Tavistock Institute Research at 22 Leonard Cheshire Homes ... Govt Law Officer advice

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 refused by Attorney General's Office.

Dear Attorney General’s Office,

From 1966 to 1969, commissioned by then Ministry of Health, research was conducted (In the broad area of user empowerment) by Tavistock Institute in 22 Leonard Cheshire Homes.

Please disclose any advice sought of or given by Attorney General concerning the legality and rights
issues in this research.

I am interested in the rights of inmates of Leonard Cheshire Homes Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 of European Convention of Human Rights.

In Matron Mary McGILL Decd Attorneys General have deployed their absolute secret custodianship of public interest power a number of times to deny access to High Court. The Quaker volunteer Matron so critical of Sue Ryder and Leonard Cheshire care standards. Subjected to a secret inquest three days after her death in 1972. an inquest kept secret from her family and friends. her body destroyed by cremation preventing the family availing rights of full autopsy. And lies told to Matron's New Zealand Govt to thwart their 1972 application to appeal the hasty secret suicide verdict.

So please disclose any documents, recall or records about the facts deposed in the McGILL Decd appeals to Attorney General being properly considered against the facts of govt commissioned research that took place on inmates of Leonard Cheshire Homes.

The implication should be clear. Welsh Regional Crime Squad found that the care homes were subject of an unlawful police no go area through secret monitoring by Forces Special Branch liaison run by Home Office echelons.

The Attorney General has previously argued that he does not have to consider the Office of Constable in inquest appeals under S 13 Coroners Act 1988. I argue that the nature of the independent ministerial Crown office of Constable is both a Common Law and an ECHR guardian of rights to life. That can only exist concurrent with absolute certainty of proper sudden death investigation no matter what institution an inmate may reside at.

Surely the Tavistock Institute research had taken place against inmates whose rights were already compromised.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Richard Card left an annotation ()

Would you please cross refer this request to my FOI requests about paramilitary activity in Kent especially the matter of why UK did not comply with EU Resolution to dismantle unlawful military organisations.

The referral link is police no go area .. benefitting founders of Leonard Cheshire/Sue Ryder charity.

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

Dear Mr Card

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

Could you please clarify that your request is seeking all the documents,
advice and correspondence in relation to the case of Mary McGill.

Yours sincerely

James Ross
Freedom of Information Officer

show quoted sections

Dear James Ross,

Thank you for your prompt response. No I do not wish copies of the McGILL Decd case since it was me who made the Section 13 applications to date.

I am asking you for disclosure of legal advice sought of and given by Attorney General re the research conducted by Tavistock Institute on inmates of 22 Leonard Cheshire Homes. EG Was research consistent with their charity registration etc.

I am asking you to include in your disclosure any review which would have occurred, 1992 et seq, as a result of facts deposed in the McGILL Decd case.

I was reminding your office that there is a Right to Life argument inherent in McGILL Decd. IE that Coroners and Constables are a part of the Article 2 protection of life guaranteed by UK Govt. Coroners now has Article 2 duties defined and still becomes functus officio on completion of duty. But a constable charged with a duty in a case never becomes functus officio. He is always sworn to the Queen to seek justice in the Courts such as when new evidence emerges (As in McGILL Decd)

You will be aware that concurrent with McGILL Decd original inquiry and Welsh Regional Crime Squad inquiries in 1972 the inmates of LeCourt Cheshire Home revolted against the regime of Leonard Cheshire in part as a consequence of the research visited upon them by the Ministry of Health aided and abetted by Leonard Cheshire.

The situation seems clear. How would those inmates in revolt have felt if they had properly discovered at that time that their ECHR rights were anyway seriously compromised. IE That their lives did not enjoy the protection by constables and law that the Queen guaranteed by her Coronation Oath.

I like to think I already know the ECHR and Common Law rights position in McGILL Decd. I now wish to add knowledge of the broader denial of rights that this Tavistock Institute research may have represented and to that end I seek disclosure of Attorney General advice and the records of whether McGILL Decd appeal applications properly triggered a review of the history of Tavistock Institute research on inmates.

I hope this is clear ?

For your information:

The latest position in McGILL Decd is that Attorney General and the specialist Coroners Law section of Lord Chancellor Dept took different positions in law.

The AG holds that he has Section 13 jurisdiction to deny appeal access to High Court.

IMO this is a circular argument of no merit. The fact is the man treated as witness of identification has clarified that he gave no identification.

Hence the destruction of the body by cremation yields authority to the Home Secretary and it would be for the Colchester Coroner (Coroner where destruction by fire occurred) to apply to Home Secretary to hold a new inquest. This being the position accepted as correct by Lord Chancellors Dept.

That said all I am seeking is disclosure of the advice given at the time of the Tavistock Institute Research and details of any review of this advice that occurred after facts were deposed and submitted in McGILL Decd.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

Dear Mr Card

Many thanks for getting back to me so quickly.

To ensure your request is dealt with fully and comprehensively can I
take it your request will be as follows:

"disclosure of legal advice sought of and given by Attorney General re
the research conducted by Tavistock Institute on inmates of 22 Leonard
Cheshire Homes - including advice and the records of whether McGILL Decd
appeal applications properly triggered a review of the history of
Tavistock Institute research on inmates."

Yours sincerely

James Ross
Freedom of Information Officer

show quoted sections

Dear James Ross,

Yes Thank you. Spot on.

