Department for Education
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BT
United Kingdom  

Department of Education
Rathgael House
43 Balloo Road
Bangor
BT19 7PR
Northern Ireland

Enquiry Submitted  – Customer Help Portal

https://customerhelpportal.education.gov.uk/enquiry-form-submitted/?enquiryid=d65d2417-7910-f011-9989-000d3aaaeb97

Subject: Follow-Up on Complaint – Reference: enquiryid=d65d2417-7910-f011-9989-000d3aaaeb97

Dear Sir/Madam,

I note that I have not received a copy of my original complaint. I am therefore resending this to you under the same reference: enquiryid=d65d2417-7910-f011-9989-000d3aaaeb97.

I would be grateful if you could provide a copy of my original complaint along with the attachments. This would help prevent the duplication of documents being sent to you.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. I look forward to your response.

I am writing to formally file a complaint regarding the severe and ongoing issues that have impacted my family, as well as two other families, due to the unlawful handling of a situation involving my missing daughter. Despite 14 years of efforts, this matter remains unresolved, and I now feel compelled to escalate this issue to your office.

In addition to my previous correspondence with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), for which I have attached their response dated 25/02/2020, titled “Response to Information Access Request 24351,” I have written a letter to the Victoria Governor concerning the failure of the authorities in handling this situation, specifically in relation to the involvement of Dunkley. Moreover, I have also communicated briefly with the Melborn Governor’s office to address the same issue. These actions were taken in an attempt to highlight the inadequacy of the responses and the continued mistreatment of my family.

Unfortunately, as highlighted in the LGSCO’s reply, they did not conduct a proper investigation into the matter, simply collecting documents I had sent them rather than addressing the core issue at hand. My daughter, who recently turned 18, has been missing for over 14 years, enduring an unlawful ordeal that has not been resolved despite repeated attempts. The ongoing failures of the authorities to act appropriately have left my family in a state of prolonged distress.

Due to the lack of resolution, I am now forced to pursue legal action regarding her Child Trust Fund, which I am bringing before the court because of the incompetence of the authorities involved. I believe that the case will require the application of habeas corpus ad Litem and DNA profiling to properly identify any individual presented as my daughter in court, ensuring that all legal proceedings are accurate and just.

I have sent documents to the Department of Health (DOH) under Case 24018366, which they have returned to me. They, along with the police and OPNI, are unable to locate my daughter in Northern Ireland, which is alarming, as she was placed there by Judge Hollis. Three families have suffered immeasurably due to the actions of Judge Hollis, whose decisions remain uninvestigated despite clear indications of criminal misconduct. During the Hastings court proceedings, social worker Christine Elizabeth Stirling presented genealogical information that was not only inaccurate but appeared deliberately constructed to mislead the court and support her own agenda.

The key issue lies in the genogram itself. The document titled “Genogram_re_Lauren’s_family_19_08_10,” prepared by Charlotte Bell for East Sussex County Council, contains fundamentally incorrect information. It incorrectly identifies Emily’s sister Lauren’s father, when in reality, her father is David Cunningham, and her full name is Lauren Anne Cunningham. Despite this clear and crucial error, the same misleading information was presented during court proceedings. This raises serious questions: why was this false narrative allowed to stand, and who was accountable for presenting this incorrect data in such a critical legal setting?

This is more than just an erlies, and those responsible must be brought before a higher authority to answer for their actions. Legal accountability and transparency are fundamental to ensuring justice is served fairly.

ror—it is a deliberate act that has far-reaching consequences for Lauren and her family, and for all those involved in the case. The failure to investigate the false information presented and the refusal to hold those responsible accountable further undermine the integrity of the legal system.

If a judge has acted outside their jurisdiction or has relied on fraudulent information to make a decision, they should be held accountable. The system should not allow such actions to go unchallenged. The consequences of these errors or intentional misdeeds can deeply affect the lives of individuals and fami

This situation has caused misery for three families, all due to the actions of Judge Hollis, whose decisions remain uninvestigated despite the clear indications of criminal misconduct. The genealogical information presented by social worker Christine Elizabeth Stirling during the Hastings family court proceedings, overseen by Judge Hollis, was not only inaccurate but appeared deliberately constructed to mislead the court and advance her own agenda.

The system’s refusal to investigate these serious issues raises profound concerns about accountability and justice.

