Review of Section 13 Public Interest Refusals in light of Savile revelations

Richard Card made this Freedom of Information request to Attorney General's Office

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was successful.

Dear Attorney General’s Office,

In recent weeks you have used the Public Interest argument to refuse to disclose whether or not your office gave, or was approached for, legal advice re the Rights of Inmates of leonard Cheshire Homes who were subjected to research by Tavistock Institute commissioned by then Ministry of Health 1966 to 1969 (Involving 22 Leonard Cheshire Homes)

This history of using public interest secret custodianship, to refuse to answer any questions or enable access to High Court to answer allegations concerning Sue Ryder and Leonard Cheshire, sits ill does it not with the potential Roman Catholic causes to raise this pair to sainthood ?

Jimmy Savile is now notorious and his miraculous cure as an infant, used in a Saint making validation cause ?, is perhaps overlooked.

But the fact has emerged of a rape of an inmate allegation against Savile 1977 at a Leeds Sue Ryder Home.

It is self evident then that Sue Ryder Homes were not a case of excellent security and safety of inmates.

Since the 1990s a number of applications have been made (Including by tory barrister MP Roger Evans) seeking Section 13 Coroners Act 1988 fiat of Attorney General to access High Court seeking a quash of the suicide verdict handed down on Matron Mary McGILL 1972 Sue Ryder Home Cavendish.

It has been clear, from the autopsy report and the affidavits, that the body of Matron McGILL had circular developed bruising to each ileac crest.

Palpating the ileac crests for tenderness or examining the body for bruising (even slight) is a standard examination which can be indicative of anal rape or attempted anal rape.

The original inquest held in secret, within 3 days of the death, within the Sue Ryder Home failed to account for the final 19 hours of Matron McGILL's life. Clearly 19 hours is a sufficient window of opportunity for ileac crest bruising to develop (IE Not to be coincident bruising at death.

The shin bruising is called "Tramlining" and usually results from a blow from a cylindrical object. This too was developed bruising.

The original part autopsy (and remember that Sue Ryder conspired to prevent the family availing rights to full autopsy and legal representation) made no forensic tests and never established whether death was by primary or secondary drowning (the delayed protein lung surfactant reaction)

So even on the sparse evidence of part autopsy and the anomaly, that rigor mortis had not developed at a time consistent with an early morning death, there was time for bruising to develop between whatever incident caused the bruises until death occurred some time later.

Your position, purportedly in public interest, is to exempt Leonard Cheshire, Sue Ryder, their charity founders and the McGILL Decd case from answerability at law.

Although a Constable is an independent ministerial officer of the Crown you have placed secret public interest (your unexplained version) above the laws and constitution by which only HM the Queen is sole fount of justice. Guaranteeing to her people that her sworn constables will discharge duty faithfully ONLY unto law.

In short it seems to me that your office undermines the Queen as sole fount of justice (Treason) and in so doing will ensure that the Roman Catholic Church makes its future Saint creation decisions largely uninformed of the facts.

My position is clear. I have deposed to making mistakes in McGILL Decd as a young officer. But my oath is to discharge duty faithfully only unto law. that is to bend my knee to no man in the duty save a JUDGE in OPEN COURT.

I cannot condone this situation in which independent constables are expected to discharge duty without judgment and in secrecy to a govt law officer who never explains his decisions. The secret state that undermines the office of constable, that undermines the Queen, that undermines the principle of primacy of law.

So will you look again at McGILL Decd ? And give FOI explanation in the public domain ?

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Richard Card left an annotation ()

CONSIDERATIONS OF THE RIGHTS OF ISLAM

I must say first that I am a Common Law and Equality of all persons in the Ream man. "Multiculturalism" is of course a fallacy. It is the idea that ALL cultures are of equal merit within one land. That would be both good and bad cultures. A society that enshrines an equality between Good and Bad is not a society.

True multiculturalism would be anarchy.

Whereas the slective version we have is in fact synarchy.

Having said that it is my Common Law, equality of all under the law, Magna Carta, constitutional monarchy position that Islam in UK has a time immemorial right right (Guraneteed by HM the Q that right will be done by all manner of people ... as reflected in JPs oaths) for determination at law for the fate of a Muslim inmate at the Sue Ryder Home Cavendish.

You have held in secret the letters of Matron McGILL in which she decscribed how an 85 year old Muslim inmate of the Sue Ryder Home was tranquillized and subjected to a religious ceremony "Converting" him to Roman Catholicism. Followed by Ryder's memo that the "Old Commander" was to be buried as a Catholic.

