Rest in Power Ed
08.07.70 - 08/09-9-21
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.
