Friday, 31 May 2024
Thursday, 28 March 2024
IOPC update - Infuriating!!!
Dear Vanessa,
My brothers death was not natural.
See attached his face was assaulted.
I
made a complaint to the IOPC and if you had done your job then, he may
not have been assaulted. The complaint was against PC Karl Bassam and
Charing Cross police you have a record of it but if not they are the
parties.
The picture of Edward and I is him alive with me on 7th July 2021.
Kind Regards
Mary Moss
Dear Ms Moss,
Thank you for your email. My decision letter dated 26 March 2023 adequately sets out the rationale for my decision, and the steps you may wish to consider should you wish to request any additional information about the complaint you previously made.
I again invite you to provide any information which might assist the IOPC in identifying the status of any complaint you previously made to us.
Yours sincerely,
Vanessa
Dear Vanessa,
I received the email and have just read it.
Can you explain why a 'welfare visit' was carried out from a noise complaint a month after the event?
Can you explain why the investigation by IOPC about my brother can't be forwarded?
Can
you explain why the Commander whom I never met can write me into his
historical document as a colleague of a labour party councillor, when I
am not?
I appreciate your limited powers to investigate, from recent changes to the IOPC.
Kind Regards
Mary Moss
Owner
One Percent 4 ART
Ms Mary Moss
26 March 2024
Dear Ms Moss,
This letter is about your application for a review of the complaint decision by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) which we received on 11 December 2023.
The IOPC is independent of the police.1 Our role is to decide whether your complaint against the MPS was handled correctly and the outcome was reasonable and proportionate. This decision was communicated to you by PC Lewsley in a letter dated 22 November 2023.
We have not investigated your complaint as part of this review.
In deciding whether the outcome was reasonable and proportionate, I have considered whether:
-
the complaint handler engaged with you to fully understand and address your complaint
-
the complaint handler conducted adequate enquiries and considered relevant information
-
the conclusion was logical, appropriate and evidence-based
-
reasonable actions were taken to address your complaint
-
any potential for learning was identified as part of the process.
You may like to read a copy of our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to help you understand more about how we make our decisions, including a definition of what we mean by ‘reasonable and proportionate’. I have included a copy of our FAQs with this letter.
1 Our legal powers and duties are set out in paragraph 6A of Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 and Regulation 29 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020.
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
My decision
I have concluded that the outcome of your complaint WAS reasonable and proportionate. Therefore your application for review is NOT UPHELD.
When making my decision, I have considered:
▪ Your original complaint dated 15 April 2023.
▪ Your application for review letter dated 11 December 2023.
▪ Supplementary material you have sent in support of your application.
▪ The report prepared by the Complaint Handler (CH) PC Lewsley dated 22 November
2023 and the evidence referred to in their report.
Application for review
In your application for review dated 11 December 2023, you asked me to review the IO’s findings regarding the reasons for the welfare visit and you queried the information provided to you regarding GDPR. You also referred to information provided to you by the CH regarding the outcome of a previous complaint that you made to the MPS regarding your brother’s treatment. You asserted that you have no record of the IOPC’s decision.
Complaint
Following an incident on 3 March 2023 involving your neighbour, officers from the MPS
visited your home in order to speak with you. You submitted a complaint on 15 April 2023
in which you alleged the police were overzealous in their actions over a noise complaint. In
your view, the police wished to harm you by arresting you because you are in litigation with
the Chief Constable of the MPS.
I am satisfied that the CH has engaged with you and has taken all reasonable steps to understand your complaint and address your concerns, which were accurately summarised in the outcome letter.
My Assessment
I am satisfied that the CH has conducted reasonable and proportionate enquiries and
considered relevant information.
I consider that the conclusion was logical, appropriate and evidence-based and that reasonable actions were taken to address your complaint.
Accordingly, I consider the overall outcome to be reasonable and proportionate.
My rationale
I note that the CH’s outcome letter summarised the information and evidence which was
obtained and considered during the handling of your complaint. I have carefully reviewed
the information submitted with the background papers, and in my view, the summary
provided in the CH’s outcome letter accurately reflects this information.
I have reviewed the emails sent between you and PC Czinege from the MPS 2
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
Neighbourhood Policing Team, in which I can see that he attempted to answer your questions and allay your concerns regarding the reasons for the police welfare visit to your home address. I have also reviewed the MPS incident logs. PC Czinege clarified the reasons for the police welfare check following your contact with the police, and confirmed the visit was not in response to a warrant under the Mental Health Act.
The information provided to you by PC Czinege was re-iterated in the outcome letter from the CH, who confirmed that the police visits to your home address were in relation to a genuine policing purpose. In my opinion, having reviewed all the available information, I do not consider these police visits to be highly unusual, as you asserted. I am satisfied that the CH provided adequate information about the reasons for the police visits to your home address and provided a reasonable response to your complaint. The information I have reviewed, including the incident logs, does not support your assertion that the reasons for the police visits were linked to any previous complaints that you made to police. I can see from the outcome letter that when officers attended your home on 3 March 2023 and 15 April 2023, they knocked on your door however you did not answer. In my opinion, the evidence does not indicate that the actions taken by officers from the MPS, as discussed within the outcome letter, constitutes a criminal offence as you asserted.
