Dear London Borough of Haringey & its LSCB (Is the law an option?)

A PUBLIC LETTER (Sarcasm Deliberate)

Dear London Borough of Haringey & its LSCB

Yes hello London Borough of Haringey Children’s Social Care Dept its me again and I have things to say

  • Oh dear you are in trouble AGAIN!
  • You’r giving good social workers a very bad name you know.
  • Is the law an option on your planet or are they entirely different laws?
  • Can London Borough of Haringey Social Workers, Managers & Lawyers read I ask or just only what they want to?

But lets get to the point……

You will notice from a recent judgement of LJ Sir James Munby, who if you did not know happens to be the President of the Family Division, that he has given a judgement Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 6 (Fam) which means you will have to change your ways, to wit you will now have to abide by his judgement that requires you to abide by the law,  as you should have before, namely the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963,  regarding consular access to foreign national children you have in care, as if you did not already have to as I previously pointed out several times  in the Musa case that you know so well.

In this case you did not just not take notice of the requirements in international law, you actively refused to abide by them and actively refused access to the children in the case by their consulate, (how rude is that),  you did this directly and among other things, including before the prior president of the family division, LJ Wall and in front of  LJ Thorpe head of international both at the Royal Courts of Justice, both Judges also did not require you to abide by the Law, (what a family court judge who ignores the law, not common I hope??) It is evidentially so and this is clearly on the record.

The bit in the Judgement about the Vienna Convention comes about as a result of an Curiae submission I made to  President Munby in another case and all this was originally resulting from your,  (London Borough of Haringey) actions in refusing to abide by it. What an excellent Judge he is.

For your information (again):

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963

Article 36

“1 With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending States

(a) consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State;

(b) if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall also be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this sub-paragraph;

(c) consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. They shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in pursuance of a judgment. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly opposes such action.

2 The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this Article are intended.”

Article 37 (b)

“If the relevant information is available to the competent authorities of the receiving State, such authorities shall have the duty:

(b) to inform the competent consular post without delay of any case where the appointment of a guardian or trustee appears to be in the interests of a minor or other person lacking full capacity who is a national of the sending State. The giving of this information shall, however, be without prejudice to the operation of the laws and regulations of the receiving State concerning such appointments; …”

Sir James says in his Judgement:

    1. This is not the occasion for any elaborate discussion of the effect of these provisions as a matter of either public international law or English domestic law (as to which see the Consular Relations Act 1968 and the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987). I am concerned only with what they suggest as good practice in care cases. But in that context there are, as it seems to me, three points to be borne in mind:

i) First, Article 36 enshrines the principle that consular officers of foreign states shall be free to communicate with and have access to their nationals, just as nationals of foreign states shall be free to communicate with and have access to their consular officers.

ii) Second, the various obligations and rights referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Article 36(1) apply whenever a foreign national is “detained”; and where a foreign national is detained the “competent authorities” in this country have the obligations referred to in paragraph (b).

iii) Third, Article 37(b) applies whenever a “guardian” is to be appointed for a minor or other foreign national who lacks full capacity. And Article 37(b) imposes a particular “duty” on the “competent authorities” in such a case

The Daily Mail reported on the case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539601/UK-courts-not-decide-fate-foreign-children-says-judge.html#addComment

The Consular Office of the Children in the Musa case has now been informed of the judgement and I expect they will want not only free and clear access to the children, finally, but also the case papers and no doubt you will have to send the children back, they have family that want them as you well know.

Though if your wriggle they can no doubt bring a case to Sir James attention.

But in any case by high authority you now HAVE TO CONTACT the Consular Office and invite them round to see the kids, tea and biscuits might be a good idea along with a card maybe saying:

Dear Mr Frances Enya
“We are profusely sorry for being so rude and ignoring the law that protects children’s best interests by denying you access. Its a bad habit we have, but we are tying to deal with it but there just is not the funding for therapy you see and in any case our lawyers tell us what to do.  We have in any case arranged a travel warrant to defray your costs.”

