Hampstead Cover up: Evidence trail from Hampstead UK pedophile network leads directly to PM David Cameron

By Alfred Lambremont Webre

NewsInsideOut.com

WATCH ON YOU TUBE

NOTE: The normal Skype recording was intentionally interfered with by an outside agency. This is a backup recording and we urge viewer patience. You are witnessing an international information war around the activities of pedophile and ritual child sacrifice networks.



VANCOUVER, BC – In a ground-breaking NewsInsideOut.com interview Ella Draper, mother of the two whistleblower children Alisa and Gabriel, and her partner Abraham Christie, set out a precise chain of evidence that leads directly from the pedophile and ritual child sacrifice networks to the over-lapping money laundering networks in Hampstead UK that in turn lead directly to two brothers – lawyer Alex Cameron QC and David Cameron UK Prime Minister and their Big Society Fund and other fund outlets.

Abraham Christie stated, “Early on we proposed a simple settlement, which was to return the children to their mother, as the law requires. As we predicted, this case has escalated with national and international security issues, as Russian Internet media is now widely disseminating the facts of this case.”

This wide-ranging interview leads up to two hearings: July 15 & July 23, 2015 Court hearings on a Motion for Leave to Appeal an earlier Judgment by Mrs. Justice Pauffley. Ella and Abraham seek to

set aside the Judgement

reopen the police investigation into the allegations of satanic ritual child abuse made by the Alisa and Gabriel

have an investigation opened up against the alleged failings of the initial investigation

During the interview, Abraham and Ella also share some of the background research that their have gathered on the origins of the recent pedophile movements and their infiltration into Social Services, including the role of the Tavistock Institute, in these developments. They shared this segment on the Pedophile Information Exchange (PIE) from a documentary on Westminster Child Abuse

https://youtu.be/j-YMxnJGBhY&autoplay=0

Recommended Reading

Part I: Exclusive Interview – Ella Draper & Abe Christie’s testimony on Hampstead pedophilia the UK Court excluded

By Alfred Lambremont Webre

https://newsinsideout.com/2015/03/part-i-exclusive-interview-ella-draper-abe-christies-testimony-on-hampstead-pedophilia-the-uk-court-excluded/

Pedophile Cover-up: Hampstead UK Police, Social Services, Courts brainwash whistleblower kids, send mother & legal helper into exile, protect Satanist abuser father

ARTICLE:

https://newsinsideout.com/2015/02/pedophile-cover-hampstead-uk-police-social-services-courts-brainwash-whistleblower-kids-send-mother-legal-helper-exile-protect-satanist-abuser-father/

“Anonymous” document exposes Hampstead UK School & Municipality as ritual child sex & sacrifice hub

https://newsinsideout.com/2015/02/anonymous-document-exposes-hampstead-uk-school-municipality-ritual-child-sex-sacrifice-hub/

Prime Minister’s Connection to the money laundering and pedophile Barbara Kahan https://sites.google.com/site/profgeorgeleesrevelations/dear-taxpayer-i-want-to-tell-you-about-the-prime-minister-s-boiler-room-in-finchley-road/barbara-kahan-from-finchley-who-becomes-mohamed-javed-akhtar-in-the-next-tier-of-the-ponzi-shell-company

REFERENCES

Justice Mrs. Pauffley’s Judgment in the Family Court

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2015/26.html&query=ZC14C00315&method=Boolean

JULY 23, 2015 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL



Set out below is a copy of Ella Draper and Abraham’s legal brief (short version) in the Motion for Leave to Appeal

Appellant Skeleton Argument (short version)

This is the Skeleton argument in support of the Amended Grounds of Appeal requesting permission to appeal the Judgement of Mrs Justice Pauffley dated 19th March 2015. The Appellant alleges that she was prevented from attending any of the Court hearings since 12th February 2015. She has not had sight of the transcripts of the hearings on 17 – 20 February, 3 – 6 and 10 – 12 March 2015. She has also been refused a copy of the up-to-date papers. Therefore it should be noted that this skeleton argument and the grounds of appeal have been drafted without sight of such documents, which the Appellant is entitled to have a copy of. The Appellant seeks to;

set aside the Judgement

reopen the police investigation into the allegations of satanic ritual child abuse made by the children P and Q,

have an investigation opened up against the alleged failings of the initial investigation

have the allegations of section 4 of the Harassment Act against her put on hold until the above investigations are effectively carried out and concluded.