Your application for a review highlighted your dissatisfaction at the explanation provided regarding disclosure of information under GDPR. I am satisfied that the information provided within the outcome letter is reasonable and proportionate, however I would re- iterate the CH’s advice and suggest that should you believe that you may be entitled to any additional information, that you request this through the appropriate MPS channels.
The CH’s outcome letter further provided information to you regarding the outcome of a complaint you made highlighting your dissatisfaction with Commander Jerome and his involvement/evidence to the Independent Enquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). I can see from IOPC records that you submitted an appeal against the MPS’s decision letter dated 11 April 2019 to not record your complaint. Your appeal was received by the IOPC on 30 April 2019 and was considered under IOPC reference number 2019/118839. You were informed in our decision letter dated 23 May 2019 that your appeal was not upheld, and the matters you raised should not have been recorded as a complaint.
Our records indicate that you contacted the decision maker, Assessment Analyst Hannah Tyler on 28 May 2019 noting your dissatisfaction with the outcome to your appeal, and she replied to your email on 29 May 2019 reminding you that our decision is final and cannot be changed. This suggests that you were informed of the IOPC’s decision to not uphold your appeal at that time. Should you wish to receive a copy of this decision letter, please inform me of the same and I will forward a copy to you via email.
I am satisfied that the CH’s findings are supported by the available evidence, and the CH has undertaken adequate lines of enquiry to address your complaint reasonably and proportionately, given the explanations provided and the action taken to rectify your complaint. I have not identified any additional lines of enquiry that could be undertaken, which could make a material difference to the CH’s findings and as such, could have a significant effect on the outcome of your complaint. Your review is therefore not upheld.
3
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
Conclusion
I am sympathetic to your description of the distress and trauma you have experienced, and
I understand that this outcome may be disappointing to you, should you feel that you have
not received a satisfactory remedy to the issues you raised. However, I have considered
all the available evidence and for the reasons provided above, I have concluded that the
outcome of the enquiries into your complaint was reasonable and proportionate, and the
finding that the service you received was acceptable to be logical. No further action is
required in respect of these matters.
Organisational learning
Throughout my assessment, I have carefully considered whether there are any further opportunities for organisational learning or improvement. In this case, I have not identified any additional learning.
Matters we cannot consider
I would like to re-iterate that the purpose of my review is to determine whether your complaint has been handled reasonably and proportionately by the MPS, and that appropriate conclusions have been reached regarding the service you have received.
Your application for review asserted that complaints to the IOPC regarding your brother’s treatment were never responded to. If you made a complaint about the behaviour of police officers, and received an acknowledgement letter or email confirming receipt of your complaint, please provide an IOPC and/or MPS reference number to enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk to request further information, if we hold it within IOPC records, about how your complaint was handled.
In your email to the IOPC sent on 11 December 2023, you provided a letter from the MPS dated 30 March 2020, which confirmed that the complaint made by Mr Edward Moss, MPS reference IX/02108/20, had been recorded. Since this letter came from the MPS Complaints Support Team, please contact the MPS directly for further information about how the complaint was handled.
This letter was addressed to Mr Moss, therefore should you wish to make a request for information to the IOPC, you can find more information about how to do so on our website: Requesting information | Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).
This concludes my review and I hope my decision and the reasons I have given are clear. You cannot appeal the outcome of this review.
You can contact me if you have any comments or feedback, or if you need more information about the way I have reviewed the force’s handling of your complaint. My contact details are at the end of this letter.
We are committed to providing the highest possible standard of customer service. Please let us know if you are unhappy with the service you have received.
4
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
Yours sincerely
Vanessa
Casework Manager
Independent Office for Police Conduct Telephone: 020 7166 3964
Friday, 22 March 2024
Jesus-
Thursday, 14 March 2024
Appearance of Mary Moss before Judge Susie Alegre - 23rd Jan 2024 - EDWARD & MARY MOSS v PHSO
Tuesday, 23 January 2024
(11.44 a.m.)
THE JUDGE: Good morning. Sorry that you got lost.
MS MOSS: Thank you. I am so grateful that you saw me anyway. Thank you.
THE JUDGE: Can I ask you, how would you like me to address you – is it Ms Moss, or Mary?
MS MOSS: Mary would be great, yes. (After a pause) "Ms Moss" has got a very unfortunate tone.
THE JUDGE: I know it is always a struggle to decide what to call yourself. For the purposes of these proceedings you can call me "my Lady", but if you get it wrong, do not worry.
MS MOSS: I don't say "my Lord" then? (Laughter).
THE JUDGE: Not today.
MS MOSS: No, not today. Thank you.
THE JUDGE: I realise that you are self-representing today----
MS MOSS: Yes.
THE JUDGE: -- and I understand that it is a really huge challenge to represent yourself in proceedings, especially when you find yourself in a court like this. What I want to do before you start is really maybe just to clarify a little bit about what this hearing is----
MS MOSS: Yes.
THE JUDGE: -- so that you know how to focus what you have got to say.
MS MOSS: Right.