Is this the sort of thing the Vatican should not be told about when considering promoting Ryder and Cheshire to Sainthood.

We got rid of Workhouses for the Unamployed but this pair postwar led the way in keeping incarceration for the disabled. Converting one to a religion more to their liking and submitting all their inmates to private research conducted by Tavistock Institute for Ministry of Health.

Did the inmates sign up for imposed religious conversion and psychiatric research guinea piggie duties would you say ?

Correspondence, Attorney General's Office

Dear Mr Card

Thank you for your email to the Attorney General's Office in which you make a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

However it is not possible from your email to identify what information you are seeking from this office. Could I ask that you re-phrase your request as succulently as possible as to what information it is you seek.

Yours sincerely

James Ross
Freedom of Information Officer

show quoted sections

Dear Correspondence,

Have you reviewed cases like Mary McGILL Decd in the light of recent investigations like the Savile Inquiries ?

Will you review Matron McGILL Decd and issue a decision whether Attorney General is still refusing access to High Court Section 13 ?

Did previous decisions properly weigh the implications of ileac crest bruising ?

And should consideration be given now whether the public interest is best served by continuing secrecy which would inevitably mean that Vatican authority weighs the status of Cheshire and Ryder on the basis of much of the evidence being concealed by UK Govt law officers.

Hope this is helpful

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

Richard Card left an annotation ()

Dear AG Office

I am emailing Tim Passmore Suffolk PCC to ask Chief constable to link the Matron McGILL and Stefania BRONK sudden deaths cases. Sue Ryder HQ 1972. One in lake one in bath.

To ask that the BRONK autopsy be checked for:

Any record of ileac crest brusing

Any record of the pes recurvatus anomaly that occurs in McGILL Decd

You are aware that Professor Knight opined that pes recurvatus is almost always congenital. But that checks of Matron McGILL's New Zealand medical history show no record she had it.

Suffolk Chief constable, especially given the Horst KOPKOW PRO revelation, is now to be asked to obtain expert advice whether winging of costal margin occurred in surviving SOE or other victims of Horst KOPKOW or his agents ? And hence WHO was amongst the 1200 released German postwar internees released by RYDER and NEAVE 1971. Who did they bring to England ?

What is not known is whether Matron McGILL served with SOE in WW2.

Hence TWO autopsy issues. Ileac crests and pes recurvatus and a check requested to compare to the autopsy in the second drowning death there in six months in 72.

Dear Attorney General’s Office,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Attorney General’s Office's handling of my FOI request 'Review of Section 13 Public Interest Refusals in light of Savile revelations'.

The information requested is straightforward. In the light of revelations about Jimmy Savile there is a heightened awareness and review of historic cases.

Did the Attorney General in historic examinations of the Matron McGILL Decd case properly weigh the forensic implications of ileac crest bruising ? Will the AG request Suffolk Police to check the Stefania BRONK Decd case file to see if similar bruising is recorded on autopsy ?

If a review, properly weighing forensic implications, has not been made will the AG now make such a review ?

The original inquest failed to account for the final 19 hours of Matron McGILL's life. In spite of the requirement, for a suicide verdict, to prove beyond reasonable doubt the inquest suffered insufficiency of inquiry, rejection of evidence, fraud and irregularity of proceedings. There is in fact no evidence of identification. But plenty of evidence of conspiracy to pervert justice. There is no doubt that Suffolk Chief constable and Home Office misled and lied to Matron McGILL's New Zealand Govt in 1972.

How does it serve the "Public interest" to obstruct the pursuit of justice and truth concerning the actions of Sue Ryder and Leonard Cheshire ? Are you the AG of UK happy to let the Catholic Church proceed to its saint making process on the basis of lies and concealments within the smokescreen of abuse of AG public interest custodianship ?

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Card

Please find attached a copy of our response to your recent Freedom of Information request.

Yours sincerely

James Ross
Freedom of Information Officer

show quoted sections

Dear James Ross,

Thank you for your response. I am a little unwell at this time so have only quickly scan read.

I have emailed Tim Passmore PCC Suffolk to ask that he consult Chief constable. I think a senior detective should be despatched to interview the circumstantial and identification witness. As you know some time ago this witness clarified that he never viewed the face of the body, was not involved in its discovery or recovery from the lake and never gave identification evidence even though a police officer may have intended that he do so.

I have asked that Suffolk Chief constable contact your office. Also that he contact HM Coroner as the recanting witness some years ago did choose to write to the functus officio HM Coroner but I have no idea what was in that correspondence.