Because this is a permanent record public FOI site I try to write contextual information.

To be clear I was the Police constable properly appointed HM Coroners Officer for Matron Mary McGILL Decd.

The constable oath is not extinguished by leaving a police force.

Duties charged are subject to the oath unto death.

in accordance with the constable oath to use all skill, in pursuing duty for the sole fount of justice Her Majesty the Queen, I have essentially mapped an aberrant history of so called public interest decisions. Associated with Leonard Cheshire, Sue Ryder, the founders of their charities or organisations associated with those founders.

From wartime betrayals of bomber streams, using uninsured vehicles, appalling care standards, alleged perjury, suspected unlawful killing, alleged obstruction of HM Coroner, alleged conspiracy to pervert justice, various paramilitary and sabotage allegations, suspected aliens registration, identity theft and death registration malpractices or crimes.

The Attorney General is the boss of public interest. The chap upon whom the differing duties of Crown and Govt are reconciled.

Try telling the public that it is their interest that paramilitaries wander about their business unlawfully armed and yet exempt prosecution ?

Try telling the public that it is OK to destroy a body to prevent the relatives gaining rights to legal representation and full autopsy report at a properly convened inquest.

Try telling the public that it is OK to go to war in the Falklands when the govt knew full well torpedoes and sonar had an unreliability problem thought by Special Branch to be due to saboteurs from Gladio working at the manufacturer.

Try telling the public that leaving unreliable emergency generators on hospitals and at nuclear emergency shut down or at germ research emergency containment lab measures is in their interest. Like Plessey Torpedos this too is a matter with a suppressed Gladio suspect line of inquiry (also a Stage 3 OIRA/INLA/IRSP Garland plan line of inquiry)

How laughable that the founder of Cheshire Homes Lord DENNING was the judge who re-iterated the principle of law that no matter how high you are the law must be above you. Why then not investigate Gladio founded by Sue Ryder charity trustee Harry Sporborg ? Not investigated or dismantled in spite of EU resolutions and requests from Kent Police Authority and Royal Ulster Constabulary and Gen De Chasterlain ?

The history shows that for the founders of the Leonard Cheshire and Sue Ryder charities the law was below them in all their ubiquitous enterprises. And self evidently the history shows that time and again the wrong public interest decisions were taken in what must be a pattern of behaviour offending against the Queen and undermining her as guarantor of peace, sole fount of justice in mercy and sole source of loyalty and honour for armed forces in the Realm.

Thank you again.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

Dear Mr Card

Thank you for getting back to me clarifying your request.

You have requested:

" "disclosure of legal advice sought of and given by Attorney General re
the research conducted by Tavistock Institute on inmates of 22 Leonard
Cheshire Homes - including advice and the records of whether McGILL Decd
appeal applications properly triggered a review of the history of
Tavistock Institute research on inmates."

I will write to you again once your request has been considered, I am
aiming to send you a response by 20 December, I will of course reply
sooner if I am able.

Yours sincerely

James Ross
Freedom of Information Officer

show quoted sections

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Card

Please find attached a copy of our reply 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.

Obviously it gives rise to further concern.

Consolidating the information. The history would be that a govt dept commissioned a private company to conduct medical/psychiatric research in 22 care homes run by the Leonard Cheshire charity.

(1) Minister Keith Joseph in 1972 refused the request of shadow Minister Barbara Castle MP for a public care inquiry (Matron McGILL Decd case). It would be inevitable to conclude that this was then a refusal to mount inquiry into an organisation in which his own department had commissioned medical research.

(2) The Home Office in 1972 gave the New Zealand Govt misleading legal advice. Followed by a joint Home Office/Suffolk Chief constable report lying to the New Zealand Govt in the facts of death and history of care concerns of Matron McGILL Decd. These facts are protected from proper High Court examination by the secret public interest custodianship powers of Attorneys General.

(3) In McGILL Decd (and the Welsh Regional Crime squad inquiries 1972) the facts include that British residential care workers were being made redundant by the Leonard Cheshire charity. It seems reasonable to conclude that this substantially altered the staff situation extant during the Tavistock Institute research in 22 Leonard Cheshire Homes.

(4) The initial suspicion of the Welsh RCS det sgt appears less like conspiracy theory given the emerging facts. He escalated inquiry after developing the suspicion that staff at the Llanhennock Cheshire Home were working under the identity (identities) of genuinely qualified British nurses. As you know this inquiry was escalated by RCS out of Newport at a time Sue RYDER was involved with charity trustee Airey NEAVE in "Releasing" 1200 men from purported postwar German internment.

(5) The RCS were warned to drop inquiry by Special Branch who they discovered had a national (allegedly unlawful) reporting exercise secretly spying on and corrupting proper lawful police inquiry (such as the sudden death inquiry re Matron McGILL)

(6) Hence a picture reasonably emerges of the charity founders and their alleged activity (Including that of paramilitary groups who had no Crown authority) being protected from the law by Special Branch liaison and by a what can only be described as a blanket abuse of public interest custodianship.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

I will be out of the office until Wednesday 2 January. My emails will not be monitored duriing this time.

If this matter is urgent, please either email: [email address] or call 0207 2712492

If the matter is in regards to an Freedom of Information request, please resend to [Attorney General’s Office request email]

Otherwise I will deal with your request upon my return.

James Ross

show quoted sections