So I walk from my taxi in the rain today on my 55th birthday, into a queue of at least a few hundred people, never seen that before, into the Royal Courts of Justice the Strand Magna Carta - Edward I.
I'm listed yesterday at 2.30pm Moss v PHSO Court 63 and I size up the oppositions KC outside and he does the same in a batman style fashion of the joker
I go into the court room and this case is going on about it's 9.30am so plenty of time. However by 11.11am and I'm listed for just half an hour I go outside and low and behold I've been fucked the court case isn't there. Quick moving through the Bell Yard, out back in the rain, around the front in again and ask reception, who are disgusted saying they will make a complaint and it's court 16.
Now 11.29pm and within a minute or the PHSO would achieve strikeout and costs, of it being over, they see me coming in.
He is there Batman chatting like what's he doing in my court case without me aha, and the clerk with whom ever is whished into the back room, and I say "it's the admin court but there is no admin".
Shaken with my suggestions about starting anyway and him realsing I know fuckin well who he is, and this is never going to go well, sickening as that is, the Judge comes in causually and 'all court rise'.
It's a nicer room than the 63 anyway and she is very eminent.
I read my submissions
AC-2023-LON-002021
This is written in full without any legal advice whatsoever by Mary Moss, Edwards sister.
I currently have a court case K0CL630 against St Mungo’s, Central London County Court as they corrupted the CCTV at the 24-hour security place, of Edwards residence that the coroner gave a direction that the family could see of 8th Sept 2021, the day Edward died.
In the case give two maladministration examples on the part of St Mungo’s in having Edward sectioned during the pandemic when instead of caring for him they couldn’t be bothered.
1) They sectioned with police at 4am for him simply putting a TV out onto the street.
2) They sectioned Edward, as the cell sized room with sink, he occupied for 20 months, are not en-suite and he got caught short in his sink, having suffered stomach colitis, due to over-sedated leaving him with loose bowels and he had asked for an ensuite due to that health issue. He asked them for cleaning products so they sectioned him.
Neither of those Section 2 admissions qualify for the Mental Health Act admission criteria, a ‘danger to yourself of others’
A TV and a Sink, both are inanimate objects.
On both occasions I was not informed and could not apply for discharge as ‘next relative’ until after the police arrived at St Mungo’s and took Edward to UCH A&E to be 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 carer but on each occasion, despite having met with me on more than half a dozen times, tried to deny it.
Dominique Merlande and Julian Mitalas of the MHA office were both particularly obstructive. Gosia Sidal, Heston Huston, Ade Amole as well as many others, never just one, all ran delay tactics amounting to maladministration on the level of deliberate sabotage.
Attached, ‘All communication with PHSO leading to refusal to investigate maladministration’
for ease of reference, although you will only need to see the last pages 316-317 of this doc.
It’s a chronology of events starting from pages 316-317 reading to page 1 refusal by PHSO.
The document starts, with my email to the Care Quality Commission, CQC, 18th March 2021 regarding the ‘6th March 2021 TV Event’. Edward pictured for his passport earlier that day.
It’s the anniversary of the suspicious death
of a friend. Six months before his own death.
Complaint by me to the CQC. Ref: ENQ1-10565655848, it read’s for ease of reference;
Maladministration – 48 hours to release him on application by nearest relative under the mental health act.
“he is on a section 2 and I have applied as his nearest relative for his immediate release, more than ten days ago”
Maladministration – Right to refuse and not to have drugs administered by force under the mental health act. Human rights issues, with domestic violence.
“staff are stripping him, holding him down and injecting him, he is crying on the phone and wants to leave”
The mental health act office namely Julian Mitalas and Dominique Merlande, deliberately thwarted any normal application by saying that I was not the ‘next relative’. This was a tried and tested routine to delay release within the 48 hours and they had previously done the same routine in 2019, taking from Dec to January 2020 to establish I was the next relative.
Not only did I know them, I had 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 then committed maladministration, as they only got back to me on the 21st April 2021 and not within the 28 days as required with complaints procedures.
Under the Parliamentary Commissioners Act 1967, “Investigation by Commissioners” there are five matters subject to investigation,
[F1]
(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 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 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, the procedure is meticulous procedurally around asking officials, if they consulted the next relative. Banning me was maladministration, so reasonably I had no resort to remedy.