I will read in detail when I am feeling a bit better.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

Dear James Ross,

I think I should clarify for the review of Section 13 decisions.

(1) The phrase "of the type occurring with normal daily living" occurs in the autopsy report. It begins with a lower case letter after an existing full stop.

(2) Professor Knight casts doubt that this wording is that of the original pathologist Dr Harris whom he knew.

(3) I tried to contact Dr Harris in the weeks after obtaining Professor Knight's opinion. But was told that Dr Harris had just died suddenly in retirement.

(4) I was told by Bury St Edmunds hospital that the alleged addendum to the autopsy report also occurs in their hospital copy.

(5) In the case file, as far as I recall, I point out that one individual characteristically used "Ing strings" in her writing. There is no doubt, on the evidence, that the autopsy report was immediately reported to that person. A person who had refused to give inquest evidence.

(6) My argument would be that the probability is that the autopsy report was nobbled to add a mitigation for the bruising that Dr Harris had recorded.

(7) What I am clear on is that I asked the Pc, who attended autopsy, to specifically ask Dr Harris about winging of the costal margin and the hip, back and shin bruising.

(8) I would add to my 1995 affidavit that I think the Minnesota Protocol standard should be applied to this case. IE That a new inquest should sit with High Court acting as HM Coroner. Even the history of State research being conducted in the charity (Tavistock Institure research for MOH) is relevant re the Protocol. The research was the causation for the inmate revolt at LeCourt Cheshire Home 1972. Registering care home(s) at the lowest category for care is surely a relevant question (Section 37 National Assistance Act 1948). On the one hand the MOH commissioned research but on the other hand Social Services could only monitor care to boarding house standards.

Thank you for conducting a review.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

Dear James Ross,

I am annotating this public FOI request that the status is Attorney General reply by post. The FOI having apparently triggered an Attorney General review under Section 13 Coroners Act 1988 into the safety of the 1972 suicide verdict at issue.

I have emailed Attorney General privately.

A GP has kindly listened to the medico forensic aspects and seems, in my opinion, to feel that ileac crest bruising nowadays would trigger the medical examiner to raising Home Office pathologist forensic and escalated CID inquiry.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

Samuel Duffett, Attorney General's Office

4 Attachments

Dear Mr Card,

 

Please find attached a letter setting out the Solicitor General’s decision
in relation to your request for a review of the Attorney General’s earlier
decision not to grant you a fiat in respect of the inquest in relation to
Mary McGill (deceased).

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Sam Duffett

 

 

Sam Duffett Public and Civil Law Team

E: [1][email address].uk  T: 020 7271 2502 

20 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0NF

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.gov.uk/ago

Dear Samuel Duffett,

I must comment on the strange coincidence that your decision is dated just one day after I posted an FOI to the BBC mentioning the Section 37 care inquiry resulting from Commons questions asked after Matron McGill's death.

Insufficiency of inquiry, fraud, rejection of evidence and irregularity are ALL readily apparent in the evidence.

It has now been pointed out that ileac crest bruising has never been properly weighed in evidence. yet Govt law officers continue to abuse their position of public trust presumably to protect the reputations of Cheshire and Ryder rather than uphold justice and truth.

I request an internal review in the hope you will explain the basis for ignoring the evidential significance of ileac crest bruising.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

Dear Samuel Duffett,

I am having problems trying to google the case authorities you cited. The second one appears to be about whether a Bolam test should have featured in a Professor being called to give evidence. Bolam was about whether a doctor made a mistake (whether he acted in a way that a reputable body of his profession would have done even a minority body) ?

The other authority I haven't been able so far to get up on search.

But I doubt the authority matches this case. Because a request to hold a new inquest was made by the New Zealand Govt within three months of the original inquest. I think, from the evidence before the law officer, it is inevitable to conclude that the Home Office, in concert with Suffolk Chief constable, lied to the NZ Govt in April 1972.

Ileac crest bruising was reported to DHSS Minister Sir Keith Joseph in July 1972 some months before he refused Barbara Castle MP request for a public inquiry. Admittedly I did not know the forensic significance of the bruising until this most recent application. Nonetheless the fact is the Minister was told.

You will also note, in a public interest sense, that Sir Keith also in 1972 refused to order inquiry into the unknown number of child deaths in Hackney Social Services care at the Beeches Ixworth.

It is worth considering what happened many years later and weighing it against the current call to have one inquiry under a Judge into the Savile history.