This is a unique case where allegations of serious nature has been made by P and Q (‘the children’ against their father (Mr Dearman) and several professionals involved in satanic child abuse rituals in various n alleged to have secret rooms. The allegations are documented within Justices Pauffley Judgement para 11-15. Background history can also be found in the Judgement This Court will be aware of the media attention to this case. We request that the court considers this appeal in conjunction with the statutory inquiry into historic child abuse set up by The Home Secretary Theresa May lead by Justices Goddard. This inquiry, as we are aware, is ‘considering whether, and the extent to which, public bodies and other important institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse. It will seek to address public concern over failings exposed by appalling cases of organised and persistent child sexual abuse’. We draw the Courts attention to the comments of Theresa May in the Telegraph published on 14th March 2015 (exhibited TMT1);

“We already know the trail (historic child abuse) will lead into our schools and hospitals, our churches, our youth clubs and many other institutions that should have been places of safety but instead became the setting for the most appalling abuse. However, what the country doesn’t yet appreciate is the true scale of that abuse….. how abuse is woven, covertly, into the fabric of our society.

The Appellant position is that this child abuse is not historic, but woven deeply into our society today and it happens on a much larger and horrific scale. Indeed there is widespread evidence/suggestion of satanic ritual practise, which has been documented. It is submitted, by the Appellant that satanic ritual abuse is not “fantastical” (paragraph 102 of the Judgement) nor the “realms of fantasy” (paragraph 116 of the Judgement) and something very real and woven deeply into our society. There is other evidence / suggestion that Satanic ritual practice exists and one would not need to look far to find it. In fact there are published books and known survivors of satanic ritual abuse who speak openly about their ordeal.

Police Investigation

The Appellant states that police investigation was seriously irregular and that there are strong suspicions of police corruption and cover up or negligence at the very least. The effective investigation was never carried out, vital evidence was not secured and possibly allowed, deliberately or negligently, to have been concealed or destroyed. This, the Appellant strongly states, is in breach of the children’s rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and has allowed for a serious miscarriage of justice where the children, P and Q, and many other children still remain at serious risk. In line with normal procedure, the allegations made by the children should have been referred to the Child Abuse Investigation Teams, and the five specialist sections;

The Appellant understands that such a referral was not made and no reason is detailed in any of the documents the Appellant has. This omission is consistent with the assertion that no effective investigation was carried out and normal police procedures were not followed or adhered to.

The serious procedural irregularity within the police investigation is supported by the witness statements of former Detective Constable Kylie Wilson dated 28th December 2015. Ms Wilson specialised in sexual offences. She criticises the police investigation and states:

Para 31 “The Crime Report would appear to infer that policy was not followed in this case”,

Para 38: “Evidence pointing to and away from an offence must be considered. Investigators should not make assumptions that due to the unlikely or seemingly ridiculous nature of the allegation that it is untrue. If an account appears to be untrue corroboration should be sought for this also”.

This report concludes that it was not suitable “to close this investigation at this point without further enquiries and corroboration being sought”. It should be noted that there was no investigative action taken against the implicated schools, tve teachers, parents and members of the Social Services and the police. Other named suspects and professionals were not formally interviewed, policy was not jadhered to correctly in regard to achieving best evidence in the police interviews of P and Q, and the crime report 2419891/14 (Exhibited as CR1) does not appear to have appropriate set of considerations, actions or reviews.

Arrests and lines of enquiries

PACE CODE G states that “the power of arrest must be used fairly, responsibly, with respect for people suspected of committing offences and without unlawful discrimination”. It is argued that the powers of arrest in this instance were not employed fairly or responsibly and with unlawful discrimination in that Mr Dearman, a suspect, was subject to positive discrimination as he was never arrested and never interviewed about the allegations made by the children. In fact, the powers of arrest were never exercised during the police investigation in respect of any of the alleged abusers. The only one “interviewed”, although it was inadequate interview in our submission, was Mr Dearman. This is detailed below. Under section 24 PACE 1984 and PACE 2.1 CODE G,

“ A lawful arrest requires two elements: A person’s involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence; AND Reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary.

both elements must be satisfied, and

it can never be necessary to arrest a person unless there are reasonable grounds to suspect them of committing an offence”