There are other parts of the Parliamentary Commissioners 1967 Act I will state here of potential relevance;
[F5]
(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) Actions 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 (a) above;
(a) A written complaint is duly made to a member of the House of Commons by a member of the public who claims that a person has to perform a relevant duty owed by him to 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 Keir Starmer and contemporaneously at that time the MP was trying to get Mary a right of reply, where she had been named by a Commander Neil Jerome, unknown to her, who had given public evidence to the Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse talking about her, as if he had interviewed her when he had not. She was not invited to give evidence but was subject to a police raid in 2013 by Operation Fairbank. MP Starmer, was dealing with complaints from Mary, who met him at a surgery meeting, regarding MP Tom Watson’s approach towards her too but perhaps this was a conflict of interest, considering he elevated him to the House of Lords. Mary was defamed by the Commander, subject to an IOPC complaint, where he said that official, ‘court stamped documents’ taken in the raid, from a criminal trial of the Elm Guest House, were dubious.
Edward with no history in 20 years of sectioning or a criminal record being wrongly privately sectioned in a private hospital initially by Charing Cross police, from December 2019 to Jan 2020, not subject to Judicial review, preferring to have an ease of reference to events in the year he died and the lead up to that being of relevance, for reference to maladministration.
Therefore, I don’t think I can rule it out, since my eye was taken off the ball with IICSA, that the following did not apply.
[F5] (4A) (a) Without Prejudice, the commissioner shall not conduct an investigation if action, or authority, was taken by the secretary of state, for the purpose of protecting the security of the state.
Again the 2004 Victims Code also mentioned in the Parliamentary Commissioners Act 1967 relates to physical harm and pain because of state actions that violate the law or generally human rights.
The key to the accusations of the maladministration where the PHSO should have investigated and then uphold as maladministration are addressed in these legal submissions, in that, on the 10th May 2021 at the (AHM) Associate Hospital Managers Meeting,
(2) (a) and (b) of the Commissioner Act 1967
(a) the right of appeal before a tribunal
(b) a remedy by way of proceedings in a court of law
were the only two reasons, the commissioner could not be compelled to investigate, neither of which can be seen at the time to reasonably apply, since in (b) solicitors pick and choose and since Kenneth Clarke made it much more difficult to get legal aid there’s no remedy.
The Magna Carta is now a very slim version of what it once was, much to the dismay of Judges and good barristers having to deal with toothless Ombudsmen, rather than miscarriages of Justice, when they are happening, so as to avert death and have a fair and accessible legal remedy, by way of much more legal aid, the old green form, as would be fair.
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. There was never a tribunal. The one in June 2021 was cancelled rather than allow him to have remedy. This is maladministration!
In the second instance, the MHA staff committed maladministration with the ‘next relative’ routine, therefore who could discharge Edward, within 48 hours as applied for, legally and normally, under the mental health act and by the judgement that Edward presented no difference, to his normal behaviour, by the observation of his ‘next relative’ on March 7th.
Any relevant ‘delegations’ had been signed for properly by Edwards Father and Edward’s eldest sister, and that had already been done by the same staff, December 2019 to Jan 2020.
That being so, the Mental Health Act office staff ‘at all times’ knew Mary was not only Edwards carer, his local sister, his defender from the Charing Cross police private section, which is also in a court case, Claim Number: KB-2022-006399 at the Queen’s Bench now the King’s Bench, they knew from discharge meeting with her as the ‘next relative’ that she had won the last time and this time they were never going to allow her to exercise her function, effectively depriving her protection role, from the clinicians desires, rather than the MHA.
Between them they went to extraordinary lengths to thwart the rules and that is maladministration. The in house safety net of a Mental Health Act office was not only compromised by being on the same premises but actively did what the clinicians wanted in every way possible as was available to them. A cause of 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 stated in an email, that they called Edwards placement and St Mungo’s had told them that I was the ‘next relative’ and certainly as his carer too they all knew that and should have observed it, within the meaning of the act. That is maladministration.
This then gave rise to the clinician applying for a barring from discharging Edward order from the clinician, Dr Neil Stewart. This was on the back of Edward and I applying for a tribunal, to which we were subject to a AHM Associated Hospital Managers Meeting review where we were to appeal not to have a section 3.