THE JUDGE: So far, the application that you have made to judicially review the decision of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to refuse to go back and investigate the issues that happened to your brother. The first stage was what is called 'a paper application', so that is why the first Judge took the decision on the papers. The judicial review case that is the first stage because you have to have permission to do the full claim.
MS MOSS: Oh, right.
THE JUDGE: So the first Judge decided that there were not arguable grounds----
MS MOSS: Yes.
THE JUDGE: -- for judicial review in this case. So this hearing is where I get a chance to listen to you and for you to explain why you think you have got arguable grounds----
MS MOSS: Right.
THE JUDGE: -- about this judicial review.
MS MOSS: Okay.
THE JUDGE: And so those are the grounds in public law, and I can see that you have given a lot of information about the tragic history relating to your brother, which I am very sorry to read about, but essentially today I am not looking at what happened----
MS MOSS: No. No.
THE JUDGE: -- it is only whether or not there is an arguable case in public law.
MS MOSS: Yes, I understand.
THE JUDGE: I would also just like to say beforehand that whatever my decision that does not necessarily mean there are not grounds of complaint elsewhere, or issues, it is purely on
this----
MS MOSS: Absolutely.
THE JUDGE: -- one question about whether there are legally arguable grounds with a reasonable prospect of success.
MS MOSS: Yes.
THE JUDGE: One of the reasons for having this permission stage is, to be honest, I think to help avoid people wasting a lot of time and money on proceedings that are not necessarily----
MS MOSS: Yes.
THE JUDGE: -- going to get them where they wanted.
MS MOSS: Definitely.
THE JUDGE: So it is a very narrow point I am deciding today, and I hope that helps, spells out what you have to do.
MS MOSS: It does, yes, and it keeps it focused as well, so that's good.
THE JUDGE: Yes. So it is purely about that question of what the arguable grounds are----
MS MOSS: Yes.
THE JUDGE: -- against the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, and I can see the bigger picture----
MS MOSS: Okay.
THE JUDGE: -- which I understand is just awful.
MS MOSS: Yes, of course. Yes.
THE JUDGE: And if you can focus on that, that would be really helpful.
MS MOSS: Yes. Thank you very much, my Lady. Is it your Honour or your Lady – which do you prefer?
THE JUDGE: My Lady. "Your Honour" is in the Crown Court.
MS MOSS: Ah, right, thank you.
THE JUDGE: "My Lady" is in the High Court. But, like I say, if you get it wrong do not worry.
MS MOSS: Brilliant. So, do you want me to start?
THE JUDGE: Yes, if you would just like to----
MS MOSS: Can I just ask you one or two things about the proceedings?
THE JUDGE: Yes.
MS MOSS: I have written out some legal stuff that I have looked at – the Commissioners Act, and it is about seven pages, so it would take about 10 minutes to read, but I do not want to bombard you with me reading something, but it is relevant to the narrow Commissioners Act where I may get permission if it was within the Act.
THE JUDGE: Yes.
MS MOSS: So there is that, or I could say to you initially my thoughts, but I would be very worried that my thoughts wouldn't cover everything.
THE JUDGE: I have got the permission bundle, which I have looked at.
MS MOSS: The recent one?
THE JUDGE: The documents – yes, one that was from----
MS MOSS: Three days ago.
THE JUDGE: I think so, let me just double-check. (After a pause) I have got your skeleton arguments, is that what you mean?
MS MOSS: No. About three days ago – because they said leave it until three days before, send in a permission, sorry, legal submissions, because I was recently in front of Judge Common at the County Court, and he said in the order, 'I am going to prevent you from reading lengthy legal submissions' so I thought I'd better send them in three days before so at least I don't have to read them.
THE JUDGE: Okay.
MS MOSS: And I can't skim over them because they are so detailed.
THE JUDGE: Are these the Rules you are talking about?
MS MOSS: No, they are the circumstances, the causes of why I believe that it does fall under maladministration, and the specific Acts where I believe would, you know, then win in a judicial review.
THE JUDGE: Okay. So what I have got: I have got a permission bundle.
MS MOSS: I wish I'd printed it. I've got it written down, but that would show----
THE JUDGE: Okay, so what I've got, I----
MS MOSS: -- it's just written because----
THE JUDGE: No, that is fine, I was just looking to see what I have got. I have got
MS MOSS: You'll have to excuse my handwriting.
THE JUDGE: -- a permission, I have got a permission bundle re-lodged on 30 November.
MS MOSS: Yes, that's the bundle.
THE JUDGE: I have got your skeleton argument----
MS MOSS: Yes.
THE JUDGE: -- which I think is, that is from December. I do not think I have got anything from a couple of days ago. Do you have a copy? (hand written notes handed up, via the clerk)
MS MOSS: I wrote it down – sorry.
THE JUDGE: Okay.
MS MOSS: That's the only thing I've got that I could possibly put in front of you that – because I would go through it now, because I've got it on my laptop.
THE JUDGE: Okay, I mean it is fine, you can just tell me orally, if you like, you can just explain to me----
MS MOSS: My problem is I’d miss out most of it if I just----
THE JUDGE: But again, it is focussing really on that----
MS MOSS: On the actual----
THE JUDGE: -- on the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
MS MOSS: Sorry?
