To: Ken Moore, Information Governance Manager
Email: ken.moore@hscni.net
Cc: foi@health-ni.gov.uk
From: Mr. Martin Newbold
Date: 13th June 2023
Subject: Internal Review Request – FOI Reference DOH/2025-0122 (Expanded Concerns and Factual Clarifications)

My References

· 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.
·Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) Formal Complaint (Ref: F243411550406, 24 December 2024).
·  Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner (QVIC)  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.
· Information Commissioner Our reference: IC-387636-L3F2 .
· Local Authority ref: 19567481.

Dear Mr Moore,

I am writing to formally supplement my earlier request for an Internal Review of FOI Reference DOH/2025-0122, based on material concerns regarding the factual integrity, legal implications, and public interest issues that your response fails to properly address.  and the critical importance of evidence disclosure and public interest considerations surrounding this matter  in front of the judge in case 640MC413.

1. Factual Inaccuracy – Age of the Child

Your letter refers to my daughter, Emily Newbold-Smith, as a “young woman”. This is factually incorrect. Emily was four years old at the time of her abduction along what we now know is with 430,000 other children in England. At the hands of a criminal Describing her otherwise in official records is misleading and deeply concerning, especially considering the serious safeguarding questions this case raises.

2. Lack of Evidence of Presence in Northern Ireland

Despite numerous requests over 14 years, no evidence has ever been produced confirming Emily was physically present in Northern Ireland. Newry-based social services claimed to be acting in her interest but never provided any documentation or evidence of her whereabouts, identity verification, or wellbeing.There is evidence of actors maintaining this illusion.

Furthermore:

• Only one Looked After Child (LAC) meeting has been cited across this entire period. Emily was not invited to it, nor was she represented in any meaningful way. and therefore was not for her best interest at all.
• I invited the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) to meet Emily, but the meeting could not be arranged, reinforcing the likelihood that she was never in Northern Ireland (NICCY09-24.01 ).
• The Northern Ireland Ombudsman was also dumbfounded by my requests as clearly they considered they had nothing to investigate as she was not in this Jurisdiction.
• The Northern Ireland Police CC2024092001582 could not locate her , Even PONI CC2024092001582 could not locate her in Northern Ireland.
• There is no family connection to Northern Ireland—neither Emily nor any of her extended family have relatives there.
• I served my human Deoxyribonucleic acid(DNA ) test SA010831060GB.data on Mr Colm McCaferty and there was no formal response or redress. again presumably because he had no evidence to provide for her.I understand that a human DNA  sample possesses two (of many possible) alleles at each location. See here for What is an allele? The alleles are identified by a DNA number. These are inherited from the parents at conception. One comes from the mother and one from the father. The following happens when we compare the DNA profiles of biological parents. One of the child’s alleles (numbers) will match up with a number from the mother’s sample. While the other should match up with an allele from the father’s sample.  If these alleles match at all locations, we report the person as the biological father of the child. 
• Records confirm she was never adopted, raising urgent questions about the legal status there is a European Warrant for her location.
• Any child placement of location 500 miles from her home would breach both children’s acts.  Children Act 1989 – Legislation Link  Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 – Legislation Link

3. Contradictory School Data – Tonbridge, Kent

In an entirely separate Freedom of Information request concerning education records, data returned by the authorities pointed to a school located in Tonbridge, Kent. This conflicts entirely with claims that she was resident or under care within the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland.

4. Misuse of Section 40(5)(b)(a)(i) Exemption

I strongly contest the application of the Section 40(5)(b)(a)(i) exemption, which prevents even acknowledging the existence of information. When the safety of a child and possible unlawful jurisdictional placement are involved, this refusal to confirm or deny obstructs legitimate scrutiny. The exemption should not be used to shield potentially improper institutional conduct, especially where cross-border accountability and closed material procedures may be in play.

5. Public Interest

This case is not only one of personal and legal concern—it is now a matter of public interest, as documented in published works such as The Stealing of Emily. It is vital that public institutions act with transparency, integrity, and legal clarity in all matters involving child safeguarding and inter-jurisdictional transfers.

---

I request again:

• A full and honest review of this case.
• A reassessment of the decision to issue a “neither confirm nor deny” response.
• A statement on whether the Department holds records about Emily Newbold-Smith, particularly in light of the evidence now shared about school placement in England.
• Clarification of the role of the Department in oversight of any placement arranged through the Southern Health and Social Care Trust or Newry Social Services.

I request a formal response to this Internal Review within the timescales required by law. Should the matter remain unresolved, I will escalate it to the Information Commissioner. in fact you have provided no redress.

Yours sincerely,
Mr. Martin Newbold
martinnewbold.mn@gmail.com