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
• Standards Committee Reference: PCS183

16th May 2025

Dear Standards Commissioner,

I write to raise serious concerns regarding what I understand as the use of “oblique prorogation” (sometimes called “indirect prorogation”), a concept in constitutional law where procedural maneuvers are employed to effectively suspend or delay parliamentary scrutiny without formally declaring prorogation. The 2019 UK Supreme Court ruling made clear that proroguing Parliament to frustrate or prevent Parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions is unlawful.

In this context, I believe the Prime Minister is employing similar tactics to avoid accountability. Despite multiple formal requests—sent by letter to the Prime Minister, Cabinet, and Number 10—seeking details and the location of my daughter in connection with an ongoing court case involving the theft of her trust fund, there has been no adequate response. This case is now emerging in court, with an international missing persons notification having been made, alongside a legal habeas corpus application submitted to East Sussex County Council.

The refusal or failure to provide such critical information obstructs justice and undermines the rule of law, raising serious constitutional and legal issues. I urge your office to consider whether these actions constitute a breach of the Ministerial Code or other relevant standards of conduct.

deliberately ignoring legal and constitutional obligations can breach the Ministerial Code:

Duty to Uphold the Law
The Ministerial Code requires Ministers — including the Prime Minister — to uphold the law and the highest standards of propriety. Ignoring lawful requests related to your daughter’s case, especially with legal and court involvement, can be seen as failing that duty.

Accountability and Transparency
Ministers must be accountable to Parliament and the public. Avoiding communication or obstructing legal processes undermines transparency and accountability, core principles in the Code.

Respect for Parliament
Using “oblique prorogation” tactics to avoid scrutiny can be viewed as disrespecting Parliament’s role in overseeing the Government, which is explicitly against the Code.

Integrity and Proper Conduct
Ministers must act with integrity and avoid abuse of power. Deliberate avoidance or obstruction related to a serious legal matter could be interpreted as abusing their office.

Relevant Sections of the Ministerial Code:

1. Principle of Integrity

“Ministers must behave with integrity and should avoid any conduct which might reasonably be regarded as damaging to the reputation of Ministers or the Government.”
Ignoring lawful requests and obstructing justice could be seen as lacking integrity.

2. Principle of Accountability

“Ministers are accountable to Parliament and to the public for their personal conduct and for their conduct in office.”
Avoiding responding to legal and parliamentary requests undermines accountability.

3. Principle of Respect for Parliament

“Ministers must give accurate and truthful information to Parliament.”
Deliberate delays, refusals, or obfuscations breach this duty.

4. Principle of Compliance with the Law

“Ministers must uphold the law and comply with legal obligations.”
Ignoring or failing to comply with legal procedures (such as providing information related to a court case) breaches this section.

5. Use of Ministerial Power

“Ministers must not misuse their power or position for improper purposes.”
Using procedural tactics (like oblique prorogation) to avoid scrutiny could be seen as an abuse of power.

Thank you for your attention to this grave matter.

Yours sincerely,
Mr. 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