress — filed an application with court for Occupation and Non Molestation Orders with powers of arrest attached. To quote the local authority, “At court Mrs Claimant agreed to take out her own orders preventing Mr Claimant from entering the family home so our applications for Interim Care Orders were adjourned.”
Note: The judgement entered against the claimant for Occupation and Non Molestation Orders with powers of arrest attached were unlawful, as a judgement on a failure to give notice or intention to defend cannot be entered against a patient.
On 30th May 2000, the claimant was officially released from hospital and homeless. The claimant could not even risk violating the injunction to visit his children for fear the local authority would use such actions to justify removing the children from home.
On 31st May 2000 and 1st June 2000, the local authority applied pressure on claimants wife by instructing police to search the family home for claimant whom they stated believing returned home followed by numerous unannounced visits by social services. The local authorities actions made intentions very clear. Contrary to the truth, the stage was set to show the family wished the claimant excluded from the home to justify actions at the expense of terrorising the children. Note this is not an isolated incident of abusing police powers. See Claimant -v- Wiltshire Constabulary (2)
In June 2000, Child3 — whom had been in care since April 1999 — turned 16. However, due to problems the local authority had in controlling him, social services wanted Child3 removed from his placement and placed in B&B accommodation using Child3’s age to justify their decision. The claimant refused to agree with intentions stating such an act would put Child3 at risk. Social Services then attempted to have the mother agree with the intended action. The mother supported the claimant stating such an act would endanger Child3’s safety.
Failing to get either parent to agree to Child3 being placed in B&B accommodation, social services brought pressure on Child3 himself stating that he was old enough to make his own decisions and did not need to take the claimant’s advice. Child3 snapped under pressure resulting in social services having Child3 arrested for criminal damage and assault when throwing a chair at a senior residential care officer on 30th June 2000.
To avoid a repetition of the incident both parents agreed — under duress — with the alternate B&B placement.
On 17th July 2000, another resident of the B&B broke into Child3’s room and assaulted him — while still in bed — with a cricket bat. Police and social services were aware of the incident and the claimant’s concerns with the placement increased.
On 19th July 2000, fearing further assaults, Child3 stayed out late afraid to return home at which time he was raped. Police investigations resulted in an arrest, and the claimant was at his wits end to resolve protecting Child3 from himself and further attacks.
Within days of Child3 being raped, Child3 climbed to the top floor of a multi-story car park threatening jumping to his death. Police emergency services attended the scene and talked him out of taking his own life. Note that despite obvious problems, and psychiatric assessments supporting Child3’s need for professional help, that help was still denied him.
Note Child3 was 15 when the local authority initiated the childcare proceedings and their application excluded Child3. Furthermore, the court appointed guardian rightly considered Child3 in need and at risk, but attempts to have Child3 included in the proceedings met with opposition from local authority. Of all the children said to be at risk, Child3 was the only child justifying court intervention to ensure his welfare and safety but was excluded from the proceedings. Why? To quote from the NSPCC Psychiatric Assessment Report dated 10 August 2000, “In all respects, Child3 presents as a child in need in terms of the Children Act 1989, since he has experienced serious significant harm through neglect, physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse and a failure by the local authority to treat his psychiatric disorders…”
On 12th July 2000, the parents attended a board meeting at the Royal National Hospital Head Injuries Unit in Bath regarding Child4. The board meeting included hospital officials, Swindon social services and other professionals.
Child4 had been a patient for 4 months at this point as a result of serious head injuries sustained in a traffic accident that resulted in brain damage. The extent of injuries included memory loss where Child4 had difficulties recognising his own mother.
Hospital officials stated Child4 was considered a threat to himself, hospital staff (nursing staff disagreed) and other patients (nursing staff again disagreed), where officials clearly stated wanting Child4 removed from the hospital by 14th July 2000.
Within the meeting officials stated Child4 was costing them over £8000 per week with much of the meeting revolving around what department — Health or Social Services — should be ultimately responsible for Child4’s welfare. It clearly stated that neither department possessed the resources or placement to cater for Child4’s needs.
The debate as to which department was ultimately responsible for Child4’s welfare finally came to a close with social services stating having no alternative but to compromise Child4’s safety. It was at this point that the claimant went to leave the meeting in disgust before stopped by chairperson stating Child4’s safety won’t be compromised and social services stating intentions to hold an emergency meeting on 13th July 2000.
On 13th July 2000, social services communicated with Secretary of State for Education Estelle Morris where it was resolved that the Health Service were legally bound to ensure Child4’s welfare and could not have him removed from hospital until a suitable placement could be found to cater to his needs.
On 31st July 2000, a meeting regarding Child4 was conducted at Princess Margaret’s Hospital Swindon. The meeting was chaired by the Education Secretary Estelle Morris. Within hours of the meeting — at 4.02am on 1st August 2000 to be precise — the claimant perpetrated a bomb hoax on local authority resulting in an 18-month custodial sentence of which he served half.
During the course of claimant’s 9-months imprisonment, the childcare proceedings continued, and the claimant’s mental stability was again in question and needed to be put at rest. Hence, the claimant agreed to not one but two independent psychiatric reports as written by Dr Martin Rowton-Lee (dated 13th November 2000) and Dr Nicholas Wright (dated 1st December 2000) that concluded:
On 5th March 2001, at commencement of childcare proceedings listed for 7-days, the local authority put forward a proposal of retracting their application for Care Orders if claimant agreed to the lower Supervision Orders. This placed the claimant in a moral dilemma. The issues were not resolved and the claimant could not ignore the extent of false evidence or his own legal counsel stating, “The management of this case has been woefully inadequate and in breach of all relevant guidance - whether from the Children Act Advisory Committee or decided authorities. The presentation of the father’s case is significantly impaired by this inadequacy. The Local Authority’s position was unclear at the pre-trial review (26/2/01). Some clarification of suggested threshold has been received. There is no opportunity to take the father’s instructions thereon and to properly prepare his case until the morning of the 5th March 2001 [day of trial]. The father’s legal representatives apologise in advance for the inability to file a detailed Skeleton Argument, particularly on the facts and threshold criteria”.
The claimant’s case had not been adequately prepared, and to proceed risked the local authority obtaining Care Orders that in itself risked the children removed from their home. Hence, the claimant agreed to the lower Supervision Orders. However, despite the impairment of case, the facts remain that:
On 8th May 2001, the local authority applied for an Injunction Order — case SN103054 — forbidding the claimant from entering within 50 metres of premises owned or controlled by Swindon Borough Council, where on 15th May 2001 His Honour Judge Meston stated words to the effect that if the claimant assured the court that he would not engage in any activity against the council then the court would not grant the injunction. The claimant respectfully and honestly informed the court that he could not give that assurance.
On 20th July 2001, Child3 found himself before the Swindon Youth Court on numerous charges of which he was found unfit to plead with court ordering his detention in hospital under section 38 of the Mental Health Act. A psychological disorder was allowed to go untreated for years resulting in Child3 suffering severe physical and emotional harm. He is currently serving his 3rd year of detention in hospital.
On 31st July 2001, the claimant’s wife telephoned claimant informing him Child7 accused Child4 of assault resulting in both children being removed from home. Child4 for questioning by police, and Child7 for questioning and examination by professionals.
On day in question, the mother was extremely upset and concerned for both children. The claimant could not attend the home in person without violating his wife’s injunction — as imposed by local authority — and sent a friend to the home to provide moral support while he attempted to find out what was happening. However, despite all attempts to contact social services, and fact such attempts were made before 5:00pm, all he could get was an answering machine. As a result of frustrations and concerns for both children, the claimant left a threatening message on the answering machine resulting in his licence being revoked and return to prison.
On 15th November 2001, the claimant responded to local authority’s application to obtain an extension to the existing Injunction Order — case SN103054 — who supported the application with incident of 31st July 2001.
The local authority failed to produce the actual taped evidence as insisted stating it had been destroyed. The message disclosed to the court was stated as not the same message left on the answering machine.
The claimant was arrested for suspicion to cause criminal damage — as accused by social services — with police having no evidence to pursue the matter. The claimant was being released — as witnessed by solicitor — when a faxed message arrived from the Probation Service stating the claimant’s probation had been revoked. The claimant went straight to prison without the opportunity to be heard in a court of law.