In the 90s Hackney ordered a retrospective inquiry into child abuse in residential care. This was conducted by the Director of Cambridge Social Services. He was told that the deaths at Ixworth would not be germaine to his inquiry. He was to look solely at the history of one social worker. Hence to this day no one can say how many deaths at Ixworth or indeed if between 1966 and 72 Suffolk had its own Haute de Garenne.

Aren't we doing the same now with Savile. Inquiry into the individual and not into the context in which he operated.

This approach leads to the irrationality really in the AG position. Of some 50 individual inquiries re Savile there is a Sue Ryder inquiry. That apparently will not look at the evidence indicating possible anal rape at Sue Ryder's home in 1972. That inquiry is looking at one man and the Leeds SR Home (Yes the home from which Sue Ryder returned to Cavendish the day before the death of Mary McGill). So what are we saying ?

That the Muslim patient tranquillised and converted to catholicism was properly treated ?

That evidence suggesting sexual abuse prior to the death of Matron McGill does not represent a compelling case for inquiry and High Court attention in the public interest.

That the incarceration of Suzy Knight (widow of MI5 chief Maxwell Knight) denying her freedom of communication and association with no judicial authority (unlawful imprisonment) in a Sue Ryder Home. That doesn't merit inquiry ?

And the reason why the voices of the victims and the vulnerable inmates of institutions could not be heard ? Hadn't the Dept of Health invested in user empowerment research using Leonard Cheshire Homes ? How come their voices could not resonate for justice even when after this "Research" the inmates of the LeCourt Leonard Cheshire Home mutineed 1972 ?

When we look at this 42 years elapsed. It consists of two months until the NZ Govt asked for a new inquest. Police and Home Office lies 1972 and 1982 et seq. Suffolk Chief constable 1982 ignoring the report from Head of Force CID that the suicide verdict is unsafe. DHSS Minister, in spite of a report of fact, refusing inquiry. And some 20 years of Govt Law Officer decisions refusing access to High Court.

Let us not forget that in the early 90s Sir John Stradling Thomas MP was about to raise parliamentary ombudsman inquiry but he died. His concern was about civil service handling of his correspondence to AG and Policing minister (Mayhew and Ferrers)

So we now have exposed before us the absurd position. If Jimmy Savile charity fund raiser Leeds Sue Ryder Home had accompanied Sue Ryder from Leeds in 72 then the public interest would be met to promote inquiry re ileac crest bruising and death of Matron McGill. But because evidence suggests that during her final 19 hours, unaccounted at an inquest which purports to have reached a decision beyond reasonable doubt (suicide), McGill was in the company of Leonard Cheshire. It must be inevitable to conclude that evidence for catholic sainthood (savile as a sick child) can now be investigated but apprenticeship for catholic sainthood (Ryder and Cheshire) must not be investigated ?

I doubt the authority quoted could pertain to the facts of the McGILL case. But the irrationality underpinning govt law officer interpretation of public interest seems clearer when presented as abusrdity

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

Samuel Duffett, Attorney General's Office

Dear Mr Card,

Thank you for your e-mail. The Solicitor General has considered your application in respect of Mary McGill's inquest and his decision is recorded in my letter to you dated 7th January 2014. That letter explains that the Solicitor General has considered the points you have raised in respect of this case.

There is no procedure for seeking an internal review (by this Office) of the above decision. If you are unhappy with that decision, you are of course, free to seek legal advice on the options for challenging it.

Yours sincerely,

Sam Duffett

Sam Duffett Public and Civil Law Team
E: [email address].uk  T: 020 7271 2502 
20 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0NF

show quoted sections

Dear Samuel Duffett,

Thank you for your help. The request is on record on the internet now.

As you know judicial review of a Section 13 decision tends to be charging up a cul de sac to prove the end is blocked.

There would appear to be jurisdiction (unidentified body) rendering any decision necessarily irrational.

The anomaly that arises that Savile inquiry is deemed to hold a higher public interest than other abuse inquiry within the same organisation. Irrational.

And the old constitutional argument re AG public interest position is pre defined by the constitution and Coronation Oath yielding him no jurisdiction to make decisions which undermine the Queen as sole fount of justice (The independent ministerial officer of Crown argument)

hence two grounds for irrationality and one for unlawfulness might be argued. But my days are taken up doing physio for lung damage and to appear in court would require an awful lot of medication I would rather avoid.

I took an oath as a constable to pursue justice faithfully unto law. I think I have taken that as far as I am able. Thanks again.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

Dear Samuel Duffett,

What I would like to do Samuel is make something of an argument here on the public record for you to put back to the Solicitor General

(1) CASE AUTHORITIES

The Solicitor General quotes authority concerning the time elapsed after a death.