THE JUDGE: Yes, so it is focusing on the PHSO.
MS MOSS: The Act.
THE JUDGE: And whether or not they have acted reasonably.
MS MOSS: Yes, exactly. Should I just read – it is only seven pages?
THE JUDGE: Yes.
MS MOSS: I think I should just read it, because it is really comprehensive rather than----
THE JUDGE: Go for it.
MS MOSS: Yes? I'm so sorry about that----
THE JUDGE: That is okay.
MS MOSS: If you need to stop me, please----
THE JUDGE: Okay, I will see how we go.
MS MOSS: Although sometimes I might clarify it straight off.
THE JUDGE: So if you want, first of all, just tell me----
MS MOSS: In a snapshot.
THE JUDGE: -- in a nutshell what your grounds are, and then----
MS MOSS: The Commissioners Act says that (after a pause) – you see, I can't do it.
THE JUDGE: That is fine, do not worry.
MS MOSS: It's just that top of your head thing. It's so nerve-racking already, so----
THE JUDGE: No, I know it is, do not worry, that is fine.
MS MOSS: Can I just read it?
THE JUDGE: Sure.
MS MOSS: Right, okay. So, my legal submissions with associated documents, but you won't have those but that's okay – hopefully the judicial review would have that. This is about maladministration.
This is written in full, without any legal advice whatsoever, by Mary Moss, Edward's sister. I currently have a court case KOCL630 against St Mungo's, which I dropped a couple of days ago, but never mind. I only dropped that because they were meant to give me the CCTV. They evaded it. They've got very good solicitors, and they've now said the CCTV doesn't exist.
THE JUDGE: Do not worry, that is a completely separate offence----
MS MOSS: (Overspeaking) So there's a different case, different cases----
THE JUDGE: This is mainly about the St Mungo’s hostel---
MS MOSS: At, the Central London County Court, as they had the CCTV, at the 24 hour security place, Edward's residence, that the Coroner gave a direction, that the family could see, on 8 September 2021, the day Edward died.
In this case I give two maladministration examples on the part of St Mungo's in having sectioned Edward during the pandemic which, instead of caring for him they couldn't be bothered. (1) They sectioned him with police at 4 a.m. for simply putting the TV on to the street. (2) They sectioned Edward as the cell-sized room I think he occupied for 20 months, not en-suite, and he got caught short in the sink having suffered stomach colitis due to over sedation, leaving him with loose bowels. He asked for an en-suite due to the health issue, and he asked them for cleaning products, and they had him sectioned.
Neither of those two sections qualify under the Mental Health Act criteria as a, ‘danger to yourself or others’, the TV and the sink being both inanimate objects. On both occasions I was not informed and could not apply for a discharge as the next relative until the police arrived at St Mungo's, took Edward to A&E and he was sectioned. On both occasions he ended up in Highgate Hospital under the clinician Dr Neil Stewart.
The Mental Health Act office at all times knew that I was the next relative and the carer, but on each occasion, despite having met with me more than half a dozen times, they tried to deny it. Dominque Merlandez, Julian Metalis of the Mental Health Act Office were particularly obstructive. Gosha Sidall, Heston Huson and Ade Amole as well as many others – never just one – all ran delay tactics amounting to maladministration on the level of deliberate sabotage. All communication leading to the refusal to investigate maladministration would be in a potential judicial review.
But on the last page of that particular document, for ease of reference I will say it here – the document starts with my email to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on 18 March 2021, regarding the 6 March 2021 TV event. That was the anniversary of his friend's death. The complaint, CQC reference ENQ10565655848, it reads for ease of reference: "Maladministration. 48 hours to release him on application by the nearest relative under the Mental Health Act." So that is my first maladministration. It reads: "He's on a section and I've applied as the nearest relative for his immediate release more than 10 days ago."
Maladministration, the second one: "Right to refuse not to have drugs administered by force under the Mental Health Act, human rights issues with domestic violence" which was also in the Commissioners Act. Then it reads, from that email: "Staff are stripping him, holding him down and injecting him. He's crying on the phone and wants to leave." The Mental Health Act office, namely Julian Metalis and Dominique Merlandez, deliberately thwarted my application by saying that I was not the next relative. This was a tried and tested routine to delay release within 48 hours, and they had previously done the same routine in 2019, taking from December to January 2020 to establish that I was the next relative. So not only did I know them, I'd met them half a dozen times in meetings for discharge then. This should be upheld as maladministration to prevent this routine happening to others. The NHS Foundation CQC----
THE JUDGE: Sorry, can I just stop you for one second----
MS MOSS: Yes.
THE JUDGE: -- to check, so what you are saying is, essentially----
MS MOSS: They knew me.
THE JUDGE: -- that the maladministration was failing to recognise you as the next relative?
MS MOSS: Yes.
THE JUDGE: And that that is what the PHSO should have investigated?
MS MOSS: Must investigate, yes.
THE JUDGE: Okay.
