Important Notice

This document contains a formal complaint outlining serious allegations of governmental misconduct, obstruction, and failure to protect fundamental rights. Due to the sensitive and potentially controversial nature of the content, it is shared here to create a transparent and permanent public record.

Readers are encouraged to review the material thoughtfully and consider the broader context of safeguarding, justice, and accountability addressed throughout.

To:
Baroness Grey-Thompson, Cabinet Office
Rt Hon Angela Rayner MP, Deputy Prime Minister
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
Chair, Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

From: Martin Newbold

Date: 22 May 2025

My references: 2417-7910-f011-9989-000d3aaaeb97, CRM:0392500326,CRM:0028765030 PNX-5460997-W7K9, 24 012 899, [O] AE.145.25 NCA

My Legal References: Case Number: 1741 7947 6145 5930

·  Serious Fraud Office: c98c91180d570dc, 5e118dc08da84da, NFRC241207046189

·  ICO Complaint Reference: IC-337307-W2B4

·  IBAC & OVIC Reference: CASE-20246844

·  United Nations Human Rights:  Ref: 2025-0012619 CRM:0221975

·  IBAC Formal Complaint (Ref: F243411550406, 24 December 2024)

·  OVIC Formal Complaint (Ref: CD/25/5885, 11 February 2025), C/25/00916

·  Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO): Reference IC-362648-R4R7.

·  Formal Negligence: East Sussex County Council: 19567481

·  OPNI: PONI 50239746-2024,

·  LGSO: 24012899,24/351 – 24 012 899 and 24/365

·  Standards Committee Reference: PCS183

Cabinet Office ref: FOI2025/08198

Dear Baroness Grey-Thomspon, Cabinet Office, Angela Reyner MP, Standards Commissioner, HOC Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee

This follows up on my complaint submitted via the cabinet form and the two Special Delivery letters I sent to the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer MP PM . I am writing to raise serious concerns regarding what I believe to be the use of “oblique prorogation” (sometimes referred to as “indirect prorogation”).

 I believe these acts may engage Article 8 (right to family life), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), and potentially Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) under the European Convention on Human Rights.”  As I understand it, this constitutional law concept involves using procedural maneuvers to effectively suspend or delay parliamentary scrutiny without a formal declaration of prorogation. The 2019 UK Supreme Court ruling clarified that proroguing Parliament to frustrate or prevent it from fulfilling its constitutional duties is unlawful. On 3rd May 2025, I sent a recorded delivery letter (DS340986029GB and (DS340986620GB) Tracking Anomalies and Delivery Verification for DS340986620GB & DS340986029GB and to the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, detailing serious safeguarding and jurisdictional concerns involving Newry Social Services, the Department for Education, and the failure to confirm Emily’s whereabouts — whether she was placed in Northern Ireland or Kent, contrary to court orders. Despite providing clear documentation, including an International Missing Person record lodged with the European Union, I have received no reply or acknowledgement. As these letters went missing even though Royal Mail stated they were tracked to destination they were only tracked to Jubilee Royal Mail due to Royal Mail admitting a tracking error and failure to deliver. These letters were attached to my complaint which you have provided no reference to ( attached).  You are aware you have taken down a public correspondence email  address which reports are not in service.Your communication entirely constitutes more than a bureaucratic delay — it reflects a deliberate obstruction of scrutiny. This behaviour:

• Violates the spirit and letter of the Ministerial Code, notably Sections 1.2, 1.3, and 1.5, which require Ministers to be honest, transparent, and accountable
• Represents maladministration, whereby the Prime Minister’s Office fails to engage with lawful correspondence on serious matters
• Mirrors the intent and effect of unlawful prorogation, in that it seeks to suppress public scrutiny, evade ministerial accountability, and silence legitimate oversight

The 2019 Supreme Court judgment on prorogation confirmed that executive conduct which frustrates constitutional accountability is unlawful. Although no formal proroguing has occurred in this case, the oblique behaviour of the Prime Minister’s Office functions similarly in its impact — by preventing fair and necessary democratic engagement.

This is unacceptable conduct for the highest office in the United Kingdom and requires urgent review.

This follows several attempts to raise the issue via appropriate public channels, including the Cabinet Office, which has responded only with automated or inactive mailboxes. My concerns are further complicated by a pending legal case regarding the theft of Emily’s Child Trust Fund (CTF), involving Nationwide Building Society, and by what I believe to be a systemic obstruction of due process.

Accordingly, I am calling for the immediate establishment of:

a) A statutory public inquiry into the handling of safeguarding, legal accountability, and oblique procedural obstruction across departments;
b) An independent review into Ministerial Code breaches related to this case; and
c) A formal audit trail and recovery action regarding missing Child Trust Funds linked to Nationwide Building Society and other financial institutions.  

Quite frankly I have requested a Public Enquiry and setting up of a Statutory public body to investigate these individuals involving these crimes against the public they did nothing.

I am writing to express my profound disappointment with your responses. Your suggestions and referrals have been entirely unhelpful and have done nothing to address the serious concerns I have raised. They have been useless in helping to find my daughter and the other half a million abducted children  and 430,000 lost children and young people’s Child Trust Funds (CTF) . Known to the UK Government BBC and other websites like stealingofemily and Martin Lewis.

It is disingenuous to suggest that no independent oversight exists for Government Ministers in their ministerial capacity, especially where breaches of the Ministerial Code intersect with human rights obligations, misuse of data, or other misconduct that impacts members of the public directly. Referring complainants to the Cabinet Office — which is not independent, and whose mechanisms for handling Ministerial Code breaches are opaque and unaccountable — amounts to a complete abdication of responsibility.

Furthermore, your office’s reliance on the “Procedural Protocol” offers no remedy, transparency, or assurance of fairness to the public. As such, I consider this not just a procedural failing, but a matter that potentially engages maladministration, oblique intent, and wilful negligence.

The fact that the Cabinet Office fails to provide working contact points, or respond meaningfully, confirms the lack of independence and effectiveness in this process — and raises serious concerns about whether this amounts to institutional cover-up.

Conclusion

It is not sufficient to refer complainants to non-functioning or unaccountable government departments. Your lack of independence, transparency, and proactive investigation raises serious constitutional and democratic concerns.

The evidence indicates not only institutional failure but intentional suppression of redress mechanisms — comparable in effect to unlawful prorogation.

I request your urgent action on this matter. Please confirm receipt of this letter and indicate how and when these matters will be reviewed.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Newbold

• Investigating Local Authority Failures in Child Care
• FOIA Request for Investigations on Little St James and Texas Ranch
• Re: Notification of Assessment Outcome – CASE-20246844 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
• Alleged Deletion of Specific Email Evidence
• Clarifying eGov’s History and Missing Video Insight