It is argued by the Appellant that the arrest criteria for Mr Dearman was satisfied but yet he was never arrested by the police thereby the police breached section 24 PACE 1984 and PACE CODE G. Instead, curiously, he was invited for a caution plus 3 interview at Colindale Police station on the 15th September 2015 where he is not arrested , free to leave at any stage, his persons nor his home address is searched and neither is his mobile phone or laptop / computer ever seized for forensic examination. Indeed, such lines of enquiry the police for less serious allegations. It is submitted that all reasonable lines of inquiries were not pursued and the ones that remotely were was biased towards pointing away from the suspect. Importantly, the caution plus 3 interview at the police station on 15th September 2014 was prior to any retraction by P and Q. We submit that the fact that he was not, and has never been arrested when the arrest criteria had been satisfied raises concerns and suspicions over the manner of the investigation conducted by the police. There had been attempts, evident throughout the crime report, to minimise the need to arrest Mr Dearman. We note here that even when the medical examination confirmed the allegations, no arrest was ever completed. Furthermore, the abuse was not historic in the sense that the children clearly indicated in their ABE interviews that the abuse of other children was still on-going, especially at Christ Church Primary School. We note here that by this time, the children had provided details of other abusers and their names including Mr Hollings, a teacher at Christ Church Primary School. They specifically stated that they had been abused at the home address of Mr Hollings and he had a cupboard which lead to a secret basement. It is submitted that the address of Mr Hollings could easily be identified by the police but they failed to carry out a forensic search of his home address which would have been expected in line with normal procedure. By the 6th September 2015, grounds for arrest as the arrest criteria had been satisfied. Further confirmation that the arrest criteria was fulfilled is given at Page 35 of 77 entry by DS Fernandez 10th September at 15:09. However, as stated above, he was invited for a caution plus 3 interview at the police station on 15th September 2014 where he is not arrested and free to leave at anytime. This was prior to any retraction by P and Q. This is in breach of section 24 PACE ACT 1984 and the children’s rights secured under Article 3 of the ECHR. Strangely, there is no detail within the Crime report as to why and how the decision was made to invite Mr Dearman for a caution plus 3 interview when the immediate previous investigative steps suggested an arrest strategy. This is no detail as to who or how Mr Dearman was contacted.

Caution plus 3 Interview of Mr Dearman on 15th September 2015.

Importantly and curiously, the Crime report does not provide any reasoning for why Mr Dearman was only questioned about one specific allegation of sexual abuse at Finchley swimming pool but there is no reasoning given for this strange ‘pick and choose allegation’ approach. An extract from page 42 has an entry providing a summary to the interview demonstrates that Mr Dearman was not questioned about the allegations as a whole, his connections with the other named alleged abuser, about satanic child abuse rituals or being a leader of a satanic cult. Such omission raises further concerns of procedural irregularity especially given that no reasoning for the strategy or content for the interview is detailed in the Crime Report and no doubt there would have been a strategy and reasoning for this bizarre decision and approach. In fact, strictly speaking, the Appellant doubts that the children even alleged what was put to Mr Dearman during the bizarre interview. As far as she recalls, the children alleged that aside from Mr Dearman, there were many people (alleged friends of Mr Dearman) in the swimming pool who did ‘sex’ to them in the disabled toilets using “plastic willies”, stretching P’s bottom in order to insert the plastic willies, making it bleed, the children were made to suck their “real willies” and lick the privates of the female abusers. This is detailed in the ABE interview of the children on 5th and 11th September 2014. There appears to be a clear reluctance from the police investigators to address the allegations as alleged by the victims. It is apparent not only from the Crime report and interview transcripts, but also from the curious handling of the recordings and short video clips provided by Officer Jean Clement Yaohirou (see below) and the overall failure to follow up investigative leads.

Dr Hodes evidence available during the Caution Plus 3 Interview

It is important to note that Mr Dearman was interviewed without arrest by the police on 15th September 2014 between 16:20 and 17:26 hours , clearly within the period that Dr Hodes provides her confirmation of the injuries and the abuse (at 16:49 on 15th September 2014). It is a fact that at this stage of the investigation, there had been no ‘retractions’ by the children (which were made on 17th September 2014) and Dr Hodes medical examination had not been criticised by Mrs Justice Pauffley. This supporting evidence would have triggered further grounds for immediate arrest under PACE CODE G and, Mr Dearman in our submission, should have been arrested and his phone / computer/other relevant property identified and seized for evidential purposes and his premises and other places of interest searched to secure evidence and to allow for a prompt and effective investigation at the very least. No explanation is given for the positive discrimination in the crime report or any papers that the Appellant has seen. This is further evidence of serious PACE breaches and the rights of the children under Article 3 of the ECHR.