To quote from the social services manager statement (case SN103054) of 8th November 2001, “…Thought was given as to whether the message was in direct breach of the Defendant’s licence conditions. PO1 of the Probation Service advised that ‘potentially’ the defendant was in breach of his licence but he would have to consult with senior managers to confirm the exact position.”
In considering the evidence, His Honour Judge Barclay ruled that a balance was required and granting the injunction was also to protect the claimant from Swindon Borough Council.
The situation was out of control with children exploited and harmed by the very agencies entrusted to protect them.
Although the claimant provided more than enough evidence proving the stability of his mind, he remained accused of arson. The claimant had been acquitted but not proved innocent, and the issue could not be pursued within childcare proceedings despite being used and made relevant by local authority.
On 17th October 2001, the claimant initiated legal proceedings against the Wiltshire & Swindon Fire Authority (claim SN106085) for filing a false “Report of Fire” Brigade incident number 10753.
On 17th October 2001, the claimant initiated legal proceedings against Wiltshire Constabulary (claim SN106086) for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
On 10th December 2001, the claimant initiated legal proceedings against Swindon Borough Council (claim SN107008) as Child3’s “litigation friend” for negligence.
Due to concerns and social services actions of handicapping the claimant’s contact with children, the claimant instructed solicitors back to court with regard childcare proceedings (case SN00C00248).
It should be clear that the local authority made numerous allegations against the claimant that he denied, and the claimant made numerous allegations against the local authority. The local authority supported their allegations from records that they themselves had written. The claimant responded from records written by local authority. Professional witnesses enlisted to provide reports for the court were provided with the local authority’s own records and statements to base their reports. None were given the claimant’s response to those reports or statements or supported evidence. Those same professional witnesses were also given statements related to the arson charge of which the claimant was acquitted but not the details or fact the claimant was acquitted.
On 14th June 2002, a Community Psychiatric Nurse (CPN) who had been involved with the claimant’s case since 29th October 1999 — and well known and respected by courts — wrote to the claimant stating, “A tiger in the jungle - being hunted. Even your famous bush hat won’t keep the predators away! In the deepest jungles of Swindon - Watch out! How tempting it is to pretend that everyone sets out with the best intentions. You know much better than most. It was good knowing you and I truly wish you much better luck than you have had for many years. You and all your family deserve it.”
This is not the kind of letter one would expect from a highly qualified respected professional — whose valued service courts often sought — to a person considered paranoid or mentally ill. Indeed, the claimant possessed no mental illnesses and proved as much. This raises questions. Given the claimant’s credibility within the courts remains intact, If the claimant’s supported facts are true, how far were the authorities prepared to go to discredit his evidence?
The legal proceedings initiated by the local authority in the matter of the Children Act and claimant’s six youngest children finally resulted in a hearing in the Swindon County Court — case SN00C00248 — on 24th June 2002 that concluded on 26th June 2002 where His Honour Judge Wade ordered:
The claimant believing His Honour Judge Wade drew the wrong inference from facts and misdirected himself in the judgement handed down lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal on 8th July 2002 (reference B1/2002/1456) with claimant’s grounds for appeal stating:
On 19th August 2002, the local authority officially notified the claimant that all contact with his children had been suspended. This was a result of an incident where Child5 and Child9 were transported from home — under instruction of social services — to a venue organised by social services for supervised contact with claimant.
The claimant and children arrived at the venue that was found to be both closed and locked. Nobody was in attendance.
After waiting about 15 minutes, the claimant decided to take the children to visit their grandmother. The claimant notified the mother of the situation and informed her that he would personally return the children home by 7:30pm.
On returning the children home police were found in attendance having responded to a call from social services that alleged the claimant had abducted the children. Investigations confirmed events, and given the claimant had returned the children, no charges were made. However, had police picked up the claimant prior to his returning the children, the claimant would of been arrested and possibly charged with child abduction.
On 10th September 2002, the Royal Court of Justice required the claimant’s personal appearance at the Court of Appeal in London to hear the grounds for appeal. However, the claimant was penniless, not legally represented, denied a travel warrant and had no means to attend where his efforts to attend were even recorded. Hence, on 10th September 2002, the Court of Appeal upheld the original judgement on grounds the claimant failed to appear. The claimant’s appeal failed because he could not afford a rail ticket.
On 17th December 2002, the claimant initiated legal proceedings as Child4’s litigation friend against Swindon Borough Council (claim SN205762) for negligence and to revoke Child4’s care order.
On 17th December 2002, the claimant initiated legal proceedings against Swindon Borough Council (claim SN205768) for multiple breaches of duty, human rights violations, perverting the course of justice (as defined within his attached particulars of claim), persecution, victimisation, falsifying records connected with the claimant and his family, and destruction of claimant’s marriage.
On 12th March 2003, Child4 telephoned the claimant that he had absconded from the local authority’s care and requested the claimant’s assistance. Child4 informed the claimant of instances of violence perpetrated against him while in care by other residents. Incidents supported by bruises to his body, including abrasions between Child4’s right wrist and knuckles consistent with use to ward attack of a blunt weapon. The claimant immediately filed a statement with Swindon County Court stating
“On this 12th day of March 2003, Child4 telephoned myself at 2:30pm stating he was absconding and requested assistance. Child4 had informed myself of acts of violence against himself by other residence at the care centre. I agreed to assist Child4 and secured his safety and will challenge anybody who attempts to remove him from my care. Furthermore, I refuse to recognise the defendant’s authority or that of any court that persists in punishing an innocent child incapable of defending himself. Child4 had been denied a fair and impartial hearing resulting in his imprisonment, and it is imprisonment.”
“I am defying the illegal court order as handed down… on 26th of July 2002 that was acquired on the defendant’s false evidence. Child4 is not a criminal or menace to society and is a mentally disabled child whom had been denied a fair and impartial hearing resulting in his removal from family and home on false allegations…”
“Child4’s human rights had been violated, and continue to be violated, by an incompetent system that preaches a child’s welfare is considered paramount but is itself responsible for considerable damage.”
“As Child4’s father I possess a moral duty to Child4 that no court can or has a right to challenge as based on the false and fabricated evidence of the defendant, and no threat of imprisonment will force me to relinquish that duty. The defendant exercised an abuse and excessive use of power to cover up its own failures without consideration of Child4’s welfare. Health professionals and social workers falsified reports and the court ruled against the evidence.”
“Child4 is an impressionable and vulnerable child whom is open to exploitation by government and local authority’s. Government bodies who themselves have access to the means to create their own evidence for the court that I had already shown to be false.
For a period of two weeks from 12th March 2003, the Wiltshire Constabulary subjected the claimant to numerous unlawful searches of his property — under instruction from social services — for Child4, often two searches per day, and using over 20 different police officers in groups of 2 to 4 at a time.
At the time the Wiltshire Constabulary subjected the claimant to the unlawful searches stated, the police subjected the mother — terrorising the children — and Child2 to similar unlawful searches of their properties.
On 15th March 2003, Child7 corresponded with claimant stating, “I have mist you so much and I love you so much and I did not see you for a long time and wy didn’t you see use for a long time… and I wishend we be afraid again.”
The searches against claimant could be tolerated, but the attack on his family, and it was an attack, would not. Hence, the claimant snared the authorities in their own trap. A social services manager resigned shortly after. See Claimant -v- Wiltshire Constabulary (2)
Note: Children have the right, not only to protection from harm, but to have every opportunity to develop to their full potential socially, intellectually, emotionally and physically. Hence, the Children Act’s philosophy is that the best place for a child to be brought up is usually with the child’s own family, and the local authority should provide support to that end. However, Swindon Borough Council not only failed to provide such support, but also deliberately exploited the children to further their own interest with a total disregard of the harm inflicted on family and children within. No clever manipulation of law can justify such actions.
The Property: Up to 28th October 1999, the claimant resided with his wife and eight of his nine children in a six-bedroom detached house (“the property”). The ground floor of the property included a living room, dining room converted into an office (“the study”), hallway converted into a dining room, bathroom and a kitchen where archways interconnected the living room, study and kitchen. The front door was located in the hallway and back door in study. The study contained three desks, large display cabinet, a bookcase and computer equipment. The window of study overlooked the garden and a heavily trafficked road at the rear of the property.