MS MOSS: The NHS Foundation, CQC, then committed maladministration as they only got back to me on 21 April, not within the 28 days as required with complaints procedures under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. In investigations by Commissioners there are five subjects to investigate:
"(1B)
(a) a code of practice issued under section 32 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (code of practice for victims) . . .
(2) Except as hereinafter provided, the Commissioner shall not conduct an investigation under this Act in respect of any of the following matters, that is to say—
(a) any action in respect of which the person aggrieved has or had a right of appeal, reference or review to or before a tribunal constituted by or under any enactment or by virtue of Her Majesty's prerogative;
(b) any action in respect of which the person aggrieved has or had a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law:
Provided that the Commissioner may conduct an investigation notwithstanding that the person aggrieved has or had such a right or remedy if satisfied that in the particular circumstances it is not reasonable to expect him to resort or have resorted to it.
I will later outline that the remedy at the Associate Managers' Meeting was also thwarted by Camden NHS Foundation officials, where they banned me from speaking at my own meeting, yet procedure is meticulous. Sorry – yes, the procedure is meticulous procedurally around asking officials if they consulted the next relative. So, banning me was also maladministration. So, reasonably, I had no resort to remedy. There are other parts of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act – you get that? Right, okay. So, they banned me from my own meeting which was ridiculous.
There are other parts of the Parliamentary Commissioner 1967 Act, I will state here of potential relevance: 5(4A):
"(4A) Without prejudice to subsection (2) of this section, the Commissioner shall not conduct an investigation pursuant to a complaint under subsection (1A) of this section in respect of—
I'm going to read this fast, this bit because it's not really relevant, but it is sort of particularly to do with the Commissioner Act, so I am only going to slot it in there because, who knows? I'll just put it in there. It bores me but it is potentially – anyway.
"(4A) Without prejudice to subsection (2) of this section, the Commissioner shall not conduct an investigation pursuant to a complaint under subsection (1A) of this section in respect of—
(a) action taken by or with the authority of the Secretary of State for the purposes of protecting the security of the State . . ."
With reference to (1B) above: (a) the complaint was duly made by a member of the House of Commons, by member of the public, who claims that a person has to perform the relevant duty owed to him by a member of the public. The relevance of the above is that Edward's MP was copied into the initial CQC complaint, as Edward and Mary (his sister) shared the same MP, and contemporaneously at the time, the MP was trying to get Mary a right of reply where she had been named by a Commander unknown to her, at a public inquiry, as if he has interviewed her, and he had not. She was not invited to give evidence but was subject to a police raid in 2013, by an operation by the Met Police, and the MP was dealing with the complaint from Mary, who met him at his surgery meeting, regarding another MP's approach towards her, to get some confidential files, but perhaps there was a conflict of interests considering the other MP was elevated to the House of Lords. Mary was defamed by the Commander subject to an IOPC complaint.
So, what I am getting at is, it might be something to do with a Cabinet directive, which features within the Commissioners Act, so I'm not going to bore you with that anymore because I do not think it is relevant.
THE JUDGE: Yes, if you can just keep very much on this question.
MS MOSS: Exactly. Edward had no recent history of sectioning or a criminal record and he was wrongly privately sectioned, initially by Charing Cross Police, with one psychiatrist, in December 2019, where I believe he was being picked on by the police very, very, suddenly that is not subject to the judicial review, but for ease of reference, to the offences in the year he died, that is the maladministration I am sticking to. I am not going all over the place, I am sticking to those two points of maladministration latterly, not the ones in 2019 to 2020 because I didn't take them forward at the time, so I can't refer to them now, but I can only say historically they did exist.
THE JUDGE: Yes.
MS MOSS: Okay. So, therefore, I do not think I can rule it out since my eye was taken off the ball with the inquiry. Without prejudice, the Commissioner shall not conduct an investigation if an action was taken by the Secretary of State. It's probably pie in the sky? Anyway, in 2004 Victims' Code also mentioned the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 relating to physical harm and pain because of the state actions that violate the law or generally human rights. So, we're now talking about Edward being assaulted initially and in an immediate way.
The key to the crux of maladministration were that the PHSO should have investigated and then upheld maladministration, addressed in legal submissions, is that on 10 May 2021, at the Associate Hospital Managers' Meeting (AHM), (2)(a) and (b) of the Commissioner Act 1967 (a) the right of appeal before a tribunal, and (b) a remedy by way of proceedings in a court of law. Where the only two reasons the Commissioner could not be compelled to investigate, neither of which can be seen at times to reasonably apply, because in the case of going to court, solicitors pick and choose, and it is very difficult to get any kind of legal remedy there, so that is not reasonable. It was not reasonable for me to take it to court, it was absolutely completely on the contrary, people wouldn't – especially somebody with a mental health issue.
In the first instance, Edward, who was always very aware of his rights under the Mental Health Act, called for a tribunal in March 2021 within hours of him being in the hospital. There was never a tribunal. The one in June, which was a long time after, March, April, May, June, was cancelled rather than allow him to have remedy, and this is maladministration by four months.
THE JUDGE: Were they fixing the tribunal?
