Writ of Habeas Corpus and Writ of Attachment.

Martin Newbold
15 Valleyside Road
East Sussex
TN355AD

Phyllis Allwood
Personal Assistant to the Chief Executive, Becky Shaw,

Deputy Chief Executive, Philip Baker and the Leader, Councillor Keith Glazier
Chief Executive’s Office
01273 335020 | 07707 649363
eastsussex.gov.uk

2014-10-17

Subject: DEFAULT NOTICE: Writ of Habeas Corpus and Writ of Attachment.

Dear Phyllis Allwood,et al

As I noticed in your previous correspondence, there was no mention of my earlier email concerning my daughter’s critical situation. I appreciate your acknowledgment of my recent communications, but I must once again stress the urgency of this matter.

On October 17, 2024, I sent a formal letter to Keith Glazier, the Chair of the Cabinet at East Sussex County Council, issuing a default notice regarding the council’s persistent failures in handling care services for my daughter and other children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). Despite numerous attempts on my part to communicate, the council has failed to take appropriate action to resolve these issues.

In my letter, I expressed deep frustration over the lack of responses to my previous communications and the continued delays in addressing the council’s legal and moral obligations toward vulnerable children, including my daughter, who will turn 18 at the end of this month. Her situation is further complicated by an active missing persons report in Ireland. Each day that passes without action puts her well-being in even greater jeopardy.

I also highlighted the council’s misuse of public funds and the inadequacy of the care services being allocated. Not only does this violate the Children Act 1989, but my daughter has been placed over 500 miles away from her home, far exceeding the legal distance limit of 50 miles under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, causing further harm.

I reiterate the need for immediate intervention and a clear timeline for action. I expect a full and prompt response from the council by October 19, 2024, as time is of the essence.

Failure to address this situation will leave me with no choice but to explore all available legal avenues to protect my daughter’s rights. I strongly urge you and your team to consider the legal and personal consequences of any further delays.

Please let me know if further information is required to expedite the resolution of this critical issue. I look forward to your immediate action on this matter.

Please note that I have served several legal documents to East Sussex County Council for legal service, including:

October 12, 10:41 AM: Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Judice.
October 12, 3:51 PM: Request for a Statement of Service under Family Procedure Rules 2010, Rule 6.7.
October 12, 5:18 PM: Request for a Statement of Service under Criminal Procedure Rules and information on children taken into care.
October 13, 9:45 AM: Subject Access Request (ref: 19567481) related to the Habeas Corpus Ad Judice.
October 13, 12:29 PM: Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Writ of Attachment.

I have also served legal information requests associated with some of these documents and am expecting a legal reply. However, your legal offices have remained moot on these matters.

I asked Mr. Glazier to note that the Northern Ireland Children’s Commissioner has failed in their service, despite two default notices being issued. These notices were meant to ensure a meeting with my daughter and initiate mediation, but this has not occurred. Furthermore, her location in Northern Ireland has been reported to the police, adding to the urgency and seriousness of the situation.

These orders of writ pursuant to application seeking Order of Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum under Rules 3-63/3-64 and 30-65 are in line with Commonwealth of Nations including USA and in Canada. Help with Habeas Corpus

I would like to bring to your attention some Hidden Facts About Family Law, particularly focusing on the writ of habeas corpus subjiciendum, which has historical significance and remains crucial today. William Blackstone once highlighted its importance as a court order demanding that a detainee be brought before the court. The custodian of the detainee must then provide a legal justification for the detention. If this justification is insufficient, the detainee must be immediately released. This writ serves as a safeguard against unlawful detention, enabling individuals to challenge such detentions in court. In the context of family law, habeas corpus can be critical when children are unlawfully removed or retained, allowing parents to assert their rights and seek justice.

It’s important to understand the Latin terms associated with this: Ad sub-Judium or Ad sub-Judice means “before a judge or court, not yet judicially decided.” Another key phrase is Subjiciendum, which means “subject to the rule,” and these terms are often used in court settings.

Many parents may not realize that they have the right to reopen previous complaints concerning their children under the Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009. Section 13 of these regulations explicitly allows local authorities to review or reopen a complaint if new information comes to light or if the situation is serious enough to require further investigation—especially where criminality is involved. These regulations also require local authorities to maintain clear complaint procedures, particularly when it comes to children’s services and social care.

Here’s something else to note:
“An application by a parent or guardian for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, concerning the custody, care, or control of a child, must be made in the Family Division.” This is a key requirement.

This order falls under the Rules of the Supreme Court (RSC), incorporated into the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) of England and Wales, specifically under Part 87, which governs habeas corpus applications. The Senior Courts Act 1981, under section 18(3), also outlines that the Family Division has exclusive jurisdiction over family-related habeas corpus cases, ensuring that all such applications concerning children are handled within that division.

Many aspects of family law remain hidden from public view, even though they are crucial in shaping legal outcomes. For example, habeas corpus plays an especially vital role in family law, particularly in child custody and access disputes. Below are several key cases that demonstrate its application:

Re A (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 773: A mother successfully obtained a habeas corpus order after her children were unlawfully taken to a foreign jurisdiction by their father. The ruling reinforced the idea that both parents’ rights are paramount in child custody matters.
B (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 48: A father sought the return of his unlawfully retained child, invoking habeas corpus. The court granted his request, emphasizing the importance of addressing unlawful detentions in family matters.
M v M (Child Abduction) [2010] EWCA Civ 632: A father applied for a habeas corpus order to prevent the mother from unlawfully removing their child from the jurisdiction. The court ruled in his favor, underscoring the significance of mutual parental consent in such matters.

I recommend reviewing Part 87 of the Civil Procedure Rules, accessible through the UK Government’s website: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules Look specifically for Part 87.

You can also review the Senior Courts Act 1981, Section 18(3), available here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/54

These are good starting points to review the legal basis for habeas corpus applications in child custody matters.

Landmark rulings such as Re L (Children) [2008] EWCA Civ 535 and Re B (Children) [2013] UKSC 33 further establish the principles surrounding child welfare and parental rights, emphasizing the paramount importance of the child’s best interests.

In conclusion, the writ of habeas corpus in family law cases is a powerful tool that serves to protect parental rights and the welfare of children. It ensures that any unlawful detention or removal is promptly addressed. By understanding and applying these principles, we can better protect the integrity of family relationships and uphold the rights of all involved.

Conclusion:
This situation has become increasingly frustrating, particularly because the Northern Ireland Children’s Commissioner has failed to provide adequate service despite being issued two default notices. These notices were intended to ensure that my daughter would be met with, allowing mediation to finally commence. Unfortunately, this failure has only compounded the ongoing stress and delay in resolving this important matter. The lack of progress in addressing these issues is unacceptable, and I urge immediate action to be taken in the interests of fairness and justice.

I am willing to provide the relevant documents, including A66, N208, and the Skeleton Argument, if needed. This would support any discussions regarding council finances in court and breaches of the Care Act. As of today, no mediation has been provided by the Northern Ireland Children’s Commissioner, who has also failed to meet with my daughter.

—

Kind Regards
Mr. Martin Newbold

thestealingofemily.co.uk