The funeral of Alfie Evans is reported to be planned for tomorrow. Having received no reply by 6 o’clock today to my email (copied below) to the lawyers of Alfie’s parents, The Christian Legal Centre, I have concluded that it will probably be necessary for me to make an urgent application to the court tomorrow, in a bid to prevent the cremation of Alfie’s body without a prior post-mortem examination and toxicology report to determine the cause of Alfie’s death reliably.
I shall be attending at Court 37, at the Royal Courts of Justice, at the start of business, on Monday 14th May 2018.
Anybody willing to support me, just by being there, silently, as spectators, would be appreciated.
Unfortunately, there may already have been a post-mortem examination of Alfie, and a toxicology report. The problem is that the coroner was unwilling to confirm or deny this when I was in correspondence with him. The parents’ legal team appear not to know. I have therefore been put into the situation of having to make an application that may not be necessary.
There follows the most recent and most formal of my several emails to Alfie’s parents’ legal team, last week and over the present weekend.
My email to Alfie’s parents’ legal team
|Subject:||Your clients, Thomas Evans and Kate James, the parents of the late Alfie Evans, and any arrangements they may have made to dispose of the remains of their late son|
|Date:||Sat, 12 May 2018 20:59:30 +0100|
OPEN CORRESPONDENCE – URGENT
Would your client please be willing to postpone any disposal of Alfie’s body following Monday’s funeral, in order not to pervert the course of justice, by destroying evidence?
I wrote a week ago to the coroner, asking for information about Alfie Evans’ inquest, when that became available. I did not think I was asking anything controversial at the time. An account of the (surprising) email correspondence that ensued between myself and the coroner is published at the following blog post of mine:
Alfie Evans’ non-existent coroner’s inquest – what are they trying to hide?
This blog post has attracted considerable public attention already.
As a matter of law, there must be a coroner’s inquest whenever there is reason to suspect (as there is in Alfie’s case) that the deceased died while in custody or otherwise in state detention. (See Coroners and Justice Act 2009 section 1.) Furthermore, that inquest must have a jury if the senior coroner has reason to suspect that the cause of death is unknown. The cause of Alfie’s death seems to me, and to most of the public who have contacted me, to be unknown. However, the coroner has insisted, in email to me, that the cause of his death isn’t unknown. It was, he says, a diagnosed disease. This is surprising, because Alfie’s disease had widely been reported, and I believe testified about by expert witnesses, to be an “undiagnosed” disease, an example of unknown cause if ever there was.
I have promised to apply for permission to apply for judicial review of the relevant senior coroner’s unlawful decision to discontinue his investigation, without an inquest. Your clients are not, automatically, needed as parties to that judicial review. There is no urgency about any of this. I do not need your help with that. However, there is another issue, of some urgency, about which I urgently need your clients’ response, over the present weekend, ideally before 18:00 tomorrow.
The coroner is unwilling either to confirm or to deny that the decision of his which I intend to challenge as unlawful, was informed by his sight of the report of a post mortem examination of Alfie’s remains. He has neither confirmed nor denied that there has even been a post mortem examination of Alfie.
Yet a post mortem examination would uniquely enable the retrospective re-evaluation of the accuracy of expert witnesses’ various predictions in the senior courts as to the likely time, manner, cause and alleged inevitability of Alfie’s future death (as it was then). There appears to a groundswell of public opinion that somebody ought to seek an emergency injunction to forbid the disposal of Alfie’s body on Monday, destroying such evidence as might be available from a post mortem examination. That is, unless there has already been a clandestine post mortem examination, something which the general public would be not in a position to ascertain if there had been.
That injunction would need to be against your clients, who are organising a funeral, presumably with the intention of burying or cremating their son’s remains afterwards. There is now pressure on me to apply for such an injunction. That is because I mentioned the possibility that I might do so, during my correspondence with the coroner. However, it would be improper for me to make such an application ex parte without first giving your clients the opportunity, legally advised, of making such an application unnecessary, because they had given an appropriate undertaking.
If your client is willing to co-operate, either by confirming that there has already been a post mortem, something which the coroner is unwilling to confirm or to deny, or by promising not to bury or cremate Alfie’s body after the funeral, it will not be necessary for anybody to seek an emergency injunction against your client before Monday’s planned disposal of the body.
Please obtain your client’s instructions, and respond on his behalf, urgently. Absent a favourable response, I shall need to prepare for an unscheduled visit to Liverpool or to London on Monday, in order to make, ex parte, an urgent application myself, to interdict disposal of Alfie’s body without a post-mortem examination first, including a toxicology report, or until further order.
