29th april 2024
I wrote again today to the Lady Chief Justice with further explanations as she had not responded to the previous letter under Royal Mail Reference: VE465980311GB

To: Judicial Conduct Investigations Office
FAO: Private Office of the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales

Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL United Kingdom

CC: Justice Select Committee, Lord Chancellor’s Office, Legal Ombudsman, Bar Standards Board, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSO), Prime Minister’s Office, House Of Lords

Date: 29th April 2025

My References VE65980311GB

Re: Urgent and Critical Concern Regarding the Unlawful Removal and Severe Deterioration of Health of My Daughter, Emily Newbold Smith, and Demand for Immediate Action.

Dear Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill DBE,

I am writing to you with the utmost urgency and profound concern to bring to your immediate attention the continued, egregious injustices surrounding the unlawful removal of my daughter, Emily Newbold Smith [DOB: 30/10/2006], and the alarming deterioration of her health, which I believe is a direct consequence of these injustices.
I do not have a reply or acknowledgement to my letter dated 25-04-2025 by Signed for Delivery Reference DS340985726GB
I assert that Emily is being subjected to unlawful detention. This is because the care order under which she was removed was issued without the necessary legal basis, specifically the absence of Form C110A, as required by Section 31 of the Children Act 1989.
“Do organizations have legal provisions or defenses that protect them from the consequences of ignoring emails, and what specific rules, regulations, or Acts of Parliament might cover such actions? I would also appreciate it if this matter could be brought to the attention of Keir Starmer for his consideration.”
I have repeatedly tried to contact you regarding my case under Hastings (HBC Court), which involves malpractice Section 3(1) of Public Administration Act 2007 which LGSO will not investigate in relation to a private law case “Residency of Emily Newbold Smith” MJG/jf/21057 6/15/2009 Hastings Crown Court concerning criminal negligence and maladministration by Social Services even though they are supposed to under Section 3(2) allows the Ombudsman to investigate whether a public body’s actions or omissions have caused injustice to an individual. To date, there has been no resolution. A letter from the Local Government Social Services Ombudsman (LGSO) While the LGSO letter (Case Ref: 24018366) cites funding has cited a lack of funding as a potential factor in the maladministration by Local Government Social Services who simply referred it to the courts that created the error. I submit that while funding shortfalls may present challenges, they cannot excuse or justify judicial misconduct or the court’s failure to adhere to due process. Therefore, I urge the JCIO to investigate the court’s role in these failures, particularly concerning the issuance of an unlawful care order…” The court has not issued an independent care order, which constitutes a criminal act, as such an order requires the local council to make a separate application to the court — not for me to do so. It is illegal for the council to delegate this responsibility. The handling of this case by Social Services is a clear breach of protocol Under Section 31 of the Children Act 1989, and their failure to make the proper application is an act of gross negligence. Fundamental irregularities in the legal proceedings led to Emily’s removal from my care. I must reiterate that my previous communications have been met with resistance and obfuscation, which I find deeply troubling and unacceptable. I have copies of the court documents that show the absence of Form C110A. I refer to my letter dated 25-04-2025 (by Signed for Delivery Reference DS340985726GB) and request a formal response to the queries raised therein.
My previous unanswered letter to you highlights a significant concern regarding the accuracy of family information presented during court proceedings, focusing on a genogram prepared by Charlotte Bell for East Sussex County Council. This genogram, intended to illustrate family relationships, contained a fundamental error by incorrectly identifying the father of Emily’s sister, Lauren. Despite the gravity of this inaccuracy, the misleading information was presented in court, raising serious questions about why it was allowed to stand and who within East Sussex County Council should be held accountable for presenting such incorrect data in a critical legal context.
Social services coerced my daughter’s mother in her ill health to come to court ending with her taking her own life as a result of social services use and abuse philosophy.
The report a9q5lnhr is a reference code or identifier for submission of information to the United Nations Special Procedures report. It is specifically associated with a report concerning alleged human rights violations related to the case of Emily Catherine Newbold-Smith. does detail serious allegations concerning financial exploitation within the care system:
• It alleges that Emily Newbold-Smith has been “used as a commercial asset” and that her welfare was secondary to the financial benefits derived from her placement.
• The report claims that “Premium Plus funding,” intended for children with additional educational needs, was misappropriated in Emily’s case.
• It states that this funding, paid at approximately double the rate for children in care placements, was exploited, contributing to a system where Emily’s value was reduced to a financial transaction.
I must now emphasize the following critical points, with particular emphasis on the grave threat to Emily’s health:

