FAO Private Office of the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales
Rt Hon Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill DBE,
The Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

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

SW1A 0PW

GREYTHOMPSONT@parliament.uk

FASO Sec c/o JENGbA, 356 Holloway Road, London N7 6PA

03335 779 377

support@false-allegations.org.uk

https://false-allegations.org.uk/Dear Rt Hon Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill,DBE,DL; Rt Hon Baroness Gray Thompsan DBE,DL;JCIO and JSA-CMP-statutoryreview Re DS340985726GB

I am making a formal 

Subject Access Request under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018.

I request all personal data held by East Sussex County Council in relation to the case of my daughter:

Name of Child Now YoungVulnerable women: [Emily Newbold Smith]
Date of Birth: [ 3010/2006 ]
Your Name: [Martin Newbold]
Relationship:Father
Address: 15 Valleyside Road East Sussex TN35 5AD
Phone/Email: [01424430373]

Quite frankly you’re acting in an odd manner  when you state that there are time limits on cases . There is no time limit as I have been continually complaining since this nefarious deed in your court was conducted. The old email proves this beyond doubt,  Furthermore it seems not a technical fault that the office of Judicial Conduct is blocking complaint and will apparently not just Email blocking but access denial to your website See attached documents 1)Email – Delivery Status Notification (Failure) JIC 2) Access Denied · Customer Self-Service. You are aware I have complaints going back to 2010 with your services. Your time limit then does not apply

Furthermore I put you on notice

I refer you to 

Demand for Justice: Unlawful Removal of My Daughter – thestealingofemily.co.uk
Demand for Accountability in Children’s Education and Welfare – thestealingofemily.co.uk
Addressing FCA’s Inaction: Child Trust Fund Concerns – thestealingofemily.co.uk

 LETTER SENT: Department for Education – NO COMPLIANCE – thestealingofemily.co.uk
 LETTER SENT: LGSO– NO COMPLIANCE – thestealingofemily.co.uk
“Why Are Those Failing in Their Legal Duties in Children’s Services Being Rewarded, Not Investigated?” – thestealingofemily.co.uk

The Stealing of Emily: When Justice is on Trial – thestealingofemily.co.uk

Further I write on the Public Record

Your failure to comply with Judge Hollis’s order, citing “no jurisdiction” as your rationale, is not acceptable. This suggests an error in Judge Hollis’s opinion, particularly in light of your attempts to circumvent the correct application of the order. Furthermore, I am concerned by the fact that an improper order was allegedly submitted to the court via an affidavit, which lacked the correct family history and was therefore factually incorrect.

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?

Such conduct is not only unethical but actionable in law, both with regard to cause and motive. This behavior falls squarely within the legal and moral definition of institutional negligence, particularly when it obstructs whistleblowing and restricts information related to the protection of children and families.

I repeat: your system has restricted lawful expression and critical safeguarding content under the pretense of automated moderation—despite being made aware of these flaws. Continued failure to rectify or meaningfully engage with this issue will only serve to strengthen claims of institutional complicity.

I am documenting all correspondence and will escalate this further through public, legal, and regulatory channels if a satisfactory resolution is not reached immediately.

Let me be clear: any failure to act in good faith in response to this takedown request may give rise to a claim in damages. I must formally caution that, should this matter proceed to litigation, your handling and internal correspondence may be cited as evidence of OBLIQUE INTENT—a legal concept in which harm is foreseeable by policy or omission, even in the absence of direct instruction. This constitutes institutional negligence, and is legally actionable as to both cause and motive.

Legal Violations in Care Relocation

Section 22C(9)(b) of the Children Act 1989 clearly stipulates that a child should not be placed more than 50 miles away from their parental home unless there is clear justification and it is in the child’s best interest. Despite this, East Sussex County Council has authorized the relocation of children, including my own daughter, over 500 miles away to Northern Ireland. This is particularly troubling given that care services in Northern Ireland have been described as “not fit for purpose” by The Irish Times and TULSA.

