Subject: RE: Request for Education Records and Funding Details for [Emily Catherine Newbold-Smith ] – Clarification and Escalation
Reference: [Ref: 2025-0012619 Date: 11 April 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

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

The Baroness Grey-Thompson DBE, DL
The House of Lords
London
SW1A 0PW

CC: My Legal Advisers.

Date: 12th April 2025

---

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in response to your recent correspondence regarding my request for full educational records, including any awards, assessments, LAC status, and funding history for my daughter, [Emily Catherine Newbold-Smith], from age 11 up to age 18—and being. born in East Sussex. I have already provided you with the fake geogram provided to court by social workers that did not provide accurate information to the court and made all  Judge Hollis court orders unenforceable and not jurisdictional and therefore void.

I find your response unsatisfactory and inconsistent with both the facts of the case and the obligations of your department.

1. Court Order from Judge Hollis

As previously stated, a specific order was issued by Judge Hollis requiring that all educational records pertaining to my daughter be provided to me in the same manner that they would be supplied to any other parent. Your attempt to force this request solely into a Subject Access Request (SAR) process appears to directly contradict the court’s direction and your own mandate.

I now request that you either:

• Fulfil this order by releasing the requested information immediately, or
• Provide a written explanation as to why your department believes it may lawfully override a judge’s instruction.

2. Contradictory Statement from Social Worker

A social worker directly involved in my daughter’s case has stated on recorded video that she is expected to remain in education until the age of 21. This statement significantly undermines your claim that no educational responsibility or data access exists because she has turned 18.

Under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 and the DfE’s own guidance on care leavers and LAC education responsibilities, it is clear that educational oversight and funding may continue up to age 21 or 25, depending on the circumstances. I request clarification on:

• What educational institution(s), if any, provided education to my daughter from the age of 11 to 18 (and beyond)?
• What public funding or support (including Pupil Premium, EHCP, or other LAC-related educational grants) has been allocated or used for her during this time?
• Copies of any placement, attendance, or assessment records held by the DfE or related agencies (e.g. Virtual School Head).

3. Safeguarding and Missing Person Context

You have been made aware that this request is not routine but linked to a missing person concern involving a Looked After Child. The Department for Education has a duty to act in line with safeguarding principles. It is wholly inappropriate to deny a parent vital records where statutory duties were discharged under public funding and oversight.

---

ACTION REQUESTED:

1. Confirm whether any education was provided to my daughter, by whom, when, and under what framework (e.g. SEND, LAC, EHCP).
2. Confirm the institution(s) where this education was delivered.
3. Provide funding details and evidence of educational support provided to her up to age 18, or beyond.
4. Explain, in writing, how these responsibilities were fulfilled, if at all, and under what legal justification you continue to withhold information contrary to a court order.

If you continue to withhold this information, I will refer this matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Education Select Committee, and my legal representatives, along with the video evidence from the social worker and the court documentation already held.

Please treat this as an urgent escalation.

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