Retraction interviews

The “retraction” interviews took place on the 17th September 2015 whilst P and Q were in the custody of the possible alleged abusers (members of the Police Service, Social Services and CAFFCASS). The retractions themselves were inconsistent and do not give the same sources of material as to where they got their ideas from for touching, whether they touched or not, where the idea of plastic willies came from etc. Q’s retraction appears to be confused and he appears to be lead through it by the Police interviewer, DC Martin. This raises further concerns of cover up and therefore the possibility that the retractions may have been coerced. The interviewing officer fails to ask about details of the actual abuse and of the abusers in order to identify them but instead seems to largely concentrate on the surrounding items of the crime In the “retraction” interviews that took place on the 17th September 2015 Q is trying to tell the truth and please the adult, he can tell that the Interviewing Officer is not happy at what he is hearing, so he tries to do both. He sticks to his honest story but he tries to minimise it over and over stating things such as, “not every day” and “not all the time” and” not that much.” before the penny drops and he realises that a retraction is required. Q has repeated his earlier allegations of murder from the previous interviews and affirmed them now seven times in this interview. The interviewing officer inexplicably completely refuses to pursue the obvious line of questioning here. He has been told that the father specifically killed babies, neither pertain to the movie Zorro, so any reasonable interviewer would solicit further details, When did it happen? Where did it happen? Who else was there? What time of the day did it happen? What day of the week? How many times? etc and if the story was not true it would obviously collapse under scrutiny once all those details were provided. How many times does a witness have to say that something has happened before it is acted upon? The interview continues

IO “Are you sure? It’s ok If it hasn’t happened it’s ok as long as we talk about it now.”

This, the Appellant submits, is indirect intimidation for Q to retract his allegation otherwise it won’t be ok. The Court should bare in mind that P and Q made it very clear in their previous interviews and the short video clips that they feared for their life if they continued with their allegations.

In the face of barely veiled threats, having reaffirmed seven times even upon prolonged badgering, Q finally understands what he is ‘supposed’ to say and now debunks the “dead babies” claim obeying the obvious instructions of the Interviewing Officer and retracts this allegation. It is submitted that this is in breach of the children’s Rights under Article 3 of the ECHR and raises further suspicions of a cover up and the retraction interviews should be inadmissible as evidence. Significantly, abuse at the swimming pool in the disabled toilets is confirmed by Q and not retracted, contrary to the claim that “from the interviews themselves, both P and Q did indeed withdraw their claims, all of them ” paragraph 143 of the Judgement. In addition, the “retractions” had implicated a child at Christ Church primary called “Sophie”. There is no evidence or information to confirm what, if any, actions were taken against identifying Sophie and confirming the content of the retractions made by P and Q which would have added support to the retractions. Infact, there is no supportive investigative evidence to support the retractions. The Appellant finds it difficult to accept how 2 interviews of each children, phone recording by officer Jean-Clement Yaohirou, the short video clips and the medical evidence was dismissed in favour of a single retraction interview of each child where there are vast inconsistencies.

The Appellant draws the Courts attention to notes of the foster carer of the children (when they were removed from the Appellants care on 11th September 2014) who suggests that the allegations were not retracted until the 30th September 2014. This is further evidence that the children were coerced to make the retractions statements during the interviews of 17th September 2014 as they were still repeating the allegations to the author of this document. More importantly, there is no mention of Q retracting the allegations of sexual abuse.

Distinguishing Marks, audio recordings made by Officer Jean Clement Yaohirou and various short films clips of the children