1. Emily’s Alarming Deterioration of Health: I have recently received credible information indicating that Emily is currently suffering from a severe anxiety disorder accompanied by significant weight loss and symptoms indicative of depression,” or “a serious infection that requires ongoing medical treatment, which she is not receiving adequately.”. This serious decline in her health is a direct and foreseeable consequence of the immense and prolonged stress, instability, and emotional trauma inflicted upon her by her unlawful removal and the continued, cruel denial of her fundamental right to family life. The lack of contact with her loving family, the uncertainty of her situation, and the absence of a stable and nurturing environment have taken a devastating toll on her physical and mental well-being. This is not merely a matter of emotional distress; it is a serious health crisis that demands immediate and decisive action. The continued unlawful detention of my daughter is a direct result of the court’s failure to ensure that lawful procedures were followed. The absence of Form C110A renders the entire process invalid, and therefore, her ongoing removal constitutes unlawful detention.
2. The Fundamentally Unlawful Basis of the Care Order: I must reiterate in the strongest possible terms that the care order under which Emily was so violently and unjustly removed from my care was issued entirely without proper legal jurisdiction. It is an irrefutable fact that no Form C110A, which is an absolute prerequisite for initiating public law care proceedings under Section 31 of the Children Act 1989, was ever submitted by East Sussex County Council. This renders the entire process, and the resulting order, ultra vires – beyond the court’s legal power and therefore null and void. This is not a mere technicality; it is a fundamental flaw that strikes at the very heart of the legality of these proceedings. The implications of this are profound and deeply disturbing, suggesting not only a grave error but also potential criminal conduct, including procedural fraud, contempt of court, and misfeasance in public office. The continued failure to acknowledge and rectify this fundamental legal flaw is an affront to justice and a betrayal of the court’s duty to uphold the law.
3. Deliberate Obstruction, Concealment, and Failure to Disclose: There has been a persistent and deeply troubling pattern of obstruction, concealment, and a blatant failure to provide full and honest disclosure of relevant documents and information. This includes, but is not limited to, the complete court files, all care records held by East Sussex County Council, and any and all documents pertaining to Emily’s current location, care arrangements, and the decisions that led to her removal. This deliberate withholding of information only serves to intensify my profound anxiety and fear for Emily’s safety and well-being. It also fuels my well-founded belief that there is a concerted and calculated effort to conceal the truth about what has happened to her and to evade accountability for the grievous wrongs that have been committed. Such behavior is not only unethical but potentially illegal and must be investigated with the utmost rigor.
4. The Lack of Information Regarding Emily’s Condition: I must specifically address the disturbing lack of communication and transparency regarding my daughter, Emily Newbold Smith’s condition. I was directly informed by Judge Hollis that I would be provided with all relevant information concerning Emily’s health and well-being. However, I have not received any such information, despite multiple requests. This ongoing failure to provide vital details about Emily’s condition and the decisions affecting her care raises alarming concerns. The lack of transparency and the refusal to disclose crucial information strongly suggest that something horrifying may have happened to Emily. The absence of clear communication, especially when it involves a vulnerable child, only deepens my anxiety and suspicions regarding the treatment she is receiving.
5. The Urgent and Compelling Need for Immediate Intervention: Given the critical and rapidly deteriorating state of Emily’s health, the urgency of this matter cannot be overstated. We are not dealing with abstract legal principles or bureaucratic delays; we are dealing with the life and well-being of a vulnerable young woman who is in desperate need of help. The continued denial of her fundamental human right to family life, a right enshrined in both domestic and international law, is a grave injustice. This injustice is compounded by the alleged failings of the court and the local authority, who have demonstrably failed in their duty to safeguard her welfare. Every day that passes without meaningful intervention increases the risk of further and irreparable harm to Emily. Immediate, decisive action is not just necessary; it is a moral imperative.