On 28th October 1999, the claimant was arrested, charged and prosecuted with the offences of damaging by fire the study at… “the property”… intending to destroy or damage such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged.
On 2nd May 2000, the Swindon Crown Court ruled claimant could not be charged with both offences — as the offences could not co-exist — and ordered the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to define which of the two offences the claimant was being charged with. The CPS selected arson with intent to destroy.
On 3rd May 2000, the claimant received a directed acquittal due to the collapse of the CPS’s case. The claimant’s evidence was never needed or heard. There was no case to answer.
The claimant was acquitted due to CPS’s failure to show the offence of arson was in fact committed. The evidence heard did not support arson and the court could not rule out the fire resulted from an electrical fault.
For the arrest, imprisonment and prosecution to be lawful requires the existence of an offence. No such offence existed which left the reasonable belief, cause or suspicion that such an offence existed.
It is not enough for police to state possessing a reasonable belief, cause or suspicion that the claimant committed an offence. The police must also show that such an offence existed or was reasonably believed has having existed.
Family witness statements were very damaging on surface but not supported in fact. Those same witnesses; with the exception of Child4, gave evidence for CPS at the trial. However, what police alleged witnesses stated and what those witnesses actually stated was not the same thing. Furthermore, all three family witnesses failed to read and/or comprehend the contents of statements signed. One suffered from dyslexia, the second a child, and the third was in a distressed state at time. Their witness statements not only conflicted with other witnesses and evidence, including forensic evidence, but also failed to support their own evidence when given under oath on the stand.
The claimant was not only accused of deliberately starting the fire but of starting the fire using an accelerant where a number of accelerants were even named, specifically methylated spirits, lighter fluid, paint stripper, petrol or paraffin.
The only substance on the property that qualified as an accelerant was a near empty bottle of methylated spirits that was covered by a bookcase at start of incident. The photographed bar code confirms its purchase in March 1994 where witnesses and photograph confirmed it retained most of its content of that day.
The main aspect of case relied on one of two conflicting scenarios. Did the police arrive prior or after the start of fire? The police stated prior where their own evidence — Incident Log No. 252 020 — proves otherwise:
The police were at scene 3 minutes before the first report of fire was made, and that first report of fire originated from an officer at the scene. Furthermore, note:
The police stated the claimant covered himself with an accelerant and threatened to set himself alight.
On 28th April 2000, the police forensic scientist specifically faxed PC3 stating not made aware of references to petrol or paraffin on claimant or the possible existence of lighter fluid. He further stated his analysis showed no such accelerants were identifiable. [Evidence withheld from the claimants defence at trial as was the fact that the same forensic scientist was not made of references of possible existence of paint stripper.]
The police forensic scientist further faxed the police stating agreeing with David Tucker’s (consultant scientist for defence) views as expressed at paragraphs 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 of David Tucker’s fire report. [Evidence withheld from claimant’s defence at trial.]
On 3rd May 2000, the police forensic scientist revised his statement on stand to concur with David Tucker’s fire report stating forensics conclusively showed claimant’s clothing possessed no trace of any accelerants at the time seized.
The police stated asking the claimant if anybody else was in the house where the claimant replied, “No, I made sure that I got them all out before I did it”. The police omitted did what. The claimant demolished his own property.
The police grounds for arrest were given on the basis the claimant allegedly set the kitchen on fire.
Police stated a phantom witness allegedly stated the claimant started a fire in the kitchen. A witness that did not exist and could not be produced for cross-examination.
PC3 stated, “We entered the kitchen area of the house, the room was full of smoke and I could see that a large section of the kitchen area was on fire… Flames from the fire rose up and touched the ceiling around us”.
PC1 stated, “… the curtains were well alight. They formed a partition between the kitchen and another room… the effect was like a wall of flame”.
At no point was there ever a fire in kitchen or a curtain partition between kitchen and study. Photographs and fire officers confirmed this fact.
WPC1 falsely stated witness1 would testify hearing claimant state he would set the house and himself alight. [Evidence withheld from claimant’s defence at trial.]
WPC1 falsely stated the claimant’s wife would testify that the claimant stated he would set the house and himself alight. She further stated “The male proceeded to set the house alight and to pour paint stripper over himself”. [Evidence withheld from claimant’s defence at trial.]
WPC1 not PC2 took Child1’s statement. That is why PC2 has no record is his notebook. [Evidence withheld from claimant’s defence at trial.]
PC1 stated possessing a reasonable suspicion that the claimant committed arson, but the very nature of the charge sheet is a contradiction. It comprises of 2 charges that could not co-exist.
Arson is defined as the act of maliciously setting fire to property where PC1 accused the claimant of deliberately starting the fire using an accelerant.
PC1 could not have possessed a true belief the claimant deliberately started the fire to include the alternate offence of being reckless.
With regards being reckless, it is not an offence for failing to foresee the consequences of actions impossible to foresee. [Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967]
PC2 stated that he:
Note: [Evidence withheld from claimant’s defence at trial]
It is the Scene of Crime Officer (SOC) responsibility to collect and package any materials requiring examination at a forensic science laboratory. The SOC did attend the scene and did not collect any evidence for forensic examination because there existed no evidence to support arson to collect or package.
The claimant questions how and why the SOC failed to find and mention evidence supporting an electrical fault. The family did, and the claimant possesses evidence to support that fact. [Evidence withheld from claimant’s defence at trial]
PC2 confirmed that failing to call the Fire Investigation Team enlisting the services of an unqualified fire officer to provide him with expert evidence into the cause of a fire they never investigated. [Evidence withheld from claimant’s defence at trial]
PC2 stated, “It is evident that I spoke with Sub Officer… with a view to his preparing a report confirming the cause of the fire and use of accelerant”. How? The fire brigade admit never investigating the fire.
The Wiltshire & Swindon Fire Authority (claim SN106085) admit not investigating the cause of fire stating it was considered police responsibility that they supported with the disclosure of “Home Office’s Circular of the Investigation of Fire of Doubtful Origin dated the 16th of November 1992” marked exhibit “GB1”. [Evidence withheld from claimant’s defence at trial.]
Page 114, paragraph 7 states “… The police are solely responsible for the direction and control of any criminal investigation into the cause of any fire of doubtful origin…”
Page 115, paragraph 12 states “It is the responsibility of the police… to collate and maintain the integrity of recovered evidence, to take appropriate measures in co-operation with the fire officer to preserve the scene of the fire …”
Page 115, paragraph 13 states “… training does not equip fire or police officers to give interpretative scientific evidence in court as “expert” witnesses… The giving of evidence by fire or police officers should normally be restricted to “factual” evidence”.
Page 116, paragraph 16 of GB1 supported the Fire Authorities defence that the FDR1 fire report is only compiled for statistical purposes, and based on speculation not investigation. It was never intended for use in a court of law as evidence. [Evidence withheld from claimant’s defence at trial]
Page 118, “Annex A” of GB1 provides a clear summary of procedures to be followed in the investigation of fires of doubtful origin. Procedures of which the Wiltshire Constabulary failed to follow. [Evidence withheld from claimant’s defence at arson trial]
PC2 communicated with fire officer to supply a report and statement for a cause of fire and use of accelerant of a fire known never investigated. [Evidence withheld from claimant’s defence at trial.]
PC2 stated being involved with the Fire Authority to establish a cause of fire. But his actions do not support this. Instead of trying to establish the cause of fire he attempts to show the claimant committed an offence contrary to evidence and avoids a fire investigation.
The police wrongly attempted to convince the claimant — while mentally disordered, confused and suffering from partial memory loss — that he started the fire using an accelerant.
PACE states, “If an officer has any suspicion, or is told in good faith that a person… may be mentally disordered… then that person shall be treated as mentally disordered…”
Police were informed the claimant might be mentally disordered prior to interview.
PACE states “… a person who is mentally disordered… whether suspected or not, must not be interviewed… in the absence of an appropriate adult…”
Police interviewed the claimant in the absence of an appropriate adult.
PACE states “No Police officer may try to obtain answers to questions or to elicit a statement by the use of oppression”.