In addition when it was discovered that you were actually holding the children unlawfully for several months, I believe that is called kidnap, (awkward stuff law isn’t it) under improperly gained Interim Care Orders and Justice Hogg at the Royal Courts of Justice issued an order for a proper hearing to be held both you and the lower court ignored this, and another illegal order was made (oops I believe this is contempt of court by you AND THE COURT and conspiracy to pervert justice and to hold a child unlawfully aka kidnap)

When you were made aware of a spoof retrieval of the children by a private plane out of the country to France (it really would be impossible to fly seven people out in a two seater plane you know) you had the parents and the pilot arrested for attempted kidnap. The fact that you were holding the children illegally means that it would have been quite legal for them to do so as I pointed out to the officer concerned. He really did not want to hear that. and making these a false arrests and imprisonment. (Whoops there is that law thing again.) Of course the charges were dropped but quite improperly the police did not investigate LB Harringey for unlawfully holding the children. I DID CLEARLY POINT IT OUT TO SEVERAL OFFICERS. Isn’t that called assisting an offender? (annoying stuff law unless like you seem to think it’s optional for you, it isn’t you know!)

I remember attending with them a report for bail in North London with the parents (not mine), speaking in detail with an inspector and then another time in Croydon, imagine my incredulity that I then hear that they are accused of not appearing on only BOTH those occasions. On the 1st instance they got thrown out of the Station for what was it, insisting that they have their own record of attending.  On the Croydon one the mother begged in tears that I go because they were fearful of just this sort of thing.

Do you know I spoke with others in Haringey, including an Elected Member lots of people inside and outside Haringey are very concerned about your Children (in Care) Services.

Oh I nearly forgot the time I was with the Parents in the Musa in Gee St London Family Court as their McKenzie Friend for a finding of fact hearing and your Social Worker lied through her teeth on the stand, clearly an offence, but the parents were to scared to bring it up. I could not as the Judge refused me audience. So on the next day, before the hearing started, I clearly said in court to your SW, I may have to arrest her, the judge brought this up, I got to speak raised the issue and he threw me out of court. (Ignoring perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice) The parents tried to continue on their own but no longer trusted the process, it was part way through a weeks hearing. Despite the judge writing to almost beg them to come back, he did not address their concerns It continued to without them.

On leaving the court building I bumped into  beat officer, I asked if he could advise me and that I was not making a report as I said I knew that police were not allowed near crimes made by those involved in family law, he knew that and said “tell me about it” indicating that he and other officers did not like it and though it wrong, he took a report, I was stunned as it was so unusual. I later found out that he was stopped from investigating by a senior officer and later I saw the judgement in the finding of fact hearing, I am mentioned as being told to get out. as were the parents not taking part after they left and SO WAS THE POLICE OFFICER, the Judge actually put in the Judgement, that the officer had left me and the parents to make enquiries at the court office and that the court manager had refused to assist and told him he had better talk to a senior officer, the Judge had endorsed that. ( I will not even begin to specify what laws this breaches, though I could as it boggles even my mind but I will mention public officers, inc a judge concealing an offence and refusing to assist an officer in his enquiries, there is a lot more her )

It is interesting to note that the parents did on my advice ask the judge above to recuse himself and he refused. Another judge in the case said when the parents raised the issues judged that no one should interfer with a criminal investigation, this was of course refused.

On raising some of the above with Haringey LSCB (Local Safeguarding Children Board) Chairman  and the Manager of Haringey LSCB said to me on the phone “we don’t believe you and will not be investigating” I said can I quote you on that, she said “no”, to which I said actually I can and you cannot stop me, (Oh dear its law AGAIN) she replied “I will deny it.” (what law is that covered by, oh yes misconduct in public office among others), I wonder if I recorded that or not??????

One more small detail at this time, there is so much more. Haringey the time line at the hospital in the case that sent the parents to prison does not fit, and there was evidence presented that was never an issue in the Family Case, I did tell the parents this is what you would try an do long long before, even they did not believe that.  Still they have an appeal pending, I am not called as a witness yet, but that can change. But this is about you and the children Haringey and law not the parents.

And people wonder what is wrong with Family Law, I am quite clear,  lots of those involved have gone clearly mad and do not live in the same world as the rest of us, but shhh that’s a secret.

In the mean time, you might like to consider how the above are quite significant acts with liability claims of harm, your are it would seem open to serious claims of “Tortfeasory”, you are TORTFEASORS. (Oh the law is interesting is it not.)

I have submitted a petition for a Parliamentary Enquiry in to all of Family Law, it is being check over, and you are still subject to my criminal investigation so don’t even think about doing anything against me, it would be an offence. However if you really do wish to address any of the issues or would like help to become the example to all in a good way, rather than the opposite, I am genuinely happy to assist you as I have said before.