There is no explanation in the crime report 2419891/14 as to why the alleged perpetrators with distinguishing marks were not at the very least invited for a medical examination to verify or rebut the allegations, after all, it was within the police knowledge as demonstrated at Page 31 of 77 entry by DI Cannon on 9th September 2014 at 16:43. This highlights another failing in the police investigation and there is no reasoning for not pursuing this line of enquiry. These distinguishing marks and other details of the allegations were further documented in the audio recordings made by Officer Jean Clement Yaohirou and in the various films clips of the children that found their way onto the internet. In paragraphs 107-108 of Justices Pauffley’s Judgement she acknowledges that the above evidence, in one way or another, was concealed or at the very least, not made available to the officers involved in the investigation. The fact that such evidence was not made available to the Court raises the possibility that other vital evidence may have also been misplaced, concealed or not even secured. Valid or even essential lines of enquiry for an effective investigation may not have been properly explored or disclosed. The moment Justices Pauffley was made aware of such a “curious fact” she should have stopped the family proceedings and directed the police to re-open its investigation promptly and to an effective standard. Instead, Justice Pauffley continues with the proceedings and categorically clears all abusers of any wrong doing. The Appellants questions whether Justice Pauffley, who sits in the High Court in the Family Division, went beyond her jurisdiction by virtue of paragraph 165 of the Judgement by clearing alleged abusers of criminal allegations without a prompt and effective investigation by the police in relation to all the alleged abusers, crime scene sites and the allegations by the children. This, it is submitted on behalf of the Appellant, gives rise to a serious miscarriage of Justice. It is evident from the Judgment that the Judge was that the investigation was concluded without the officers having viewed vital and important pieces of evidence. It is therefore submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Judge erred in making findings and determination of facts based upon a clearly flawed police investigation. It is submitted that the learned Judge should have at the very least ordered the police to account for any failings and to clarify the contents of any evidence not reviewed previously (perhaps this was done at the fact finding hearing) and reflected this in her Judgement. The Appellant submits that in this case given the serious horrific nature of the allegations involved, the learned Judge should have ordered the police to reopen the investigation to review all the evidence available, carry out fresh inquiries and address any procedural improprieties in the original investigation. The Appellant submits, for the above reasons and that as neither of the above courses of action were taken, or even considered, the findings made by the learned judge render the Judgment wrong, wholly or in part, in both law and fact.

Secret Rooms

The secret rooms (referred to in the judgement in para 14, 113 and 115) within Christ Church, houses of the alleged abusers, and Macdonald’s which the children have described in great detail in the short video clips should have been thoroughly investigated. Secret rooms for child abusers is not uncommon, as documented in the now infamous case of “Fritzl”. It is not accepted that two police officers attending the church without notice and having a “good look around” (para 40 of the Judgement) was sufficient to identify the secret room and investigate fully this line of inquiry. This the appellant suggests was to give the impression that some investigation was being done when in actual fact nothing effective and in line with procedure was being done. The police should have attended in numbers with a search warrant and a forensic team so that the area could be secured and a proper and thorough examination of the church could take place for blood amongst other things. The same should have happened with the alleged abusers homes, the 7 local schools including “Christchurch Primary School in Hampstead…..said to be where the ‘main action’ occurred” (paragraph 14 of the Judgement). Neither was a forensic search conducted at East Finchley swimming pool which was identified “as one of the other meeting venues for the paedophile ring”. The police failed to follow this obvious line of inquiry and there is no explanation given in the crime report as to its failings / decisions. Page 9 of the Crime report 2419891/14 states that on 5th September 2014, “Forensic oppurtunites unknown at this time” and “no scene to preserve”. This is unusual given the heavy details of the allegations and the fact that P in her interview invited the police to attend Hampstead Christchurch Primary School in the morning where they could catch the abusers in action. Therefore it is clear that the crime scenes for forensic analysis were obvious and apparent but search warrants were never obtained or execute where they should have been. In view of this, the Appellant disagrees with the assertion in paragraph 22 of the Judgement that “The forensic inquiry has been full and thorough”.

CCTV

It is submitted by the Appellant that the police failed to consider viewing or securing any CCTV from the alleged crime scenes such as Christ church Primary School and Chirst Church. There is no consideration within the crime report 2419891/14 concerning the line of enquiry into the presence of CCTV footage at the relevant crime scenes let alone efforts to secure any CCTV footage evidence

Crime report 2332233/11

Furthermore, the courts attention is drawn to Crime report 2332233/11, which was part of the evidence considered in these proceedings. The incident refers to sexually explicit text messages from Mr Dearman to the Appellant in October 2011 that distressed her.

The Appellant submits that these text messages from Mr Dearman to the Appellant suggest that Mr Dearman has obscene and unnatural sexual fantasies. This would have been, or should have been, within the knowledge of the police officers investigating the allegations made by the children. There is no reference in the crime report 2419891/14 to this and, the Appellant submits it highlights another failing on the part of the police investigation.