Police wrongly informed the claimant accelerants were identified as starting the fire.
Police wrongly informed the claimant that the child’s laptop computer was on fire.
"Police wrongly informed the claimant, when they responded to a call [made by a third party about a separate matter], that the house was alight."
Points of note:
There can be no reasonable and probable cause where police find it necessary to fabricate evidence to secure an arrest and conviction. Giving false evidence to secure a conviction amounts to ‘malicious prosecution’, and being detained in prison for a crime not committed as a result amounts to wrongful imprisonment.
On 30th December 2003, the Swindon County Court struck out the claimants claim stating said claim had no chance of success. The claimant’s evidence strongly suggests otherwise as it is overwhelming.
The claimant — having lost confidence in British Justice — did not appeal but lodged a “Notice of Non-Confidence” with Swindon County Court. The matter is being pursued in criminal court where the claimant — as criminal — knows he will get a hearing and solicitor. To date, the claimant had to proceed with all claims as a litigant in person. His son Child3’s claim was refused public funding 5 times before succeeding with state of Child4’s claim unknown. Both Child3 and Child4’s claims are currently in the hands of a court appointed Official Solicitor and, for the present, proceeding towards High Court of Justice.
The claimant initiated legal proceedings against Wiltshire & Swindon Fire Authority — claim SN106085 — for knowingly filing a false “Report of Fire” brigade incident number 10753 that contributed to his wrongful arrest and detention.
As the claimant was arrested prior to fire brigades arrival at the scene, the Swindon County Court rightly decided the claim possessed no chance of success and struck out the claim on that basis. However, although the claimant made an error in the wording of his claim, the matter proceeded through a number of hearings before finally being struck out, and in the course of those hearings additional crucial evidence was acquired that was relevant to the claimant’s claim against Wiltshire Constabulary. Furthermore, the claimant acquired enough evidence, as filed by Wiltshire & Swindon Fire Authority, to justify and support initialising further proceedings on the basis the fire brigade did indeed falsify their FDR1 “Report of Fire” brigade incident number 10753.
At “Record of Interview” dated 28th October 1999 at tape counter 1930, DC1 stated, “Claimant is advised that a Fire Officer has stated that some accelerants were used in the area of the table in the study…”
A fire officer specifically recorded at section 5.1 (c) of his FDR1 lighter fluid was used to start the fire.
Within the Indictment (CPS Ref: 54DD0211399) that included all witness statements and exhibits, lighter fluid is mentioned only once in the entire indictment, and that is at Section 5.1 (c) of the FDR1.
The fire officer stated within his statement of 29th November 1999, “On a table… there appeared to be signs that some form of accelerant had been used. This was apparent by the burn marks on the table top.”
On 3rd May 2000, the fire officer revised his statement under oath admitting the burn marks on tabletop could have also been caused by pieces of burning fabric curtain falling there. Photographs clearly displayed tabletop littered with burnt remains of fabric curtain.
The fire officer stated within his statement of 29th November 1999 and under oath on 3rd May 2000, “I could not find any evidence of what type of accelerant had been used”. However, his FDR1 stated the fire was deliberately started using lighter fluid.
There was no evidence to support arson or use of lighter fluid.
The fire officer falsified the FDR1 “Report of Fire” brigade incident number 10753.
Within the Wiltshire & Fire Authority’s defence, the fire authority admitted not calling the Fire Investigation Team to investigate the cause of fire stating that — as it was classified as crime scene — the responsibility for investigating the cause of fire lay with Wiltshire Constabulary.
Within the claims against the Wiltshire & Swindon Fire Authority and Wiltshire Constabulary, it was further discovered and proved nobody investigated the cause of fire.
The most incredible piece of evidence obtained from Wiltshire & Swindon Fire Authority was fact that the FDR1 fire report was not even a true report of fire. The Home Office circular confirmed the FDR1 designed solely for statistical purposes and never intended for use as evidence in a court of law due to being based on speculation not investigation.
The claimant saw no reason to pursue the matter further with Wiltshire & Swindon Fire Authority. He had all the evidence needed to pursue it elsewhere.
In early 2001, government investigators became involved in investigating the Swindon Local Education Authority, and again in investigating the Swindon Borough Council Social Services Department in June 2001. The claimant provided said investigators with his own report.
As a result of government investigations, the government slated Swindon Borough Council’s record on education and the private firm “Tribal” finally took charge of the councils failing education department in May 2002.
As a result of government investigations the government slated Swindon Borough Council Social Services Department and gave them until November 2002 to improve or the government would intervene further.
The level of failures of Swindon Borough Council was deemed extreme enough to result in a vote of no confidence and shift of political power in Swindon.
In June 2002, Dr Peter Swinyard, chairman of the Swindon Medical Committee, went public stating the Mental Health Service was in crisis and close to collapse. Mental health services for even children were almost non-existent.
In August 2002, a senior social worker Deborah Rees went public and spoke out against the arrogance and failure of Swindon Borough Council’s Social Services Department resulting in her eventual dismissal. Deborah Rees had long since established her own web site at www.swindonboroughcouncil.com .
In September 2002, it was publicly announced Swindon Borough Council was performing so badly that it would soon find itself directly run by the government, and in November 2002, the deputy Prime Minister John Prescott appointed Tony Allen to help the failing council.
Note: the Royal National Hospital in Bath also came under investigation resulting in change of management.
Throughout the claimant’s detention in prison for arson while also recovering from a nervous breakdown, social services took advantage of claimant’s inability to defend himself and wrongly accused him of acts of child abuse and domestic violence in attempts to justify their actions and failures. On being acquitted rather than allow the claimant to restore and live a normal life, the local authority — in the form of social services — set out to either show the claimant as mentally unstable or have him admit to untrue allegations of domestic violence and child abuse. The local authorities own records confirm these facts, and it is interesting to note that on the 26th of June 2003, the Swindon Magistrates’ Court in convicting the claimant stated imposing a lighter sentence because of what Swindon Borough Council did to him. The court committed itself as recognising what was done to the claimant by Swindon Borough Council as wrong. See Claimant -v- Wiltshire Constabulary (2)
The claimant initiated legal proceedings against Swindon Borough Council — claim SN205768 — on 17th December 2002, where his particulars of claim exceeded 50 pages in length resulting said claim being eventually struck out on the council’s given grounds that the claim had no prospect of succeeding and was an abuse of the court process or was otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings where the claimant’s particulars of claim are so diffuse and prolix that they were impossible to plead to. The council further stated that what the claimant appeared to be seeking from the court was some general public enquiry into the conduct of Swindon Borough Council as distinct from trial. Given the claimant had already within the childcare proceedings requested such a public enquiry that aspect of claimant’s action should have been obvious. However, that did not give cause to invalidate the claim, and given the strength of claimant’s evidence supporting the local authority’s actions proving local authority submitted false evidence within the childcare proceedings, the reality was the claimant’s claim was struck because of his ignorance of legal procedure and failure to enlist the services of a solicitor that he could not afford.
It is beyond the scope of this report to go into full details of claimant’s particulars of claim against Swindon Borough Council, but this section will examine those aspects of claimant’s allegations regarding the giving of false evidence of social services and associated agencies that are not covered elsewhere within this report.
Throughout the childcare proceedings that extended to the Swindon County Court (case SN00C00248), the local authority persisted in filing false statements insisting social services became involved with the claimant’s family in November 1997.
The claimant disclosed evidence proving social services became involved with the family in 1994. The evidence included two of social service’s own Statutory Reviews dated 22nd February and 19th March 1996.
The claimant also submitted evidence from a social worker manager’s statement dated 4th May 2001 stating, “The Swindon Social Services Department became involved with Mr and Mrs Claimant in 1994”.
With reference to the above social services managers sworn statement of 4th May 2001 as filed with Swindon County Court (case SN0103054), note
The manager stated, “For a substantial amount of time, however, Social Services became concerned about the Claimant’s mental health. It was felt by both the Department and Psychiatrists that he was mentally unstable, therefore, he was placed in compulsory detention under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act until 30 May 2000”.
Social services were clearly aware of claimant’s release from hospital having proved he was not suffering from any mental illnesses and equally aware of the 2 independent psychiatric reports prior to the statement quoted above that the claimant was not mentally ill. The local authority deliberately misled the court.