MS MOSS: Essentially holding somebody for four months and in one way and another prevaricating, until the point where the person is completely doped up, abused, the family is completely in distress, no legal rights have been given to us, it's very, very much maladministration, which the Commissioner can investigate.
In the second instance the MHA staff committed maladministration. The ‘next relative routine’, which is all I can call it – it's a routine – because they've done it before to me. Therefore, who could discharge Edward within 48 hours as applied for legally and normally under the Mental Health Act? And by my judgment, Edward presented no difference in his normal behaviour, by the observation of the next relative on March 7th, which is the first time I had been told that he was in A&E. Also, I will add, Gary Monk from Hodge Jones & Allen said exactly the same thing, he had presented absolutely no abnormal behaviour from his normal behaviour, so that's quite important. And the next relative's function, is to state that, within the Mental Health Act. Any relevant delegations, which was my dad, my older sister, had already been made in 2019. So that's all on their records, and that can be found, and it's exactly the same people as well.
That means that the Mental Health Act office, at all times knew that I was not only Edward's carer, his local sister, his defender from Charing Cross Police, private section, who I'm also in a court case – was in a court case with, claim number KB2022006399 at The Queen's Bench, now the King's Bench. They knew from the discharge meeting in 2020 – the last time I'd won – and this time they weren't going to allow me to exercise my function because I was, I was just clever and a very good defender of my little brother. (Ms Moss became distressed) (After a pause) Sorry.
THE JUDGE: Do not worry. I understand, it is very upsetting.
MS MOSS: Between them, they went to extraordinary lengths to thwart laws and this was maladministration. The inhouse safety net of the Mental Health Act office was not only compromised by way of being on the same premises but actively did what the clinicians wanted in every way possible, as was available to them, would cause great concern to any new patient.
When it became clear that we were going to eventually establish I was the next relative, and delegations were given, yet again they, all of a sudden, they stated in an email, that they had called Edward's placement and St Mungo's had told them that I was the next relative, that I was the next relative, a call – a call – and certainly as his carer too, they all knew that, and should have observed it within the meaning of the Act, and that is maladministration. (I am on page 5).
This gave rise to the clinician applying, when they had played their routine, I wasn’t the next relative, then the clinician was applying for a barring of me from discharging Edward's order and this was on the back of Edward and I applying for a tribunal, to which we were subject then to an Associate Hospital Managers' Meeting review, where we were to appeal not having a section 3, bearing in mind he was on a section 2, which is just assessment. Anyone who knows anything about section 3s will understand that these sections – unlike the section 2s for assessment, up to 28 days - are for six months incarceration, and once you get one, it's largely weighted as a matter of the clinician's opinion, at the meeting, if you need another. If you get two then there's more meetings – sorry, if you get two then there's no more meetings, they're not necessary.
The clinicians are totally in charge of the subject and re-sectioning, and it is used largely for heinous acts of crime or self-harm, danger to yourself or others. If you are subject to this type of maladministration, for acts that cannot be considered a ‘danger to yourself or others’, then it would be a hard position, to get any justice from, because generally speaking you are then considered persona non grata, an unwelcome person in society. It is not lightly issued, and it must be met with strict criteria, yet the report attached was literally full of inaccuracies, and it was slander, and was not, despite being repeatedly requested, emailed to me, the next relative until 24 hours, before the AHM Meeting.
So, on 10 May 2021 the AHM Manager's report, sorry – no, sorry, 10 May Associate Hospital Manager's report, ‘corrections’, that I wrote, then I would attach that to judicial review. I'll just cut it short. To highlight some of the basic errors, and therefore maladministration potentially giving rise to depravation of liberty, was that, Edward, in 2019, was initially held under a section 3, when he was not, he was held under a section 2, and it was changed later by Dr Neil Stewart to a section 3. If the report were to be believed, it would be his second section 3, and it is misleading. They also said, Edward has a son that had died, and this was completely false, he has no son at all, ever. I mean, I could really go into what was in that report, it is ridiculous. This is a maladministration, with serious consequences, and false detainment issues, making ‘strict proof’, that Edward being a ‘danger to himself or others’, being ‘falsified’, in medical records.
When the next relative asked to challenge the report, she was told to send an email, after the event of the AHM. When she had waited her turn and was invited to speak, notwithstanding that she had listened to the clinician being uninterrupted by the Chair, advocating the lies in the report, and she had evidence of the bias – I have a recording of it, because it was at home, it was on the Team's thing – she has evidence of the bias of the Chair in an audio recording of what then transpired, into her being made to be just an observer, whilst her brother had also been heavily sedated before the meeting, making a mockery of proceedings, the clinician successfully barring her, from discharging her brother, which was more maladministration. All the Panel members being in a conflict of interest, since they're all NHS Foundation, Camden.
This false report and over-chairing to cease the rights of Edward – I think I'm on page 6, yes – False report and over-chairing ceased the rights of Edward and the next relative, was also exacerbated by the Chair asking Edward for his opinion by video-link, and being able quickly to cut the sound, leaving Edward being allowed to say very little at all. However, he did manage to say: "I'm going to sue you when I get out of here", and he was mainly referring to the fact that two psychiatrists – he was very clever, Edward – had not signed off the sectioning paperwork, which was more maladministration, and he knew it from the beginning – one was a social worker Ade Amole. The section was therefore illegal from the start.