The authority, upon which he relies, is not representative of the facts at issue in the case thus far known as Mary McGILL Decd.

This case, unlike the cited authority, provides evidence of conspiracy against HM Coroner in his duty to determine truth. This case provides evidence of perjury at inquest. (Which also embraces the hearsay identification of decd).

This case provides evidence that when the HM Coroner duty ended (Functus Officio) the conspiracy continued. Its target then became the appeal process starting within weeks of the inquest by an application for advice from the New Zealand Govt.

In asking the High Court to deploy an elapsed time public interest denial of justice, the Solicitor General would in effect be asking the High Court to be in contempt of itself. To rubberstamp and authorise a conspiracy against its own appeal jurisdiction over 42 years.

The position of the Solicitor General thus resides on case authorities that are of no relevance to the case issues and a presumption, of a High Court ruling, that is IRRATIONAL.

(2) IDENTIFICATION

The Solicitor General can only give a decision to deny access to the High Court in an identifiable case. There is actually no proof of identification in the inquest evidence. Further the witness to whom identification was attributed by hearsay has clarified that he never viewed the face of the body, was not involved in its recovery from the lake and never identified the body to police.

It follows that the only two decisions in law open to the Solicitor General are to apply to High Court to quash or to transfer jurisdiction to the Home Secretary to consent to a new inquest which would endeavour to prove identity.

It is not open in law for the Solicitor General to guess at proof that is not before him.

He can apply for a quash so that the necessary proof is sought by inquest process or he can transfer to Home Secretary under the provisions of non-identified body destroyed by fire (Cremation). Please note this argument was long since agreed by the specialist Coroners section of Lords Chancellor Dept. The refusal of fiat decision being beyond the powers of Govt Law Officers the decision under review is UNLAWFUL.

(3) CONSTITUTION

We have visited this argument before. The Queen, by Coronation Oath, became sole fount of justice in mercy. Her servants are judiciary, armed forces and constables.

The constable swears to discharge his duty, to the Queen as sole fount of justice, faithfully only unto LAW.

This duty is binding on the constable unto death (or unto unswearing his oath which would be an act of treason unless all his duties stand discharged).

This primacy of the Monarch as sole fount of justice defines the public interest.

The Monarch is also Guarantor of the Right to Peace and Guardian of the Faith. The rights to peace of the body thus far called Mary McGill are as yet not fulfilled.

The constitutional question is whether a constable can discharge duty under a cloak of secrecy into a Govt Law officer public interest custodianship role.

I say No. Under the constitution it has always got to be available that the constable access the judge as his route of discharging duty to the Queen.

So I argue that the current Solicitor General decision is UNLAWFUL.

(4) SAVILE

Pannone Solicitors are calling for a single judicial inquiry to collate and expand on the thirty or so individual inquiries going on.

One of these inquiries is at Sue Ryder Homes. Incident(s) going back a similar period of time to that of the death at issue.

So what are the terms of reference of these 30 inquiries ? Look at what Jimmy did and maybe look at what Jimmy did next.

In effect what did Jimmy do within Sue Ryder Homes but NOT what did Leonard Cheshire or Sue Ryder (or anyone else!) do in the homes.

Clearly the public interest imperative would be "Report on abuse including that of Savile"

To sustain a position where we look at Savile and turn a blind eye to anyone else has to be IRRATIONAL, immoral, an insult to the Queen who is guarantor of equal rights to peace and justice for all victims, and self evidently contrary to the public interest.

Thank you so much for your time. Some things have to matter. I would refer you to the final paragraph of my affidavit where I mention the SAS Sergeant major, a former police sergeant before rejoining Army and SAS, who made me aware of the difference between being given orders and being charged with duties. He was right. In the final analysis it is the safeguard of the primacy of justice in our constitutional monarchy.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

Samuel Duffett, Attorney General's Office

Dear Mr Card,

As I understand your e-mail below, you e would like to put further arguments to the Solicitor General. As I explain in my e-mail below (of yesterday's date), the Solicitor General has considered your application in respect of Mary McGill's inquest and his decision is recorded in my letter to you dated 7th January 2014. There is no procedure for seeking an internal review (by this Office) of that decision. If you are unhappy with that decision, you are of course, free to seek legal advice on the options for challenging it. I am sorry not to be able to provide more assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Sam Duffett

Sam Duffett Public and Civil Law Team
E: [email address].uk  T: 020 7271 2502 
20 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0NF

show quoted sections