The manager in question is also recorded as chairing a meeting at Princess Margaret’s Hospital with regard Child4 on the 31st of July 2000 that she did not attend and of which was chaired by the Education Secretary Estelle Morris.
On 23rd May 2000, the local authority initiated childcare proceedings in Swindon Family Proceedings Court (case 1305872 - FPC/3015/00/14-19) that extended to Swindon County Court (case SN00C00248). Most of the local authority’s statements were filed by the family social worker SW1. With reference to the local authority’s “Reasons for Interim Care Order” note:
With reference to local authority’s “Reasons for Interim Care Order”, particularly note:
Attention is drawn to a letter from the local authority in connection with childcare proceedings (case SN00C00248) dated 10th June 2002 regarding producing witnesses for the hearing listed for 24th June 2002. None of the witnesses requested by claimant were produced with the local authority falsely stating the social worker SW2 did not assist SW1 in her work. The claimant showed otherwise.
Dr Woodhouse’s letter of 16th May 2000 was in response to SW2 undisclosed letter of 9th May 2000 regarding Child3 where Dr Woodhouse stated “I have met Claimant on one occasion… I was not surprised by the children’s recent disclosures… I also have concerns about Claimant being able to return home, given the recent events and the impact they have had on the children”.
Dr Woodhouse formed an opinion based on information received from SW1 and SW2. The claimant’s single meeting years prior was with regard Child3 and Dr Woodhouse had no concerns about the claimant at that time. SW1 and SW2 influenced a professional with allegations that were never disclosed.
On 17th May 2000, The Limes wrote to SW1 and SW2 regarding Child2.
On 16th of May 2000, a Primary School responded to SW1 and SW2 request for a report regarding Child6, Child7 and Child8.
SW2 was clearly very involved in background to case and although Child3’s social worker, she possessed of a great deal of information regarding other family members, including the claimant. Information she cannot be heard to deny she distorted when consulting with professionals involved. (To be discussed further)
The claimant was wrongly denied the right to have SW2 produced at the trial for cross-examination.
Attention is drawn to fact that all this activity commenced on 16th May 2000 — the same day social services failed to intimidate the claimant — and after social services conference of 5th May 2000 that stated, “… she [social worker manager] would want Claimant to be excluded from the home. This would initially involve either Claimant’s wife obtaining an injunction or social services obtaining an exclusion order, following the obtaining of Interim Care Orders. The latter option would prevent Claimant returning to the home address but not to other places as school or hospital.”
Part of claimant’s evidence includes an NSPCC Psychiatric Assessment Report regarding Child3 dated 10th August 2000.
The NSPCC’s report was very damaging to claimant but not by any direct allegations made by Child3. SW2 willingly and knowingly distorted the truth and manipulated the interview. To quote from page 13 of the report, “SW2 explained that all these children were regarded as being at risk from Claimant because of the arson incident which had taken place in which he had, as we were told, burnt down the family home… SW2 said that Claimant had been sectioned because of the matter…”
The allegation of claimant burning down the family home was known by SW2 as untrue. Furthermore, note SW2 withheld the information of claimant being acquitted of the offence.
The allegation of claimant being sectioned because of the matter was also known untrue. SW2 was aware of why the claimant was sectioned and equally aware the claimant had been released because he was not considered mentally ill.
SW2 misled professionals to falsely portray the claimant as a violent mentally ill arsonist.
Social services sabotaged the assessment in attempt to vindicate themselves of negligence at Child3’s and claimant’s expense. However, their negligence did not escape the NSPCC’s attention where they stated, “In all respects, Child3 presents as a child in need in terms of the Children Act 1989, since he has experienced serious significant harm through neglect, physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse and a failure by the local authority to treat his psychiatric disorders…”
The local authority knowingly gave false evidence to sabotage professional reports and assessments. Furthermore, almost all professionals are integrated with social services in some way, and opinions and conclusions are formed on information obtained from social workers of which are rarely questioned and used in professional reports to the court.
Dr Wright’s psychiatric assessment of claimant stated he saw no evidence from the submitted statements and evidence by the local authority of physical or emotional abuse as alleged by social services. Dr Wright further pointed out that the Health Visitor, who had been involved with the family for 18 months, saw no evidence of abuse or domestic violence. Furthermore, the Health Visitor’s report of 14th May 1999 stated the only concern’s possessed regarded Child3 and the effect his condition had on entire family.
With regard to the Health Visitor’s report; it confirms the entire family were under tremendous pressure as a result of the local authority’s continued failure to provide Child3 with the psychiatric help clearly needed and as recommended by psychiatrists. A psychiatric disorder was allowed to go untreated for years resulting in untold damage to entire family. Note following from the Health Visitor’s Report of 15th May 2000:
Special attention is drawn to paragraph 3 of the Child Protection Conference minutes of 23rd September 1999 where it so states, “The parents did their best and a message needs to be passed to Claimant that the agencies do not believe he was to blame”. Given this statement was made just a month prior to his breakdown with claimant detained for 7-months since, it is absurd to see how the local authority could justify allegations or actions taken against him.
Most of local authority’s statements submitted to the court were made by family social worker SW1. SW1 qualified as social worker in June 1999, joined the South Team in August 1999, and replaced the previous senior social worker in March 2000. SW1 not only lacked experience but never personally met the claimant until 16th May 2000 at hospital. Furthermore, SW1 was unavailable for cross-examination at hearing of 24th June 2002 having suddenly left the department to work in Australia.
It is illogical to accept an inexperienced SW1 could detect domestic violence and child abuse where an experienced senior social worker — who worked directly with family for two years — made no such observations. Furthermore, SW1 stated basing her observations on notes of senior social worker where the senior social workers notes were as follow:
“Both parents have responded appropriately to Child7’s allegation and have supported her. They have also supported Child3 so that he has not been ostracised by the family, and there is a very strong sense of family, which needs to be maintained… The family are close knit and there is a lot of love and loyalty within it… The parents try to give each child some individual time and the children are relaxed around their parents”. [Child Protection Conference minutes dated 21st May 1999]
“Mr & Mrs Claimant work together in caring for the children and are able to discuss issues relating to the children’s care… Mr & Mrs Claimant experiences of violence in the past have been extreme. As a result they tend to keep their children insulated from the outside world. This can on occasion make them appear over protective… Conference concluded that it is inappropriate for Child3 to return home because of the high risk he poses. Social services manager stressed that people cannot live in families when they are constantly preventing something disastrous from happening. The parents did their best and a message needs to be past to Mr Claimant that the agencies do not believe he was to blame.” [Child Protection Conference minutes dated 23rd September 1999]
A trained social worker cannot be considered to be working in the best interest of a child by willingly and knowingly falsifying reports and sabotaging psychiatric assessments concerned with that child.
On 7th January 2002, Dr X1 provided the Swindon County Court with a “Psychiatric Report” on Child4 where he stated at paragraph 2, “My own previous involvement has been confined to a Psychiatric assessment of Child4 on 1st August 2000.”
Dr X1 was not involved in any psychiatric assessment of Child4 on 1st August 2000, and an investigation will reveal Dr X1 never even seen Child4 prior to the date of report, a report that stated the opinion that all contact between Child4 and family should be severed.
The claimant objected to submission of Dr X1 report on the grounds he was not qualified to provide the given diagnosis and prognosis as Child4 possessed a neurological not psychological condition.
The claimant showed Dr X1 possessed close links with social services, and social services and Marlborough House were co-working to have Child4 wrongfully re-categorised as possessing a psychological disorder of which he did not possess. It was noted that Dr X1’s services in the providing of his report to the court were immediately available at no cost where his services and that of Marlborough House were previously unavailable.
The claimant stated, “It is accepted that parents must accept responsibility for their children but it is not accepted that a parent is necessarily responsible for the psychological damage of a child. The latter is a favourite of psychiatrists. They blame parents but forget about the impact an environment as school may contribute to impairing a child’s development. This is relative as psychiatric reports are accepted as expert evidence and psychiatry is an inexact science. A science made more inexact by failing to make direct observations over time and relying on third party data that can be flawed. Furthermore, psychiatrists can only give an opinion, nothing more. No individual can know another’s mind without being that individual, and no psychiatrist can understand a child better than a parent because a parent alone spends years watching a child grow in comparison to a psychiatrists hour of question time. Psychiatrists make mistakes, are prone to prejudice, can be influenced by others in the making of reports and can abuse their position for whatever purpose to falsify their reports.”