FRESH EVIDENCE

On Monday 20th April 2015 Mr Dearman gave an interview to Victoria Derbyshire of the BBC. Mr Dearman states:“it was 2014, um, September. And um , I can’t remember how, But I I I found out that the police were looking for me. It might have been social services got in touch with me and and and said that you need to go to the police station…”

It appears that social services who were liaising with the police, were able to contact him by telephone without much difficulty. This raises concerns about the manner the investigation was carried out and echos the comments of Kylie Wilson in her statement (exhibited as KW1) that “Social Services input may have had an influence on investigators”. The Appellant draws the Courts attention to further strange and curious comments made by Mr Dearman during the aforementioned BBC programme that are in grave contradiction with what the police interviewed him about and seriously undermine his credibility. Mr Dearman makes it clear that he was in a recorded interview with the police officers when he was questioned about this and there is no reason to doubt that he is not talking about the same interview on the 15th September 2014 as this was the only time we understand that he was interviewed. These comments made by Mr Dearman on National TV seriously undermine his credibility in respect of anything he has claimed or said during the actual ‘flawed’ interview, and in these proceedings especially in relation to the Appellant and the allegations made by the children.

Online Researchers

The lack of investigation by the police and the disclosure of some of the Court documents online has had a massive impact on the general public. We understand that more than 30 million people worldwide have viewed the various related material online and the numbers are growing. This has consequently led to a unique situation where concerned members of the public have been conducting their own investigations in order to, in their views, protect P and Q and ascertain whether the children allegations are truthful or not. The Appellant submits on their behalf that they are not “evil” nor “foolish” but just a concerned public who request that a full, prompt and effective investigation is carried out by the police. The online researchers allege, with some evidence, that an IP address linked to Mr Dearman has links to child pornography and prostitution. One of these links has advertisements for the sexual service of a 9 year old girl named with the same name as P (see comments on exhibit HR1 and video number 17 titled “Dearman Child Pornographer?” on the Hampstead research website). Although, the Appellant cannot verify the truth of these findings, it is submitted that this provides further reason for an official, transparent investigation to be launched as a matter of urgency and public interest. The public outcry demonstrated by the fact that they feel they need to do their own investigations highlights the serious concerns of the general public about the integrity of the officers involved in the police investigation and of the safety of the children which need to be addressed. The police have a duty to conduct investigations into particularly severe violent acts perpetrated by private parties in a timely and efficient manner. It is submitted that there had been systemic failings by the police in investigating these allegation perpetrated by Mr Dearman and other abusers which amounted to a serious breach of the children’s rights underArticle 3of the European Convention on Human Rights. Accordingly, it is submitted that Mrs Justice Pauffley erred in clearing the alleged abusers of any criminal wrong doing (Para 165 of the Judgement) and ruling that “There was no satanic or other cult at which babies were murdered and children were sexually abused” without a proper, adequate, prompt and effective police investigation carried out especially given the evidential suggestion of a police “cover up”. It is repeated that the Judgement by Mrs Justice Pauffley, as a whole or in part, was wrong in fact and unjust due to the serious procedural irregularity within the police investigation of the satanic ritual abuse allegations made by P and Q thereby rendering her Judgement wholly or partly unlawful. It is submitted that this has allowed for a serious miscarriage of justice and the Judgement should be set aside and an immediate police investigation into the allegations should be commenced as a matter of urgency in order to secure any evidence that may perhaps still be available and not destroyed or concealed. The Appellant also requests that an official inquiry is commenced into the failings of the original police investigation. The Appellant submits that this is in the best interest of P and Q and other at-risk children, it is in the interest of the public, justice and the integrity of the Justice system as a whole.

GROUND 3 OF THE AMENDED GROUNDS

Article 6 provides that everyone has the right to a fair trial in both civil and criminal cases. A party to legal proceedings has the right to be heard by an independent, impartial tribunal, in public, and within a reasonable amount of time. The Appellant was the 1st respondent in the proceedings but was unable to participate during the proceedings after 12th of February 2015 (as noted in paragraphs 52-58 of the Judgement) and thereby by virtue of her absence she was not given a fair hearing. Therefore it is submitted that the Judgement should be set aside as the proceedings are in breach of the Appellants rights secured under article 6 of the ECHR. The Appellant states that her absence was not “deliberate” (paragraph 20 of the Judgement) and that the Judgement failed to consider the impact on her by virtue of the unannounced attendance at her house on the 12th February 2015 by the police. This attendance terrified the Appellant and made her believe that her life and health were at risk if she was to be arrested or to held in police custody. The Appellant consider this as intimidation and her fears were real given the curios sequence of events in the police investigation and the nature of the allegations. The Appellant draws the Courts attention to the following;

P and Q disclosed horrific allegations of satanic ritual abuse to the Appellant which they alleged involved members of the police, social services and CAFFCAS. The mother, till today, believes these allegations by P and Q to be true as she has had numerous discussions with P and Q and the level of detail was sufficient to establish that, at the very least, some sort of horrific abuse had taken place and a police investigation was needed.