Anyone who knows anything about Section 3’s will understand that these sections unlike the section 2 for assessment up to 28 days, are for 6 months incarceration and once you get one, it’s largely weighted as a matter of a clinicians opinion at a meeting as to if you need another.
If you get two, then no more meetings are necessary and the clinician is totally in charge of re-sectioning and it’s used largely for heinous acts of crime or self-harm. If you are subject to this type of maladministration for acts that cannot be considered a danger to yourself or others, then that would be a harder position to get any justice from because generally speaking you are then considered persona no grata as an unwelcome person in civil society.
It's not issued lightly and must meet strict criteria yet the report attached was literally littered with inaccuracies and was not despite being repeatedly requested emailed to the next relative until 24 hours before the AHM meeting. ‘10th May 2021-Associate Hospital Managers report corrections’ attached for ease of reference.
To highlight some basic errors and therefore maladministration potentially giving rise to deprivation of liberty, was that Edward in 2019, was initially held under a Section 3, when he was not, he was 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 misleading. They also said Edward had a son, that had died and this was completely false, he had no son at all, ever.
This is maladministration with serious consequences and false detainment issues. Making strict proof, of Edward being a danger to himself or others being falsified in medical records.
When the ‘next relative’ challenged the report, or asked to she was told to send an email after the event!
When she had waited her turn and was invited to speak not-withstanding she had listened to the clinician being uninterrupted by the chair, advocating the lies in the report https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTZtPsWjJhQ&t=4341s and she has evidence of bias of the chairperson, in an audio account of what then transpired in 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 all were NHS foundation Camden!
This false report, and over chairing, to cease the rights of Edward and the next relative, was also exaserbated by the chair asking Edward for his opinion by video link and being able to quickly cut the sound. Leaving Edward being allowed to say very little at all, however he managed to say, “I’m going to sue you when I get out of here” and he was mainly referring to the fact that two psychiatrist’s had not signed off the Sectioning paperwork, more maladministration and he knew it from the beginning. One was a social worker Ade Omole. The section was therefore illegal from the start.
Again a tribunal was requested as that is resort to the courts as in the commissioner act, the date was set for June 2021 and this was changed many times that June, some four months after Edwards initial application and that is also maladministration as they only have 4 days, from the MHA application and verbal request 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.
All the maladministration as stated in the issues, above, were prepared for court.
Mary sat in a team’s call and all Edwards sisters another three of them were waiting in the wings, having all been extremely traumatised by the events of what had happened to their brother Edward, 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 administrative 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 Sink’ incidences leading to Section 2 with police turning up to his room, where he should have been safe but where he was also failed, by not giving him the room to explain and by an adequate service by a specialist government through Camden paid for provider for people with mental health issues, again maladministration and that ‘legal standpoint’, the PHSO take regarding the initial sectioning being right or wrong, is not a foundation to not investigate all issues.
After one sister reached the courts we all found out that despite Edward or his nearest relative not being told, he was discharged the day before. We told him to walk out!
We were thinking that he may be re-sectioned again starting another laborious process but avoiding the court tribunal or why didn’t they release him or tell him and us. We made an immediate report to the police for depravation of liberty for that night.
Edward, who had seen Mary every day for her to administer his money in the morning to help him budget and almost every day in the evening after her work, had seen Mary that morning he died. She told him to be very careful as the Ombudsman had now the final response and had emailed, they would be taking on the case. See final response.
Edward said, “I have a bad feeling something is going to happen”. He came to see her again at 6pm and was chipper having had a bottle of prosecco he said. Did the police turn up again, we have no record of a section attempt but without CCTV, we don’t know? We do know that after hiding his body for 4 days, we found him and he was without doubt judging by his face and the video taken, shot in the head or battered!
The Ombudsman to say they would not investigate maladministration’s was odd too since they had held the case from Sept 2021 to June 2021, and have not acknowledged service of the case for Judicial Review, which means I win by default and have applied for the default judgement but instead of that I was put backward to this hearing to apply again after a judgement without a hearing given to me!
Law Reference;
Attachments;
1. 10th May 2021 Associate Hospital Managers Meeting, corrections by next relative.
2. Final response of CQC to go to the PHSO, C006 report of complaints not upheld.
3. All communication with PHSO chronological in order starting from page 317 up.
No comments:
Post a Comment