An official of the Department of Health cannot be considered as operating in the best interest of a child by denying a child access to health services or by falsifying medical records concerned with that child.
With reference to Child Protection Conference minutes of 18th September 2000:
Page 5: Social services threat of returning to court for Interim Care Orders if the mother withdrew her co-operation.
Page 8: The chairperson’s comment “…she [claimant’s wife] must find it difficult to work in partnership with agencies when she believes they are trying to take her children away. However, it is necessary to look at what is best for the children and claimant’s wife needs to keep up a dialogue with SW1”.
Page 13: “Mr guardian felt it odd that Child3 is not subject to the care proceedings given that he is not living at home and his situation is so difficult, adding he has raised this with the local authority”.
Page 5 of the Child Protection Conference minutes of 18th January 2001 confirms social services pressured Child2 out of the family home for the stated reason that he was closest to his father, the claimant.
The local authority had said — in statements to court — that the children were afraid of their father, the claimant with only Child2 remaining loyal. Those statements included allegations made by a family support worker in her reports for social services. Let us examine the validity of claimant considered a violent mentally ill tyrant and risk to his children.
Records dating over a year at the Gladstone Street Resource Centre confirms all contact visits between the claimant and his children go extremely well with the children usually not wanting to leave their father, the claimant.
The guardian stated at paragraph 8.4 of his report dated 20th March 2002, “The impression is the children have become more enthusiastic about their contact with their father since it has resumed, and his behaviour towards them has been entirely appropriate… Child4 has told me when he leaves care he will live with his dad.”
Within the guardians last report of 30th October 2001, it so states:
Para 7.1: This application must be considered in the context of the longstanding dispute between the claimant and Swindon Borough Council. The claimant believes that Swindon Borough Council is responsible for the harm his children have suffered, the break-up of his family… Swindon Borough Council considers that there is evidence that the claimant is a serious risk to his children and that the harm that they have suffered is attributable to the lack of reasonable care on his part. I am not sure how these diametrically opposed interpretations of the facts can be ignored or reconciled without the Court considering the evidence and making findings.”
Note: The guardian could not ignore or dismiss the claimant’s evidence.
Para 9.2: “When I saw the children in October they all expressed enthusiasm for seeing their father, none expressed fear or anxiety”.
Para 10.1: “The contact I observed between Claimant Child5 and Child9 was very affectionate and appropriate. My impression from the records and from the recollections and attitudes of the children is that generally the contact has been constructive, and that it has become a positive experience for all the children, whereas the previous period when there had been no contact there had maintained in the children’s minds anxieties about their father”.
Para 10.3: “… the claimant is clearly devoted to his children and they are fond of him”.
Note: What the guardian described seeing are not the reactions of any child toward a tyrant. The very manner of children’s responses to their father is a contradiction of what social services alleged.
The crucial incontrovertible fact is that all the children concerned were put risk of suffering significant harm in the sense of their safety and impairment of their global development as a result of the local authority’s impairment of parents’ ability to ensure their children’s safety and provide reasonable care.
Rather than address the problems continually brought to the local authority’s attention since early 1994, the local authority continually ignored the parents concerns and advice of professionals enlisted to provide reports resulting in the destruction of an entire family. The family of which once consisted of the claimant his wife and 9 children. Now the family consists of the claimant’s wife and 5 children with the claimant forced out of the home by the social services, and 4 children being forced out of the home because of the local authority’s involvement and negligence with Child3 currently serving his 3rd year of detention in a mental hospital.
The law is very clear when it comes to ensuring the welfare and safety of children and possesses the power to act against any parent who endangers their child’s wellbeing. However, when a parent fights to ensure their child’s welfare, the law fails and holds the parent to account for failing to use services made inaccessible by government and local authorities. The claimant’s evidence overwhelming supports this fact.
On 12th March 2003, Child4 absconded from care resulting in what can only be described as an attack against the claimant and his entire family by police in their efforts to recover and return Child4 to the care of Swindon Borough Council.
The claimant could not ignore the real threat to Child4’s welfare while in care that resulted in his absconding and turning to his father for help. The situation arose where the law conflicted with claimant’s moral duty to his son.
What is not in dispute is that the police and Swindon Borough Council possessed legal avenues to pursue recovering Child4 and returning him to the care of Swindon Borough Council. However, the police mandate to uphold the law does not include abusing such powers — as will be detailed — for Swindon Borough Council.
For two weeks from 12th March 2003, the police subjected the claimant to numerous unlawful searches of his property, often 2 searches per day, using over 20 different police officers in groups of 2 to 4 at a time.
At the time police subjected the claimant to the unlawful searches stated, the police also subjected Child2 and claimant’s wife — terrorising the children — to similar unlawful searches of their properties.
On 16th March 2003, 6 to 8 police officers in full riot gear, complete with helmets and shields, were witnessed smashing down the entrance to Child2’s property resulting in Child2 being made homeless until 24th April 2004. The police given reason for the action — as left on note on boarded up entrance — was “…Warrant - ref location of Child4. Section 50 Children Act 1989…”
From 14th March 2003 the claimant received confirmation from his wife that the unlawful searches experienced at his property were also being conducted at the family home.
The level of unlawful searches conducted by police on family home, including the bedrooms of the 5 youngest children, resulted in terrorising all the children to the point of reducing Child5 to tears.
On 15th March 2003, Child7 — as result of police searches — corresponded with claimant stating, “…and I wishend we be afraid again.”
Swindon Borough Council’s own statement dated 12th August 2003 as filed with the Swindon County Court case SN00C00248 confirms the distressed state experienced by children in stating, “… the children were frightened with all the upheaval regarding the police visits trying to find Child4.”
More than one officer admitted in front of witnesses not believing Child4 to be on the property at the family home but being instructed by social services to search the entire property regardless.
The police cannot be heard to say they possessed a reasonable suspicion to believe Child4 located on the property given police conducted identical unlawful searches on properties at separate locations each day for two weeks using the same reason to justify actions.
On night of 15th March 2003, the claimant had Child4 moved from his room to a safe location.
On 16th March 2003, the claimant contacted police by telephone informing them they had a siege situation on their hands where the claimant made it clear that he would not tolerate their continuing unlawful actions.
The claimant was arrested for the abduction and imprisonment of Child4.
At the taped interview conducted at Westlea Police Station, the police slipped in stating knowing Child4 absconded from Swindon Borough Council’s care.
The police detained the claimant in custody for 23-hours before wrongly charging him with wasting police time by filing a false report of an offence. An offence that their own recorded evidence did not support.
On 14th March 2003, the police presented the claimant with an order from the Swindon Magistrates’ Court to disclose the whereabouts of Child4 that was endorsed with a penal notice. On 16th March 2003, the claimant filed a true report of an offence, and it was for this offence that the police possessed grounds for an arrest and charge.
The siege was conducted not to attract publicity but to put pressure on police that such publicity was a real possibility. Given the claimant possessed a mobile telephone — as used to contact police — with over £10 credit and that the media were not made aware of the incident, this motive clearly does not exist.
Predicted attempts to quickly halt the siege failed resulting in a chief inspector and negotiator to become involved. It was during these negotiations — wrongly assumed recorded — that the claimant believed having acquired enough evidence to produce in a court of law. Child4 was the excuse not reason for police actions. However, regardless of assumptions, the authorities had become ensnared in a trap of their own making.
The only power to search the claimant’s property was dated 16th March 2003, after claimant’s arrest.
At about 2.00pm on 17th March 2003, Child4 — learning of claimant’s arrest — surrendered himself to police. At about 6.00pm that same day Child4 again absconded demanding to remain with claimant resulting in a continuation of events.
On 15th April 2003, the claimant initiated legal proceedings — claim SN301481 — against Wiltshire Constabulary for harassment, unlawful arrest and false imprisonment.