Under Article 27 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, similar provisions exist to safeguard the welfare of children, ensuring they are placed in suitable environments close to their families where possible. These laws are designed to protect vulnerable children and prioritize their needs, emphasizing that any significant distance from their home should be avoided without thorough justification.

Contrary to this preposition anthe Court Order by Judge Holis the DFE

• Where is my daughter, Emily?
• Who authorised her removal, on what date, and under what legal power?
• Where is she currently placed, and under what legal basis is her placement being funded?
• Has she been adopted, placed in care, or otherwise detained without parental consent? Or correct paperwork.According to the Department for Education and Judge Hollis, she appears to be in two different places simultaneously under a parliamentary office complaint. Does no one know where she is? Where is the duty of care?

Breach of Care Acts and Welfare Concerns

This relocation also raises concerns under the Care Act 2014 in England, which mandates local authorities to act in the best interests of children under their care. The act stresses the need for stability in placements and continuity of relationships. The arbitrary placement of children in distant care settings far removed from their support networks undermines this principle and could be a breach of the council’s duty of care.

The legality of such relocations is now in serious question. Both the Children Act 1989 and Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 were enacted to ensure that children remain close to their families whenever possible and that their emotional and physical well-being is safeguarded. East Sussex County Council’s decisions seem to blatantly contravene these principles, exposing a significant failing in their adherence to legal standards in child care and protection.

 The UK Government’s Inaction = Institutional Negligence
The Prime Minister’s Office has stated that the UK Government “cannot intervene in civil or criminal matters”. This is a deflection of responsibility. When the state facilitates or finances care arrangements for a child who has been abducted under an unlawful court order, it is not just a civil matter. It becomes:

State-sponsored concealment of a child
Complicity in fraud against the public purse
A failure of statutory safeguarding duties
A breach of Article 8 ECHR: the right to family and private life

Specifically, I require copies of:

1. Any and all legal applications made by East Sussex County Council to the Family Court in relation to [Emily’s Newbold Smith], including:
   • Form C110A (Application for a Care or Supervision Order)
   • Emergency Protection Order applications
   • Any supporting evidence or social work statements filed with court
2. Any Section 20 agreements relating to my child, including:
   • Any signed documents purporting to show my consent to accommodate my child
   • Internal emails or notes discussing Section 20
3. All minutes and documentation from Legal Gateway Meetings, strategy discussions, and decision-making processes regarding:
   • Threshold criteria
   • Consideration of issuing proceedings
   • Adoption planning or placement decisions
4. Social worker logs, assessments, reports, case notes, emails, and internal correspondence relating to me or my child

Any correspondence with third parties (e.g. courts, police, solicitors, Cafcass) relating to the case

Attachment

---

Panel Purpose (Mission Statement):

This panel is established in accordance with principles of transparency, truth, and public accountability. It investigates the removal of Emily from her family by East Sussex County Council, the role of the judiciary (including Judge Hollis), and the use of void or unlawful care proceedings without appropriate legal application or consent.

Legal Basis Invoked:

• Article 6 and 8 ECHR
• Human Rights Act 1998
• UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
• Freedom of Information Act 2000
• JCIO Guidelines on Judicial Misconduct
• Common Law Right to Assemble and Publish in the Public Interest

Panel Members:

• Chairperson: [Your Name]
• Case/Evidence Officer: [Name or “Vacant”]
• Witness Liaison: [Name or “To be appointed”]
• Independent Observers: [Optional]

Evidence in Scope:

• Court Applications (or absence thereof, e.g., C110A)
• Judicial conduct of Judge Hollis
• Involvement of East Sussex Social Services
• Police inaction regarding missing status of daughter
• Alleged misrepresentations to family court
• Impact on extended family and children

Desired Outcome:

• Public acknowledgment of failures
• Formal inquiry request to Parliament
• Judicial Complaint processing
• Reinstatement or review of guardianship/parental rights
• Halt of adoption proceedings pending inquiry

Date of Panel Formation: 21/04/2025

Location (Online or Address): [City, e.g., thestealingofemily.co.uk

Signed by:
Mr Martin Newbold
21/04/2025

Attachment END

---

Kind Regards

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