The genealogical information presented by social worker Christine Elizabeth Stirling during the Hastings court proceedings, overseen by Judge Hollis, was not only inaccurate but appeared deliberately constructed to mislead the court and advance her own agenda. Notably, the data presented in Stirling’s genogram did not appear in the document titled ‘Genogram_re_Lauren’s_family_19_08_10,’ which was written by Charlotte Bell for East Sussex Local Authority. This inconsistency further demonstrates the fabrication of information solely created by Stirling, raising profound concerns about accountability and justice within the system.

It seems Christine Elizabeth Stirling, a social worker whose whole agenda was fabricated for this family, was not a respondent named on the court papers from the outset, and had no connection to the children other than Catherine moving there with Lauren.
new section 14,000 reaining  start I am writing to the Independant Financial Adjudicator to formally request an immediate and thorough review of the Financial Ombudsman Service’s (FOS) handling of my complaint against Nationwide Building Society, regarding the mishandling of my daughter’s Child Trust Fund (CTF). I had a conversation with Katy from your office this morning at 10:30 AM on April 2, 2025. Unfortunately, despite my efforts to explain the gravity of the situation, she was unable to offer any meaningful support or resolve the issue. Instead, she reaffirmed that the email address I had attempted to use for contact was invalid. This further compounded the frustration I have been experiencing, as I had already tried to reach the FOS through their listed phone numbers, only to find them completely unattainable.  I have also mentioned Previous Steps Taken:

• Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS): I have submitted a complaint to the FOS under reference PNX-5399741-P0M6, which remains unresolved.
• Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO): Reference IC-362648-R4R7.
• Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA): A formal complaint regarding the handling of CTF accounts and DSAR requests was also submitted to the PRA on [Date], but I am still awaiting a response.

In My Letter to Jonathon Burk  have outlined that I write to notify SIS and MI6 of the outcome of my correspondence, as I am submitting a formal complaint regarding serious allegations of misconduct, criminal activity, and procedural irregularities related to Matthew Dunkley, which require immediate investigation. These concerns stem from failures to disclose relevant evidence and issues within the oversight and investigative processes handled by both IBAC and OVIC.
It is clear that Dunkley stated in a tape recording as part of Operation Dunham: “Thank you for your recent clarification. I want you to note that I made a request under making a mandatory notification under the IBAC Act 2011.”

This encompassed statements from the https://www.pressreader.com/australia/geelong-advertiser/20170121/281805693635994 regarding Operation Dunham, conducted in Victoria, Australia, in connection with the Ultranet scandal.
\The https://www.pressreader.com/australia/geelong-advertiser/20170121/281805693635994 reported on a taped telephone recording involving MATTHEW DUNKLEY and MR. JOHN ALLMAN, where Mr. Allman admitted to destroying financial documents after IBAC investigators visited his home.

I also note that Mr. Dunkley held significant roles within public service both in the UK and Australia, including overseeing https://news.eastsussex.gov.uk/2013/04/10/matt-dunkley-to-leave-east-sussex-for-australia/ from 2009 to 2013, prior to his tenure in Victoria. Despite a suspension in March 2016, subsequent reports indicate conflicting outcomes regarding his exoneration by the Victoria Education Department. In January 2017, the https://www.pressreader.com/australia/geelong-advertiser/20170121/281805693635994 reported on IBAC’s findings of a “disturbing pattern of improper behavior” surrounding the Ultranet project.

As such, and concerned that there was criminal behavior noted in the UK, I made a PID request, followed by an FOIR in respect to the taped recordings. For your reference, this correspondence pertains to Complaint confirmation IBAC F243411550406, involving Children’s Director Matthew Dunkley. Despite my earlier inquiries, I note with concern that IBAC has not yet addressed my complaint or provided the evidence related to MATTHEW DUNKLEY captured as part of Operation Dunham. This information is urgently required in England, as these crimes share significant commonalities with other international criminal activities.

As you are aware, intelligence sharing is a legal obligation in cases involving international crime. The UK intelligence agencies have extensive data-sharing arrangements with foreign counterparts, notably under the Five Eyes alliance, which includes the UK, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. This alliance, established shortly after World War II, operates under the UK-US Communication Intelligence Agreement (“UKUSA Agreement”). The most recent publicly disclosed version of this agreement, dating back to 1956, permits the sharing of raw intelligence and acquisition techniques by default. Given the significant advancements in communication technologies and signal intelligence since then, such cooperation remains crucial.