On 24th April 2003, at a directions hearing before His Honour Judge McNaught sitting in the Swindon County Court, the claimant was ordered to disclose Child4’s whereabouts. The claimant confirmed knowing Child whereabouts but had to respectfully refuse to divulge that information well aware such refusal would result in imprisonment. The court reasoned with claimant presenting a valid argument. The claimant informed the court Child4 was in his room.
A Borough Solicitor attended the hearing and attempted arrangements to make the return of Child4 as painless as possible. She contacted social services to have the team manager or assistant team manager return with claimant to his room. Both were stated unavailable and she was instructed to make arrangements with police.
Although the police were instructed to meet the claimant at the Swindon County Court they did not. Instead they raided the claimant’s room, becoming involved in an argument with Child1 and Child2, and failed to find Child4. The Borough Solicitor learning of the action apologised stating having no knowledge or part in what transpired. The claimant maintained Child4 in his room and the Borough Solicitor contacted the police again insisting they meet with him first.
Arrangements were made to meet outside the property with claimant to surrender his son. However, arriving at the scene, the claimant found the police again failed to follow instructions and were conducting another raid. The ensuing argument between police and Child1could be heard in the street with police turning the room upside down and failing to find Child4. The claimant entered the scene and requested police trust him and leave his room. The police finally listened and did as requested. The claimant produced and surrendered Child4.
The police possessed no right or authority to search the claimant’s property, particularly as arrangements had been made and agreed upon with a solicitor present to surrender Child4.
Child4 was immediately transported to Gatwick airport — a 3-hour drive — escorted by 8 officers in three police cars and flown to Spain where he remained for over a month.
On 26th June 2003, the claimant appeared before the Swindon Magistrates’ Court on charges of wasting police where he had already entered a plea of not guilty at previous hearing.
Prior to start of trial, the CPS made an application ex parte for a ruling concerning sensitive unused material under the procedures set out in the Magistrates’ Courts (Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Disclosure) Rules 1997). The application lasted for about an hour with both the claimant and his solicitor ordered to leave the court while that evidence was presented and heard.
The Swindon Magistrates’ Court allowed the CPS to modify a charge after commencement of criminal proceedings within the court resulting in a conviction for an offence the claimant was never arrested or originally charged, and for an offence never even given the opportunity to plead resulting in a custodial sentence.
The Swindon Magistrates’ Court convicted the claimant stating the reason for imposing a custodial sentence was due to the claimant pleading not guilty, but the court neglected to note failing to ask the claimant how he pleaded to the modified charge before proceeding with the trial.
The Swindon Magistrates’ Court further stated imposing a lighter sentence on the claimant because of what Swindon Borough Council did to him. The reason for such a statement could only of originated from sensitive unused material disclosed to the court that was withheld from the claimant. Evidence relevant to claimant’s claim against the police and/or Swindon Borough Council.
The police pursued a course of conduct that they knew or ought to know amounts to harassment under section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and by section 3 makes the claimant’s claim civilly actionable, leading to damages for (among other things) any anxiety caused.
The police applied an abuse and excessive use of power in violation of their mandate to uphold the law. The Swindon Magistrates’ Court orders dated 14th March 2003 clearly shows the court did not authorise the police actions of which can only be described as an attack against the claimant and his entire family.
For two weeks, the police without presence of reasonable ‘suspicion’, ‘cause’, ‘belief’ or ‘authority’ subjected the claimant and his family to unlawful entry and searches of their homes under threat of force should they resist in violation of Article 8 (Right to Respect for Private & Family Life) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Given the subsequent events, the point involving trespass ab initio was a fact in issue. The doctrine of trespass ab initio is an important area of the protection of a man’s person, goods and land against abuse of official power.
Although Swindon Borough Council obtained parental responsibility of Child4 on 26th June 2002, no order can remove the claimant’s parental responsibility. Any law that conflicts with the claimant’s moral duty of securing the safety and welfare of a child known to be at risk of being harmed cannot be justified. Legal avenues were being pursued but the judicial system required time and time was the one thing not possessed. Child4 was at immediate risk of harm, and the police actions resulted in traumatising the claimant’s youngest five children of which the claimant also possessed a moral duty to protect. The claimant was in an impossible situation.
On 16th March 2003, the defendant without presence of reasonable ‘suspicion’, ‘cause’, or ‘belief’ arrested the claimant for the abduction and imprisonment of Child4 making the arrest unlawful.
On 17th March 2003, after detained for 23-hours, the claimant was charged with wasting police time by filing a false report of an offence that even the police evidence showed not to be true.
On 26th June 2003, at the trial, the CPS modified the charge. The claimant was tried and imprisoned for an offence never arrested, charged or given the opportunity to plead in violation of Articles 5 (Right To Liberty & Security), 6 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 7 (No punishment Without Law) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
The police seizure of computers containing confidential legal files — even under an authorised issue of a warrant to search — ceases to have effect where it relates to “items subject to legal privilege” rendering the seizure of computers unlawful.
On 16th February 2004, the claimant formally lodged a “Notice of Non-Confidence” with Swindon County Court in the matter of the Claimant -v- Wiltshire Constabulary claim SN301481 notifying the court of non-confidence in British Justice and decision to take the matter out of the hands of county court.
The claimant, having lost confidence in British Justice, is pursuing the matter in criminal court where, treated as a criminal, he will get a hearing and solicitor. The claimant had in effect taken up arms against a hostile government body. To date, the claimant had to proceed with all claims as a litigant in person where even Child3’s claim was refused public funding 5 times before succeeding with state of Child4’s claim unknown. Both Child3 & Child4’s claims are currently in hands of the Official Solicitor — as appointed by Swindon County Court — and proceeding, at present, towards High Court of Justice.
Child3 wished to bring a claim against local authority for a breach of their duty of care on basis that they failed to safeguard his welfare and negligently placed him into inappropriate placements. Child3 sought to rely on the case of Barrett -v- Enfield London Borough Council (1999) 2 FCR 434-375, where it has been held that such a claim can be brought against a local authority and is barred as a result of public interest.
The local authorities Statutory Reviews that date back as far as 22nd February 1996 confirms the local authority recognised Child3 possessed severe emotional problems and admitted no counselling was provided. Furthermore, the local authority was well aware of Child3’s history and even anticipated an increase in his disturbance when he moved schools. Hence, they could not be heard to say being unaware that Child3 qualified as a child at risk or deny failing to safeguard and promote his welfare.
The local authorities Child Protection Conference minutes of 21st May 1999 confirms the following facts.
The local authority was well aware of Child3’s psychiatric disorder and risk posed to himself and siblings prior to his assaulting Child7 on 24th April 1999.
The assault on Child7 could have been averted had the local authority responded to the parents concerns and recommendations of professionals.
The local authority failed in its duty to safeguard and promote Child3’s welfare resulting in all the parent’s children suffering significant physical and/or emotional harm.
Child3 satisfied the threshold criteria and qualified as child in need but denied professional help to treat his disorders.
The local authority failed to take reasonable steps, through the provision of services under Part III of the Children Act 1989, to prevent Child3 and siblings from suffering ill treatment and/or neglect resulting in all the children suffering significant physical and/or emotional harm.
Psychiatric assessments confirmed Child3 required psychiatric therapy that the local authority failed to provide. To quote from the Child Protection Conference minutes of 21st May 1999, “Child3’s parents have long been concerned by his potential danger physically and sexually to his younger siblings in the home… Dr Wendy Woodhouse views him as a very vulnerable boy whose conduct could harm himself and others if he does not have appropriate help… Dr Wendy Woodhouse began an assessment of him at the end of last summer and she described him as emotionally very immature and believes that he needs a placement which would address his abusing behaviour”.
Dr Wendy Woodhouse began the assessment on Child3 almost a year prior to the assault on Child7 where she made recommendations to the local authority emphasising concerns that Child3 obtain mental health treatment.