Because of the pressure I am under to make this urgent application before the funeral, it may become necessary that I should publish this email without further notice, so that it may be seen that I am doing my utmost to prevent the destruction of the most important evidence of all, before the obligatory inquest that the coroner has unlawfully sought to avoid holding.
Yours in Christ,
41 responses to “Alfie Evans application tomorrow”
Thank you so much for taking up this crucial burden. Were I near enough the RCJ I would be there. Praying for you.
I concur! If I weren’t in the USA, I’d be right there supporting you, Mr. Allman!! Be assured of my prayers for you! May God Bless your efforts!!!
May God give you strength and wisdom tomorrow morning (and beyond) as you press on. We love you and we thank you for this, and for the delight in seeing “Yours in Christ” above your signature.
Did a petition get set up to the senior coroner?
I don’t know. But I like to think it would be worthwhile to petition the coroner, because I don’t like to think the worst of anybody.
It is fine line. A coroner (or any judge for that matter) ought not to decide what different to think, when he has made a mistake, merely because of public opinion. But he ought at least to pick up the clue that he ought to check his working, as maths teachers put it, when public opinion is so outraged at one of his decisions. He ought to rethink, from scratch.
This coroner didn’t take it well, when I pointed out he’d done his “arithmetic” wrong, so-to-speak, by purportedly using a discretion not to hold an inquest that parliament hadn’t given him, when (there was reason to suspect that) the deceased had died whilst in custody (etc), and Alfie had died of an “undiagnosed” disease into the bargain.
When the establlishment, the powers-that-be, are lined up against you, you never know which fascist-of-convenience amongst them may wimp out first, because he’s a good chap really at heart, and repent of his sin, and become a whistle-blower. It follows that petitioning anybody may have some limited value. Even if the targeted petionee doesn’t weep and repent, the measure of the numbers of ordinary folk disgusted have some evidential weight.
Mr. Allman, what time is “start of business” at the Courthouse, exactly?
Thank You for this. Good luck.
I very much hope tomorrow will be a day that Alfie get just a little piece of justice that he so deserves. Thank you and well done on pushing with this. It is the right thing to do, before it is too late.
John, what was his cause of death? I read it, not sure. Good luck tomorrow.
The cause of death? To find that out, is why we have post mortems and inquests, when we don’t have in post, as coroners, bureaucrats out to prevent that.
Hello from Ireland and thank you for your sterling work. Keep us posted on Monday’s events.
How’d you get on at court?
Failed. Had to try though.
What grounds did it fail on? Can we still petition for a public enquiry?
What grounds it failed on is what I intend to blog about tomorrow. I haven’t seen any petitions at all myself, about Alfie. Have you?
There is some on twitter for public enquiry and people did start a petition on what you were asking as well. Surely something can be done? Or is it down to family to bring a civil case?
My original plan A, without a thought about yesterday’s funeral, was to take my time, and just to make a really good job of taking the coroner to court, over his wrong decision not to hold an inquest. I still intend to do that.
As an afterthought, because I learnt about the planned funeral, I did something extra – a rush job – trying to ensure that Alfie’s body wasn’t destroyed before a post mortem examination. I failed in that. I suspected I probably would fail, though I did make a good effort. But my losing that optional first round is not a major setback. It is not GAME OVER. The coroner’s decision was wrong and unlawful. I still intend to prove that. There is still value in that plan A, even if Alfie was cremated yesterday.
Bless you, dear John, for the valiant efforts you made today, and for taking the time to provide us with these updates!!!
Do you know if Alfie was cremated or not? There was a hearse in the funeral procession, and there did appear to be a decorated box, holding Alfie’s little body. (I cry at just the thought of it….). I pray & pray he was not cremated….
Can these be shared on facebook…I’m not on twitter…There is a big #Alfie following on facebook too
Anybody can create Facebook posts that link to these blog posts (or any web pages at all). I’ve done it many times already (with both of my Alfie-related posts.
Best of luck tomorrow! I’m in US, but will be with you in spirit. We need answers! Something about this entire situation has stunk from the beginning, and the more I learn about the NHS and the legal system in UK, the more I’m inclined to believe that the corruption runs deep.
Armed guards on door officers out side his room to stop removal is detention I think
Praying for you today and thinking of you x
I hope you have been successful today. Have been very distressed by the Alfie Evans case.Thank you for being the only one to take this on. Much appreciated.
Thank you for keeping up the good fight! I’d love to attend but live in the United States.
I hope everything goes well and there will be truth and justice for the baby boy!
