Urgent Action Required – The Disappearance and Misidentification of Emily Cathryn Newbold Smith

Subject:

foi@parliament.uk

CC:

📩 library@parliament.uk
📩 subject.access@cabinetoffice.gov.uk
📩 foi-team@cabinetoffice.gov.uk

📩 governor@governor.vic.gov.au
📩 ben.carroll@parliament.vic.gov.au
📩 icocasework@ico.org.uk
📩 dpo@homeoffice.gov.uk
📩101@sussex.pnn.police.uk

Dear Prime Minister,

I write to you not simply as a father, but as a citizen demanding immediate attention to the disappearance of my daughter, Emily Cathryn Newbold Smith. I urge you, in your role as Prime Minister and former Director of Public Prosecutions, to act on mounting evidence of unlawful detention, falsified records, and systemic safeguarding failures involving multiple local authorities across the UK.

Emily was removed under unlawful and untested legal processes, and subsequently misidentified through altered documentation. Despite repeated requests, DNA comparison has been obstructed or ignored by agencies including East Sussex County Council, Southern Trust (NI), and associated courts. There is now credible evidence that Emily was never physically present in the jurisdiction in which orders were made – notably Northern Ireland – rendering any placement legally void.

I direct your urgent attention to the following four public records, published with supporting documentation:

“Where is Emily? The Hidden Network of Care Homes”
https://thestealingofemily.co.uk/2025/07/10/-where-is-emily-the-hidden-network-of-care-homes
This report outlines how care homes allegedly used in Emily’s case cannot be physically located or identified. These facilities appear on paperwork but lack verifiable addresses, suggesting misdirection, trafficking, or systemic safeguarding breaches.
“Formal Demand for DNA Comparison and Immediate Action”
https://thestealingofemily.co.uk/2025/07/07/formal-demand-for-dna-comparison-and-immediate-action-regarding-the-unlawful-detention-and-potential-misidentification-of-emily-cathryn-newbold-smith
This outlines the basis for a lawful DNA test under GDPR and safeguarding law. Emily’s NHS number and biological identity are now disputed based on conflicting documentation. Refusal to test breaches the Children Act and Data Protection Act.
“Concern Regarding Pattern of Social Services Misconduct (HHJ Horton)”
https://thestealingofemily.co.uk/2025/07/06/for-the-attention-of-hhj-mark-horton-concern-regarding-pattern-of-social-services-misconduct
This letter to HHJ Mark Horton presents verifiable misconduct involving falsified genograms, misattributed paternity, and closed material procedures that excluded parents and misled courts.
“Timeline of Systematic Abduction of Children in the UK”
https://thestealingofemily.co.uk/2025/07/06/this-timeline-outlines-the-systematic-abduction-of-children-across-the-uk-and-the-officials-involved
This public timeline provides over 60 dated entries involving local authority misconduct, falsified court documents, and unlawful data processing. It names responsible officials, including those who were later investigated in other jurisdictions.

The officials involved include individuals who were under your leadership when you served as DPP. One, Mr. Matthew Dunkley CBE, was later suspended in Victoria, Australia, during a corruption probe. Another, Ms. Christine Stirling, was involved in recording Gerard Keenan as Emily’s father despite clear legal evidence to the contrary.

I ask you directly:

Will your government now acknowledge the disappearance of Emily Cathryn Newbold Smith and her current missing status?
Will you order an independent safeguarding review of the officials and authorities involved?
Will you instruct relevant agencies to provide a DNA comparison between myself and the child placed under Emily’s name?
Will you commit to a public inquiry into how such orders were obtained without jurisdiction, evidence, or due process?

Emily has been missing since 2009–2010. Records suggest she was never in Northern Ireland, where she was supposedly detained. No local officials ever met her. NICCY has confirmed it never met the child named in the order. This is not a private family matter—it is a national safeguarding failure, compounded by potential criminality, trafficking risk, and institutional cover-up.

If your government continues to ignore this, it is complicit in the unlawful concealment of a child and the ongoing mental health harm caused by enforced misidentification. I will not stop pursuing this case until my daughter is located, identified correctly, and returned to those who lawfully care for her.

This letter stands as a formal safeguarding notification, to be logged under your office’s duty of care and recorded as official knowledge of an active missing child case. Failure to respond will be noted and submitted to international oversight bodies.

I await your personal and immediate reply.

Sincerely,
Martin Newbold
www.thestealingofemily.co.uk

📮 Previous Posts to No. 10 Downing Street

It appears that the Prime Minister has obfuscated with intent — deliberately avoiding the matter, while Parliament itself remains complicit through prolonged inaction.

Over the past several months, multiple letters and formal communications have been submitted to the Prime Minister, Cabinet Office, and related departments. These include:

2025-03-24: The LGSO is unfunded to investigate properly and gives contradictory arguments—citing cases as ‘out of time’ yet pushing for costly JR.
2025-02: Urgent Inquiry on Data Protection and Public Accountability, and Oblique Behavior.
2025-04-01: The Department of Education under DE-1588712 instructed contact with the LGSO, which remains unresponsive.
2025-04-02: Concern regarding the lack of transparency.
2025-04-04: To Mandy Godridge, Head of the Direct Communications Unit – failure to reply.
2025-05-02: “You recently stated that you want to ‘go even further’ in terms of change.”.
2025-05-13: Complete lack of acknowledgement or reply to my letter of 3 May 2025.
2025-06-07: You cannot deflect from your ongoing position of Oblique Intent.
2025-07-10: Missing daughter – unanswered urgent safeguarding concern.

Despite this sustained effort, No. 10 has failed to provide any meaningful response, raising concerns that the Prime Minister has obfuscated with intent to avoid accountability — and that Parliament is enabling prolonged obstruction on this matter.