   Therefore, I demand the following immediate and concrete actions:
6. Immediate and Full Disclosure: I demand the immediate and unconditional disclosure of all court files, care records held by East Sussex County Council, and any and all documents, records, or communications pertaining to Emily’s current location, her present care arrangements, and the full history of decisions and actions that led to her removal from my care. This must include, but is not limited to, all correspondence, minutes of meetings, internal emails, and any and all information related to the legal basis for her removal and ongoing detention. There can be no further delays or excuses; I am entitled to this information as a matter of law and fundamental human rights.
7. Independent and Thorough Investigation: I demand the initiation of an immediate, independent, and thorough investigation into the entire sequence of events surrounding Emily’s unlawful removal. This investigation must include, but not be limited to:
   o The conduct of Judge Hollis and any other judicial officers involved in the case, with a specific focus on the apparent lack of jurisdiction and the issuance of an ultra vires order.
   o The actions and omissions of East Sussex County Council and their social workers, with a particular emphasis on the failure to submit Form C110A and any potential misrepresentations made to the court.
   o The role of any other agencies or individuals involved in Emily’s removal and ongoing care.
   o A full and transparent accounting of all decisions made and actions taken, with a clear identification of who was responsible for each.
8. Immediate Steps to Ensure Emily’s Safe Return or Supported Contact: I demand that immediate and concrete steps be taken to ensure Emily’s safe return to her family, where she belongs and where she can receive the love, care, and support she desperately needs. At the very least, if her immediate return is not possible, I demand the establishment of safe and supported contact with her family, prioritizing her immediate health needs and her right to a family life. This contact must be meaningful, regular, and facilitated in a way that promotes her well-being and allows for the restoration of family bonds.
   I implore you, Lady Chief Justice, to intervene personally and decisively in this urgent and critical matter. Emily’s health and well-being are in grave and immediate jeopardy, and any further delay or inaction will have catastrophic and potentially irreversible consequences. I trust that you will treat this matter with the utmost seriousness and the urgency it demands. The eyes of justice are upon you.
   It is essential to explain why this information is important. As referenced in my previous letter, the court case concerning Emily’s Trust fund, which I believe was misappropriated by Nationwide Bank and is one of 430,000 similar cases according to government statistics, is directly relevant. This is evident as Nationwide Bank has been corresponding with Emily at my address regarding her savings (reference D 362-2263-39 472314, as shown in their ‘Big Thank You’ letter #50 and attached check). This contradicts Nationwide Bank’s earlier statement at their branch that my daughter had already received these trust fund monies, yet they are now sending her correspondence to my address and claim to have no knowledge of her whereabouts (check reference 472314 07-2507 25180039, check date 4-April-2025).
   Therefore, given the LGSO’s inability to investigate, I urge the JCIO to thoroughly investigate these allegations of judicial misconduct and the court’s role in the failures outlined, particularly concerning the issuance of an unlawful care order
   I look forward to your immediate and substantive response, outlining the specific steps you will take to address these grave concerns and ensure the safety and well-being of my daughter.

Sincerely,
Martin Newbold
Enclosed Attachments…

• Understanding the Complexity of Peerage Revocation and NCA
• Corruption Investigations: IBAC’s Limitations Explained
• Child Trafficking Concerns and the EHCR
• Guide Series How to Report Child Abduction a complete Procedure
• Reinvestigating Child Exploitation Cases: Operation BeaconPort