And for others in the future.
looks as if no one took any notice of anything you had written to them John, something very wrong is happening here
Mr. Allman ~ We are anxiously awaiting an update about this morning, and hope you are OK. Thank you & bless you for your efforts!
Czyli juz nic nie da rady zrobic aby wyszło na jaw co zrobili tej rodzinie. Błagam zrób coś. Widać po rodzinie że jest zastraszana!!! Coś sie tam dzieje!!
[Ed: Google translation from Polish
So I can not do anything to let it come to light what they did to this family. I’m begging you, do something. You can see that the family is bullied !!! Something is happening there !!
So… Alfie’s funeral is over. The media tell us that he died of a brain disease. Do they think they have fooled us all?
Did Court #37 tell you that you didn’t have standing?
More or less, but not in so many words, and it wasn’t clear whether the judge was referring to my standing in the injunction application, or in the future JR application. I am going to request a transcript.
I am aware that I had intended to give an account what happened in court 37 today, and probably won’t be able to do that tonight after all. I apologise for this delay.
The outcome of the injunction application ought not to prejudice the JR application. The injunction application failed, but the JR application is stronger. I have made a statement about that, in an image file attached to the following tweet:
RE: the judicial review you hope to get
At this point, having lost because of not meeting qualifications for standing, seems that you shouldn’t still expect future success.
Any ideas on how to find someone with standing to take the reins now?
This is something that we ought perhaps to discuss in email, or on the “phone”. However, I don’t see any scope for enlisting a section 47 PIP as litigant.
The Monday judgment was cursory, and the point refuted hadn’t been pleaded or argued.
The correct analysis for determining standing in the ECtHR (where this may end up, if the British judiciary block JR, as they can) is counter-intuitive. A “properly interested person” (PIP), arguably has LESS victim status than a non-PIP (i.e. less interest in an inquest being held) as regards his or her Article 10 right to receive information (via an inquest). That is because any coroner who has decided not to hold an inquest, routinely refuses to give non-PIPs information explaining his decision, which he would be obliged to give to anyone who was a PIP. Open court inquests are for the benefit of the public, not the PIPs.
I think I lost on Monday, mainly because of the sheer audacity of my turning up in London, and trying to put a stop to a funeral in Liverpool that was (the judge pointed out) due to start only half an hour later. (At least, that is how my action was perceived.) I am confident that with help, the JR can be drafted watertight.
It is an advantage to have had this practice run, that doesn’t count towards the final grade, like a mock exam.
You’ll do what you think best, hopefully with little delay. Best of luck. Will there at some point be a push for exhumation, post mortem, and toxicology report , perforrmed by a non-NHS-affiliated doctor with results being made public? I sometimes have trouble with British accents, so email would be better than phone. email@example.com
Please keep me updated on this matter very interesting and on point
The way to keep updated, is to follow this blog. That means that an email is sent to you automatically when I add a new blog post. Can you see how to follow? It’s easy to do.
I had intended to write a report about Monday’s application in Court 37 yesterday. I have decided not to do that after all, until I receive the official transcript of the hearing. That takes a few weeks. I’ll publish it when I get it, unless I have second thoughts about that too. However, I haven’t applied for a transcript yet. When the price estimate comes through, it may be more than I can afford. A cheaper alternative might be to order only the judgment.
The reason for not reporting before I get the transcript, is to avoid criticism, that I have given an inaccurate account. The hearing was recorded.
If the cost is too high, I am sure we could all chip in a little bit each and make it an easy purchase? What does everyone think?
Mr. Allman– I am untrusting of the coroner’s office (run by UK gov’t responsible for forcing Alfie’s death) & strongly believe, if a post-mortem is done, it should NOT be done by those who pushed for Alfie’s state-imposed execution, but rather, by a PRIVATE doctor, unaffiliated with the NHS. Considering that what happened to Alfie affects the UK public at large, my questions are: Is this even a possibility and can such a request be made without the permission of the parent’s?
I’d like to know if you are still looking into this with the “Alfie Evans” case sir or is that the end of the matter now as far as you are concerned too, Is it too hard to find out, I think you would be going up against some powerful people the more you dig into this….something is being hidden and I’d prayed you would find out. So please can you tell us sir is there any more to add to this blog on this matter or is it closed now? Regards 🙂
The unsuccessful application on 14th May was NOT “the end of the matter”. I still intend to apply for judicial review of the coroner’s unlawful decision not to hold an investigation, or to discontinue his investigation before an inquest, without the benefit of a post-mortem. However, preparing for that is something that happens behind the scenes, not in the glare of publicity.
May I please suggest that you follow this blog, so that you receive an email notification automatically when I post further news here?