Again, the tribunal was requested as this is----
THE JUDGE: Just to stop you for a second there, these are relating to the tribunal proceedings, so these are things that the PHSO cannot look at.
MS MOSS: In the Commissioners' Act it says they cannot investigate, if you have a reasonable recourse to remedy, which is the tribunal.
THE JUDGE: They also cannot look at the actions of the tribunal.
MS MOSS: No, I don't want them to look at the tribunal but what I do want them to do is investigate the maladministration, i.e. the running around that I wasn’t the next relative? Allowing four months of torture of my brother, and bad health as a result of it.
But, as you said, about the tribunal, I'm not asking them to investigate the tribunal, far from it. I'm not interested in it at all. What I'm just saying is in the Commissioners' Act it cannot reasonably be said, because I was barred from it and I didn't get the report, the report was wrong, I absolutely had no recourse to remedy and I also couldn't, as most people know, there's no legal aid for it – take them to a court of law, to immediately stop the abuse of his human rights. So those are the two reasons, why they should not bar me from an investigation.
Is it all right if I finish?
THE JUDGE: Yes.
MS MOSS: Thank you. Again, the tribunal was requested as that is a resort to the courts as in the Commissioner's Act. The date was set for June 2021, and this was changed many times, as far back, to some four months, after Edward's initial application, and that was also maladministration because it has to be done within, I think, 28 days or something reasonable – oh, it's four days, they had four days to do it, from the initial application and verbal request made by Edward in March 2021.
Mary brought Edward a suitcase with clothes for when he got out, and his suit for the hearing, both confident that the court tribunal would be fair, releasing Edward that day because it's a court it's not them. All the maladministration, as stated in the issues above were prepared for court. Mary sat on the Teams' call and all Edward's sisters (another three of them) were waiting in the wings, having all been extremely traumatised by events of what had happened to their brother, from delays to incompetence, perversity, arbitrariness, leading to injustice, mishandling and mismanaging his medical data, and just being dishonest. There were flaws in decision making, poor administration practice, failure to adhere to the statutory guidelines.
There was failure on at least two occasions to properly consider the exceptional circumstances of him as an individual, or his situation with the TV and the sink incidences, leading to section 2s, the police turning up to his room where it should have been safe, but where he was also failed by not giving him the room to explain, and by inadequate service by a specialist government paid for provider. Again, this is maladministration.
The legal standpoint that the PHSO are taking regarding the initial sectioning being right or wrong is not a foundation not to investigate all other issues. You cannot just take the legal standpoint, and I noted when I was looking at the laws of taking the PHSO to court – which nobody does lightly, I'm sure – that the last case they did, they were beaten because of taking a legal standpoint. I don't think that they can say: "Oh well, it's not our place to say whether he should be sectioned or not". I'm not asking them that. This is the NHS, it's a public service. Edward shouldn't have been abused in it, no matter what happened, and I shouldn't have been abused as his defender.
Anyway, the legal standpoint, that the PHSO take in regard to initial section 2 – right well, it's not an obstacle to investigate all other issues. After one of his sister’s was able to reach the courts, we all found out that, despite Edward or his nearest relative, not being told, he was discharged the day before! Interesting, isn't it? Get to a court of law and they discharge him the day before? That's a bit – you know! They don't want it in court, do they, with their shenanigans? So, we just said to him: "Walk out Edward" because we were scared, they were going to re-section him again, take him, put him back. We were playing a lot of cat and mouse with them. We were thinking that he may be re-sectioned again, starting another laborious process but avoiding the court tribunal. Why didn't they release him, or tell us, and him? We made an immediate report to the police for depravation of liberty, for that night, I've got a crime reference number for that, because he shouldn't have been kept in.
Edward, who had seen Mary every single day to administer his money, in the morning, to help him budget and almost every single evening after her work, had seen Mary the morning that he died. She told him to be very careful as the Ombudsman now had the ‘final response’ and that Camden knew! And they had emailed her – no, the Ombudsman had emailed her, they would be taking on the case, and then I would get the final response. Edward said: "I have a very bad feeling something bad is going to happen." He came to see her at 6 p.m. that same day, and he was very chipper. He said: "I've had a bottle of Prosecco" and then, I wonder if the police actually turned up again, but we've got no record of another section attempt without the CCTV, but we do know that they hid his body for four days, and we found him, and he was, without a doubt, according friends who are paramedics in A&E in America, by his face and the video that was taken, which I have, he looks like he's been shot in the head or battered. His face is black, and his blood is everywhere. My guess is they shot him in the head. But, you know, these are just guesses, I don't know what they did to him. If I can get to this maladministration, then I can have an official body, like the Ombudsman, investigate and find out what happened, including maybe the attempted section.
For the Ombudsman to say they would not investigate maladministration was odd too, since they have held the case since September 2021 to June 2023, and have not acknowledged service for this case for the judicial review, which means I would invite the court to apply a default judgment, but instead of that I was put back to the hearing, put backwards, to this hearing, except that you explained it to me, so sorry about that, after the judgment for that hearing, was given to me, there's some law references and some attachments. Thank you very much, my Lady.