Additionally, IBAC’s statement on May 21, 2018, mentioned that charges were laid following its extensive investigation into the Ultranet scandal. These developments raise questions about the broader implications of this case and its impact on public trust in governance and accountability.
I would like to know why these captured tape recordings, which are critical for use in court in the UK, cannot be provided to me. As this information is urgently needed, I request your prompt response and clarification on this matter.
BODEY DITTLOFF wrote on March 19, 2016 – 12:00 AM (Printout attached) https://www.pressreader.com/australia/geelong-advertiser/20170121/281805693635994

Suggestions that Geelong’s embattled education director Matthew Dunkley had been sacked have been dismissed, as anti-corruption investigations into the Victorian government department continue. Mr. Dunkley, the Department of Education and Training’s regional director for the south west, was suspended from his role on Tuesday after an independent inquiry heard that he knew former education department executive John Allman had “destroyed” evidence.

Mr. Allman confirmed he dumped financial documents in a bin at a Bunnings Warehouse after IBAC investigators had been to his home, in phone-tapped conversations between Mr. Dunkley and Mr. Allman dated October 2014.
“Well, thing is, you told me you f—-ng destroyed all the evidence as soon as you knew — as soon as you knew the ¬f—-ng — ah, the empire was gone, mate,” Mr. Dunkley says to Mr. Allman in the recording.
“You told me that you just f—-ng deleted that s–t, got rid of it all, kept yourself squeaky clean once you knew this was going on.”

The system’s continued refusal to investigate this troubling inconsistency only deepens concerns about the lack of transparency and justice. Families deserve the truth, and they deserve a fair process. It’s time to demand answers and hold the system accountable.
As explored in The Stealing of Emily, case law supports the notion that a judge can lose immunity when they act outside their jurisdiction or rely on fraudulent information. In Davis v. Burris, 220 Ariz., 75 P.2d, it was established that a judge’s immunity is void when acting beyond their jurisdiction. Similarly, in Gregory v. Thomson, 500 F.2d 59, the court affirmed that immunity does not apply when a judge acts in clear absence of jurisdiction. Additionally, Cooper v. O’Donnell and Fidelity & Guarantee Co. underscore that even wrongful actions taken in good faith may still result in liability.

The failure to investigate such issues raises serious concerns: Was the fraudulent information deliberately used to influence the judge’s decision? Why has the system failed to hold those responsible accountable? These unanswered questions demonstrate the urgent need for transparency, integrity, and accountability within our legal system.

Why was this false narrative allowed to stand unchallenged in court? Was it an intentional act to mislead the judge and influence the outcome? The system’s continued refusal to investigate this troubling inconsistency only deepens concerns about accountability and justice. It’s time to demand answers.

Furthermore, I am aware that, according to government data, approximately 430,000 children are potentially not receiving their Child Trust Fund. This issue is of considerable concern, as it appears to involve a substantial amount of money, reportedly totaling £18 million. Despite the significant implications for these children and their families, the Financial Services Ombudsman (FSO) has refused to investigate this matter, even though you had previously directed me to them with the assurance that they would provide a service in this regard. This lack of action is troubling, particularly when considering the financial well-being of so many children affected by this issue.

Could you kindly provide clarification on who is in possession of these funds and why the FSO has failed to take any meaningful steps to address the situation? The failure to investigate or resolve such a matter seems to compound the injustice already faced by the children impacted. Additionally, can you also indicate if these 430,000 children are currently in care or if they are just coming out of care? It does not seem like a coincidence that this issue involves a significant number of children who may be in care or transitioning out of care. Understanding their current status would help further clarify the scope of this issue.

Furthermore, I have this morning drafted a letter to the independent assessor to seek additional clarification and action. However, when I attempted to contact them via the provided email address, I encountered a 404 error, indicating that the address is no longer valid or is incorrectly listed. This adds another layer of frustration in trying to seek accountability and a resolution.

You previously advised me to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), and I am providing you with the document I received from them, dated 25/02/2020, titled “Response to Information Access Request 24351.”

As you will see, the LGSCO failed to investigate the matter appropriately, merely capturing documents that I had sent to them rather than addressing the core issues. I must reiterate that my daughter remains missing within the United Kingdom. She recently turned 18, having endured an unlawful ordeal that has persisted for 14 years, during which time the situation has remained unresolved.

I am now compelled to initiate legal action concerning her Child Trust Fund due to the ongoing inability to resolve this issue. To move forward, I believe that the case will necessitate a Habeas Corpus ad Litem application and DNA profiling to accurately identify any individual presented before the court as my daughter.

—

Kind Regards
Mr. Martin Newbold