Of course even if you do ignore me I will not give up until you and any others like your are constrained properly by law like the rest of us and I am a man of my word. Please count on that in the mean time consider your self busted, at least partially. so far.

Sincerely (in the real best interests of children.)

Paul Randle-Jolliffe Esq

NB:

An  curiae is someone who is not a party to a case who offers information that bears on the case but that has not been solicited by any of the parties.

Curiae Literally, friend of the court. A person with strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an action, but not a party to the action

An  curiae educates the court on points of law that are in doubt, gathers or organizes information, or raises awareness about some aspect of the case that the court might otherwise miss. The person is usually, but not necessarily, an attorney, and is usually not paid for her or his expertise. An  curiae must not be a party to the case, nor an attorney in the case, but must have some knowledge or perspective that makes her or his views valuable to the court.

Whilst I have no direct evidential confirmation of an agreement between senior officers and the judiciary regarding police not investigating allegations of criminal offence by parents and others like me unless a judge refers it, it has been suggested that there is and it certainly in this and other cases seems to be how it operates.

The police will normally say its a civil matter and the judiciary do not report in any case.

There is a higher court judgement that the police do not take account of Perjury in proceedings unless judges refer, this has the effect of staking the statute out of law entirely.

But there are other crimes that are not perjury that they do not deal with as well.

There is a case in Wakefield Magistrates Court of a private prosecution by two parents in a child removal, I advised how to do it, where the judge refused to allow it to proceed saying that there was evidence of multiple crimes but family law is separate from the rest of the law and cannot be prosecuted, she was also a family judge and would know those that were being accused.

This is not the law but it is how it opperates

Advertisements
Published in: on January 18, 2014 at 6:06 pm  Comments (5)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://jolliffe.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/dear-london-borough-of-haringey-its-lscb-is-the-law-an-option/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

5 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. VERY WELL DONE, Paul!

    I’m just wondering why you don’t name the Social Workers, Police Officers and Judges?

    After all, that’s what Sir James’ Munby’s Baby J judgement was about: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2013/2694.html

  2. […] Here he writes to Haringey’s Children’s Care Services reminding them of the many times they ignored or transgressed the law, especially their Police Officers. […]

  3. […] Paul Randle-Jolliffe is not a member of our Association, but has assisted the Nigerian Musas long before we helped them. He now addresses Haringey Council with this Open Letter. […]

  4. I did not name them as there are criminal acts involved and I do not want to prejudice any trial, Munby’s judgement maybe fine re civil law but criminal law is very different.

  5. People thought I had forgotten the Musa’s, I had not, I now focus on wholesale change.

    There was concern as to why I was not releasing the report data, but I was always clear that it was not just information it was evidence that needed to be handled in a particular was, despite this ruling that still remains so as there are wider issues in addition that have yet to be addressed.

    Not least Haringey of course

    The key thing in this is that I submitted the information on the Vienna Convention as an amicus curiaeto Munby prior to the Slovak hearing, But I did it in the Italian case which is why I am not cited in the Slovak Case. Munby quite properly used it in the Slovak case as it was pertinent and used it for its intended pupose..

    I will be updating Munby on the Italian case as his judgement on that, when he hears it, needs to add to what has been done in the Slovak Case.

    ——————————-

    An amicus curiae (also amicus curiæ; plural amici curiae, literally “friend of the court”) is someone who is not a party to a case who offers information that bears on the case but that has not been solicited by any of the parties to assist a court. This may take the form of legal opinion, testimony or learned treatise (the amicus brief) and is a way to introduce concerns ensuring that the possibly broad legal effects of a court decision will not depend solely on the parties directly involved in the case.

    Allen v Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons Ltd [1968] 2 QB 229 at p. 266 F-G:
    “I had always understood that the role of an amicus curiae was to help the court by expounding the law impartially.”

    The situation most often noted in the press is when an advocacy group files a brief in a case before an appellate court to which it is not a litigant. Appellate cases are normally limited to the factual record and arguments coming from the lower court case under appeal; attorneys focus on the facts and arguments most favorable to their clients.

    Where a case may have broader implications, amicus curiae briefs are a way to introduce those concerns, so that the possibly broad legal effects of court decisions will not depend solely on the parties directly involved in the case.

    JOB DONE!

    Much more to do but the foundation is laid.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: