Subject: Perjury and Misconduct by Unauthorized Individuals in Violation of Constitutional Rights

CC: Graeme Biggar, NCA,Pauline Smith ,Ms. Kapourelakos,

Our reference: 19567481

NFRC240506650607|NFRC241207046189 / Action Fraud Case 8872649, IBAC CASE-20246844

Dear East Sussex [Council/Authority],

I write to raise grave concerns regarding perjury committed by an individual who was neither a Crown servant nor an employee of a Crown servant. It is unacceptable that such a person has been allowed to manipulate legal proceedings, including the inappropriate and improper act of telephoning a case in.

These actions represent a clear violation of constitutional rights and an abuse of process, undermining the integrity of justice. For a matter involving children’s welfare to remain unresolved for 15 years is egregious, and the lack of transparency, along with restricted access to crucial communications, is deeply concerning.

I demand an immediate investigation into these breaches and insist that all relevant documents and communications be made fully accessible without restriction. Furthermore, steps must be taken to ensure that the actions of those not authorized to act in such capacities are rectified and that accountability is enforced.

Your response to this matter will reflect your commitment to upholding justice and restoring public confidence. I look forward to your prompt and substantive reply. I should ask you to be careful not to aquiess yourself to torture, which is covered in Section 2.

I demand:

1. A full investigation into the perjury on oath and the improper involvement of unauthorized individuals.
2. Immediate, unrestricted access to all documentation and communications related to this case, as withholding such information undermines the transparency required for justice.
3. Accountability and remedial action to address the harm caused by these violations.

This declaration serves to affirm that any continuation of such practices represents an ongoing breach of my rights and those of others affected by this matter. Justice must be restored, and the integrity of the legal process must be upheld.

The Criminal Justice Act 1988, Section 134 does indeed establish the offense of torture under UK law. It applies broadly to acts of intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, carried out by a public official or someone acting in an official capacity. Here’s a breakdown related to your concerns:

Key Points of Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

1. Torture Defined:
   Torture involves the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering by a public official or person acting in an official capacity, for purposes such as obtaining information, punishment, intimidation, or coercion.
2. Unlawful Acquiescence:
   The word “acquiesce” is significant. If someone in an official capacity knowingly allows or tolerates torture, they are also culpable under this section. This includes actions such as covering up misconduct, failing to intervene, or turning a blind eye to known abuses.
3. Accountability:
   Any individual—whether they directly commit torture or knowingly acquiesce to it—can be prosecuted under this Act. This includes those who cover up crimes like rape or abuse, particularly if they are public officials or acting in a position of authority.
4. Scope of Application:
   Section 134 has universal jurisdiction. This means the UK can prosecute anyone, regardless of where the offense was committed, as long as the accused is present in the UK.

I urge IBAC to provide clarity on these points and to consider the applicability of the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2013 (PID Act) in this case. Specifically, I believe:

1. Triggering an Investigation: The PID Act could initiate a broader inquiry into Mr. Dunkley’s actions, including embezzlement and destruction of evidence.
2. Information Sharing: An investigation could reveal crucial findings that address the misconduct I have highlighted.
3. Whistleblower Protection: A disclosure under the PID Act ensures formal recognition and protection for whistleblowers, increasing the likelihood of decisive action.
4. Access to Key Documents: An investigation under the PID Act could strengthen FOI requests to access relevant documentation.
5. Transparency: The PID Act underscores the urgency of transparency and accountability in such cases.

Application to the Issue Raised

• Acts of Rape as Torture: Rape, under international and UK law, can constitute torture if committed intentionally by or with the acquiescence of a public official for specific purposes like coercion or punishment.
• Covering Up Crimes: Those who knowingly facilitate, cover up, or fail to act on such crimes may be prosecuted for acquiescing to torture. This includes law enforcement, social workers, and other officials.

Actions You Could Take

1. Report Misconduct: Clearly outline how specific individuals or officials acquiesced to or facilitated such acts. Provide evidence wherever possible.
2. Legal Action: Pursue legal recourse under Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 against those who committed or acquiesced to such acts.
3. Formal Complaints: File complaints with oversight bodies (e.g., the Independent Office for Police Conduct or equivalent professional standards bodies for other officials).

Martin Newbold

Visit my author website: patreon.com/MartinNewbold
Crowdfunding to support social welfare: JustGiving