Since the local authority accommodated Child3 on 24th April 1999, Child3 had become the subject of numerous incidents. To quote from the Child Protection Conference minutes of 23rd September 1999, “… Child3 was placed in two specialist out of county placements. Both broke down due to Child3’s threatening behaviour to foster carers … there have been numerous incidents when Child3 has quickly become agitated and aggressive… There have been a number of further incidents when Child3 has been intimidating and physically aggressive towards children… Dr Bentovim viewed Child3’s behaviour as a response to Child3’s own victimisation and family experiences. He identified worrying levels of conduct disorder in Child3, associated with Child3’s feelings of considerable anxiety, sadness and self-harm … Dr Bentovim recommended appropriate programmes for addressing Child3’s needs… Dr Wendy Woodhouse has been consulted with respect to Dr Bentovim’s assessment. She supports his recommendations.”
Note the incidents mentioned in the above paragraph occurred between 24th April 1999 to 23rd September 1999, while in local authority’s care. Furthermore, note Child3 was still denied psychiatric treatment with many further incidents occurring until Child3 was finally detained in hospital on 20th July 2001 as a result of a Hospital Order being issued by the Swindon Youth Court where he faced numerous criminal charges of which he was found unfit to plead.
The local authority failed in the performance of its duty after the parent’s views and concerns — which were voiced over a period of years — were continually ignored. Numerous professionals criticised the local authorities negligent actions that resulted in Child3 suffering severe physical and emotional harm. At the Swindon County Court on 5th of March 2001 (case SN00C00248), the local authority accepted they had been criticised by professionals in respect of the way that they had cared for Child3.
Noted Child3 had been the victim of at least six sexual assaults, and four of those assaults occurred whilst in the care of local authorities. This does not even begin to cover the numerous physical assaults suffered at school, two of which resulted in hospital admissions.
Part of the evidence includes an NSPCC Psychiatric Assessment Report regarding Child3 dated 10th of August 2000, as filed with Swindon County Court (case SN00C00248) that states at page 32, “In all respects, Child3 presents as a child in need in terms of the Children Act 1989, since he has experienced serious significant harm through neglect, physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse and a failure by the local authority to treat his psychiatric disorders…”
Recent inquiries — notably the Utting Report into the safeguards protecting children living away from home (“People Like Us”, 1997) and the Waterhouse Report into sexual abuse in Welsh Children Homes (“Lost in Care”, 2000) — have demonstrated only too vividly the failing of the public care service. As the Secretary of State for Health put it in giving the Government’s response to “People Like Us”: “the Report painted a woeful tale of failure. Many children who had been taken into care to protect and help them had not been protected and helped. Instead some had suffered abuse at the hands of those who were meant to help them. Many more had been let down, never given the attention they needed, shifted from place to place, school to school and then turned out when they reached life…” Note the report accurately describes what happened to Child3.
Child3’s claim SN107008 is active and proceeding towards the High Court of Justice and cannot be discussed further.
On 22nd April 2003, the claimant officially filed a statement with Swindon County Court (claim SN205762) as Child4’s litigation friend to revoke the care order against him.
The local authority obtained parental responsibility of Child4 on 26th June 2002 by virtue of a care order that was unlawfully obtained. Child4 was harmed as a result of the local authority’s negligence and records were falsified to pervert the course of justice to cover that fact.
Under the Children Act and related legislation, the court was obliged to appoint a guardian to represent Child4’s interest, but the guardian failed to consider Child4’s interest and acted on the false evidence as provided by local authority and associated agencies. The most obvious evidence to support this assertion is the guardian’s statement that the evidence with regards Child4’s alleged assault on Child7 being overwhelming. However, Child7 confirmed no such assault occurred stating the carers — appointed by social services — told her to make the allegation. Whether true is uncertain, but there is no evidence supporting such an assault and there is supported evidence of the carers assaulting Child2 and Child4, and further evidence supporting the carers filed false reports. Hence, one must question the submitted evidence that resulted in Child4’s removal from his family and home.
The claimant reminded the court that Child4 was a child of 17½ years of age who committed no crime to justify the actions of any authority, be it the local authority or court, to have him removed from his parents and forcibly detained against his will in a care centre that was neither equipped or qualified to cater for his needs resulting in his suffering harm.
The court was further reminded that at common law Child4 is recognised as having attained the “age of discretion”, and that same law states it would refuse to lend its aid to any parent who sought to impose his will on a child who had attained the “age of discretion”. Furthermore, Child4’s intellectual or emotional development is irrelevant in deciding whether or not that parental authority could be continued.
It was noted from transcripts that on 26th June 2002, His Honour Judge Wade was clearly under the misapprehension that Child4 was being cared for in a clinic specialising in caring for children with disabilities when granting the local authority the care order. In reality Child4 was being cared for in an adolescent care centre for young people with behavioural problems, and was forced to exist in an environment that the local authority itself said should be avoided.
Child4 absconded from local authorities care more than once stating clearly his wish to remain with his father. Hence, he had clearly expressed a wish to remain with his father — the claimant — that the court could not ignore.
As Child4 had committed no criminal offence and was not subject to any order under the Mental Health Act to justify his detention, it could not be argued that any court order resulting in restricting Child4’s movements or being forcibly detained amounted to a violation under Article 5 (Right to Liberty & Security) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
On 24th April 2003 it was agreed that Child4’s application to revoke the care order against him be withdrawn on the grounds that by the time the matter was heard Child4 would of reached the age of majority resulting in said order no-longer being legally enforceable. However, Child4 is pursuing his claim against the local authority for negligence on the grounds:
Evidence to support Child4’s claim against local authority for negligence includes the following:
Both the Health Service and local authority failed in their duty towards Child4 where the main responsibility for that failure falls on local authority.
Although the local authority challenged the mother’s ability to care for children within childcare proceedings, the local authority considered it acceptable to add to the mother’s burden of responsibilities without providing proper measures or safeguards to meet Child4’s needs.
On 12th June 2001, the local authority is recorded as being unable to provide Child4 with specialist support. The services required to address his needs did not exist leaving that responsibility up to the mother.
Child4 was a child who sustained an injury that under Section 17 (11) of the Children Act states he is to be considered disabled.
Due to the nature of Child4’s injury, Child4 possesses a neurological condition that requires a neurological assessment to advance and ensure his health and welfare. That neurological assessment is long overdue, a fact that cannot be considered to be in Child4’s best interest.
On 30th July 2001, Child4’s sister Child7 made a false allegation against Child4 of assault that she confirmed did not occur and of which resulted in Child4’s removal from his family and home.
After removing Child4, the local authority had him accommodated in an adolescent care centre for young people with behavioural problems.
Child4 was the only child at the care centre who possessed a disability, and had been placed within an environment that exposed him to the very influences and dangers the local authority stated should be avoided.
Child4 was expected to exist and survive within an environment that included instances of violence perpetrated against him where his voice carries little weight due to his mental disability.
Given the court accepted Child4 was a child whose disability made him extremely vulnerable and open to exploitation and encouragement by others towards anti-social behaviour, it cannot be argued that Child4’s appearance before a Youth Court in December 2001 on the criminal charges constitutes harm, particularly as Child4 was exposed to the very influences the court accepted should be avoided.
The Children Act 1989 (s.22 (3)) imposes a specific statutory duty on local authority to safeguard and promote Child4’s welfare who they were looking after.
The House of Lords considered the extent of the duty of care of local authorities and professionals it employs to carry out its statutory responsibilities in Phelps v London Borough of Hillingdon  4 A11 ER 504. Their Lordships made it clear that local authorities are vicariously liable for professional misjudgements; and where a duty of care arises between a professional and particular child, the professional can be sued if there is a breach of that duty.
Child4’s claim SN205762 is active and proceeding towards the High Court of Justice and cannot be discussed further.
Since October 1999, the claimant had served a total of 20-months imprisonment. 9-months for an offence committed and 11-months for offences not committed.
A person who had committed a criminal offence and served a term of imprisonment for that offence is considered has having paid his debt to society when released. The claimant served a term of imprisonment for an offence he did not commit and was denied the right to restore and live a normal life without persecution for said offence. The claimant lost his family, liberty and very being for a crime not committed, allegations of domestic violence and child abuse that did not exist where even the stability of his mind was brought into question for a mental illness not possessed. The claimant lost everything he valued with all that remained being the duty to his children made impossible to perform by local authority; with children effectively held hostage in attempts to force the claimant to comply with local authority demands of admitting to false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse that did not exist in order to vindicate themselves and justify actions. A ransom the claimant refused to pay.
Back to the Freedom main page