The Appellant, notwithstanding the real fear of P and Q in repeating the allegations to the police due to the possible involvement of some police officers, assures them that the right and responsible thing to do is report it to the police so that other children at risk could be saved and protected from further abuse. Accordingly, due to trust issues, the Appellant and Mr Christie decide to go to Officer Jean-Clement Yaohirou to report the matter as he is the brother in law of Mr Christie. This family relation provides for the encouragement that was required for the Appellant and P and Q to report the serious matter.

The police seriously fail to carry out a prompt and effective investigation (as detailed above) and the main alleged abuser, Mr Dearman, is not even arrested, he is not searched, there is no forensic examination of his mobile phone, computers and his premises. No one is arrested for the allegations. This lack of investigation created the real fear for the Appellant that a cover up by the police had occurred and that P and Q were correct about the involvement of the Police.

P and Q are removed from the care of the Appellant and handed to social services on 11 th September 2015. Inconsistent and curious retraction interviews of both P and Q followed on 17 th September 2014. The Appellant by this stage is frightened by the involved authorities but decides to represents the best interests of P and Q in the public care proceedings.

September 2015. Inconsistent and curious retraction interviews of both P and Q followed on 17 September 2014. The Appellant by this stage is frightened by the involved authorities but decides to represents the best interests of P and Q in the public care proceedings. Her residence order is revoked and her contact with P and Q is significantly reduced. No explanation is given to her by the Judge Mayer at the Family Courts. This curious behaviour adds to her suspicion of the involvement of the authorities implicated in the allegations and the level of their power.

Approximately 10 police officers, mostly in plain clothes, attended her home address on the 12 th February 2015. Two of the officers are allegedly carrying medical kits. They have no warrant and initially cannot explain why they wish to speak to her. After a short pause, the police contend that she is to be arrested for questioning regarding allegations of Section 4 of the Harassment Act. The Appellant was terrified and thought the police would arrest her and perhaps inject or feed her something to create symptoms within her so she could be labelled as someone suffering from mental health issues (See page 35 of the Crime report “mothers believed mental health concern”). This she felt would support to negate the allegations made by P and Q. In fact, this belief of the police (who are not medical experts) of mental health problems with the Appellant, notwithstanding that no analysis was carried out by a relevant psychiatric expert to identify mental health issues, was wrongly used to take the children away from the Appellant’s care on 11 th September 2014. This further highlights the procedure irregularities and failings of the police investigation because they should have obtained medical evidence about the Appellants mental health before using such a reason to take the children away from the Appellant whom is the only party that the children never made, as we understand, any allegations against.

February 2015. Two of the officers are allegedly carrying medical kits. They have no warrant and initially cannot explain why they wish to speak to her. After a short pause, the police contend that she is to be arrested for questioning regarding allegations of Section 4 of the Harassment Act. The Appellant was terrified and thought the police would arrest her and perhaps inject or feed her something to create symptoms within her so she could be labelled as someone suffering from mental health issues (See page 35 of the Crime report “mothers believed mental health concern”). This she felt would support to negate the allegations made by P and Q. In fact, this belief of the police (who are not medical experts) of mental health problems with the Appellant, notwithstanding that no analysis was carried out by a relevant psychiatric expert to identify mental health issues, was wrongly used to take the children away from the Appellant’s care on 11 September 2014. This further highlights the procedure irregularities and failings of the police investigation because they should have obtained medical evidence about the Appellants mental health before using such a reason to take the children away from the Appellant whom is the only party that the children never made, as we understand, any allegations against. The Appellant notes that the Judgement by Justice Pauffley heads in a similar direction in that the indirect suggestion is that due to mental health issues, the Appellant and Abraham Christie applied ”relentless emotional and psychological pressure as well as significant physical abuse” for P and Q to make up “concocted accounts of horrific events” (paragraph 17 of the Judgement) of abuse. The Appellant disputes this and states that it is illogical to assume that she would subject her children, whom she loves dearly, to such torture in order to force the children to make up allegations involving so many abusers and authorities and complex rituals just to prevent Mr Dearman from having contact with P and Q. She disputes and challenges the decision that the allegations by P and Q were “false” (paragraph 18, 101, 162, 165 of the Judgement), “baseless” (Paragraph 16 of the Judgement) and “fabricated” (paragraph 16, 18 and 102 of the Judgement)”