THE JUDGE: Okay, thank you very much, Mary, for giving me that background, and I have read the papers as well before coming in.
MS MOSS: That's great.
THE JUDGE: As I said, what I need to decide today is the simple question of whether I am satisfied that there is an arguable ground----
MS MOSS: Yes.
THE JUDGE: -- for judicial review which has a realistic prospect of success.
MS MOSS: Yes.
THE JUDGE: So, first I will have to decide what is arguable, and then if it has a realistic prospect of success.
MS MOSS: Yes.
THE JUDGE: I have looked at all the papers, and I have heard you today.
MS MOSS: Yes.
THE JUDGE: And, as I said, this is a renewal hearing for permission, of a decision that was taken by the PHSO on 6 April 2023. Essentially, their decision was to decide not to further review their decision, not to investigate the complaints about Edward's treatment, and the maladministration that you have told me about today. So, the main reason that they gave was that the investigation was outside its remit, noting the limitations of its powers, under the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993.
So, I have listened to you today, I understand your overarching point, which is there are bits that they could have looked at, even though, I understand you accept, there are bits they could not look at. But, based on the information that I have, and the way that the claim is pleaded, I do not feel that I can grant permission for judicial review today because I do not think it is clear enough what the arguable grounds are for judicial review, or that you have a realistic prospect of success, and I understand that that is very frustrating and upsetting. It does not say anything at all about the underlying and the background facts of what happened to Edward, and what happened to you, but one of the reasons for having this gateway is to prevent people from landing up in really expensive procedures----
MS MOSS: I know, honestly.
THE JUDGE: -- where there is not a reasonable prospect of success. So, I am afraid I am not going to grant----
MS MOSS: That's fine.
THE JUDGE: -- permission today.
MS MOSS: It's good to be able to talk though, about it.
THE JUDGE: Yes, it is, and I really, you know, appreciate all the effort you have gone to. I can see you have got other things going on. Have you seen online the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide----
MS MOSS: No.
THE JUDGE: -- 2023. It is something you can Google----
MS MOSS: Yes.
THE JUDGE: -- and you will find it. In it, it has, somewhere towards the back, some very useful resources for litigants in person, of some services that help people who do not have legal aid. My understanding is you do not have legal aid.
MS MOSS: No, I made a conscious decision I was not going to go to the 'Sinecure' as I like to call them – do you know what I mean by that language? "The Sinecures"?
THE JUDGE: Explain.
MS MOSS: Well, Edward I, who built this court – well, it was John before Edward, but you know the history – the Sinecures were because the King couldn't be bothered with the law, could he? So, he got lots of his paid mates to write notes, so they essentially are the barristers of these days. I mean, obviously, (hand held out to the court staff, the clerk and the recorder below the Judge) you lovely guys run the courts these days, so it's different. But if, historically, you look at it – I once did a case that was seven years in court, a landlord’s and tenants case, I represented myself, so I dotted the i's and crossed the t's, paid £50,000 for legal fees, the whole lot – still had both my shops robbed off me. I said to myself: "Edward, I'm not going to let them do it. I'll do this myself."
THE JUDGE: Yes. Whilst that is useful background, what there are though, in the Administrative Court, are a couple of resources. One of them is Support through Court, which has an office----
MS MOSS: I know.
THE JUDGE: -- here, so you know all of those.
MS MOSS: It's difficult, isn't it? Because I mean, essentially, when the legal aid was stripped in about, what was it, 2014 by the then – what was he called, his role, Kenneth Clarke? What was he?
THE JUDGE: I cannot remember.
MS MOSS: He was the bigwig in the courts. Anyway, he got rid of it, or made it very, very difficult----
THE JUDGE: Yes.
MS MOSS: -- for legal representation for anyone to get. I mean I had a case with Bindman’s years ago, and they won for me, they were brilliant, Geoffrey Bindman – and I know Gary Monk of Hodge Jones and Allen and I know Baroness Helena Kennedy, by the way.
THE JUDGE: Okay.
MS MOSS: She knows me as well.
THE JUDGE: Yes.
MS MOSS: And yet – because I do children's rights. I noticed you wrote that book, (freedom to think) and I will read it and everything. But, yes, Geoffrey got me £1,000 – it should've been more but it didn't really matter, that was trickery – but it was for false imprisonment, battery from the police, all this sort of thing, and those were the days where legal aid was available, very much so, for injustices. So, I had to take this case, mainly to be heard, for Edward's sake.
THE JUDGE: Yes, so I understand that, and I understand it is clearly a really terrible situation.
MS MOSS: It's awful.
THE JUDGE: But I hope you understand my reasons for refusing permission.
MS MOSS: I really do. I absolutely do, no problem.
THE JUDGE: And I am really grateful to you for coming.
MS MOSS: It's a pleasure to meet you----
THE JUDGE: -- and explaining.
MS MOSS: -- and thank you for taking the time even though there was a mix up.
THE JUDGE: Thank you very much.
MS MOSS: Thank you, my Lady.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)