The Appellant compares the attendance of the police officers at her house for an allegation of section 4 of the Harassment Act without a warrant to the treatment of the police to the alleged abusers and Mr Dearman in respect of much more serious and horrific allegations made by P and Q where the arrest criteria had been satisfied and forensic examinations at named sites were justified (no sites forensically examined and Mr Dearman was invited for a caution plus 3 interview). She contends that the police could have invited her for a voluntary surrender or caution plus 3 interview at the police station by appointment.

Therefore, the Appellant submits for the above reasons that she feared for her life and safety of her health and sanity and was prevented from participating in the proceedings in breach of her rights under article 6 of ECHR.

Furthermore, the Appellant seeks full transcripts of the 12 day fact finding hearing as she disagrees with paragraphs 16,17,18, 101, 102, 162, 165 (as stated above) and 22 of the Judgement;

“It has made little difference that Ms Draper has been absent. I have been actively assisted in my investigative role by Ms Markham, Counsel for the local authority, and Mr Ageros who represents the guardian. Each has asked questions designed to explore those matters which, in all probability, the mother would have raised. Close attention has been given to the claims she’d made in her written material so as to ensure her case was put to all relevant witnesses”

The Appellant is only able to address and determine if the Appellant’s case was put to the relevant witnesses after she has had full sight of the transcripts. Currently the Appellant does not have legal representations through legal aid and lacks the funds to pay for the transcripts. Accordingly she requests that the Appeal Court orders the transcripts under public funding.

The Appellant disputes that she provided her children with cannabis as detailed in paragraphs 157-158 of the Judgement. She challenges the scientific results of the hair strands and wishes for another expert to repeat the tests. She also requests details of the results of the examination of the hair samples of the children taken by the police on 5th September 2014 as confirmed on page 27 of the crime report 24198991/14 Exhibit In view of the above, it is repeated that the Appellant was prevented from participating in the proceedings and did not and could not have had a fair hearing which is in breach of her rights under article 6 of ECHR. This has resulted in a possible miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the Judgement should be set aside, the allegations against the Appellant put on hold, a police investigation into the allegations made by P and Q in relation to the ritual child abuse is re-opened, and an investigation is conducted into the failings of the initial police investigation.

GROUND 4 OF THE AMENDED GROUNDS

It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Justice Pauffley erred in not giving sufficient weight to the medical evidence and strong expert opinion of Dr Hodes especially, considering the lack of contradictory medical evidence. It is to be noted that medical evidence in this matter would have been one of the most important pieces of evidence available to the court and given the public interest, it would have been in the interest of justice to refute medical evidence with similar medical evidence but none was made available. The contents of the Medical reports by Dr Hodes (instructed initially by the police during the short and brief investigation stage) and her evidence in cross examination during the fact finding hearing was criticised by Justice Pauffley (paragraph 132-139 of the Judgement) and effectively ignored. As mentioned above, no other similar medical evidence was sought or adduced. The police and court both had sight of Dr Hode’s medical evidence. The police did not comment upon this evidence or even follow it up in their investigation (see above). There is no evidence to support any assertion otherwise. This evidence was provided to the Court. It was considered by the learned Judge. Therefore it is submitted by the Appellant that another independent expert should have been instructed to examine P and Q to verify or refute the findings of Dr Hodes especially given that P and Q were, wrongly in the Appellants view, not called to give evidence. It is accepted that the children have been subject to horrific events in any event, however, what would be more horrific that their allegations were not properly and thoroughly investigated. Consequently it is submitted by the Appellant that Mrs Justice Pauffley erred in fact in ignoring the strong medical evidence of Dr Hodes (paragraph 132 – 139 of the Judgement) thereby rendering her judgement wholly or partly unlawful. In view of this skeleton argument, it is submitted that the Appeal has more than a reasonable prospect of success and therefore permission to appeal should be granted for reasons given above. Please note that these Amended Grounds and skeleton argument are submitted with the liberty to amend especially given that we have been refused our own copy of the up-to-date papers involved in the proceedings and neither do we have a transcript of the fact finding hearing.

Save

Like this: Like Loading...