I’ve asked the police please to enable me to serve, on bereaved parents Tom and Kate, my #AlfieInquest judicial review claim against the coroner, challenging his decision not to investigate Alfie’s death. (Please could I suggest that readers follow this blog who want to be notified automatically by email when I publish the police’s response?)
This is the email I sent:
Subject: Alfie Evans death judicial review – an appeal for help in effecting service Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 13:53:22 +0100 From: John Allman <John_W_Allman@hotmail.com> To: email@example.com
Dear Merseyside Police
Technically, this correspondence is for the attention of the Chief Constable. However, I appreciate that he or she delegates tasks to staff, for whose acts and omissions he or she is vicariously liable.
This is not a complaint against the police, or anybody else. It is an appeal for help, in order to prevent the course of justice going awry.
I have claim forms etc in a civil action which I needed to serve upon two interested parties, as well as the defendant upon whom I have already served. It is not to the disadvantage of the parties concerned to receive this paperwork. Unlike a defendant, who is a party to proceedings whether he wants to be or not, an interested party has the option of ignoring the claim in which he is listed as an interested party, without dire consequences. An interested party also has the option of supporting the claim, or opposing it. Justice demands that interested parties are given these options, by being served with the proceedings.
I have just learnt that my attempt to serve the claim form upon the interested parties at the address of their advertised lawyers has failed, because the “law firm” concerned is not a firm of solicitors after all, as it’s advertising suggests it is. The “law firm” concerned is called The Christian Legal Centre. The same “firm”, I have learnt, had also failed, without telling me, to pass on the pre-action correspondence to their clients or former clients, pursuant to the Pre-action Protocol for Judicial Review. Unfortunately, with its not being regulated by either to the Solicitors Regulation Authority or the Bar Standards Board, it is not going to be possible for me to take The Christian Legal Centre to task over its obstruction of justice, though perhaps somebody else could.
My enquiries of an enquiry agent have elicited the assertion that the interested parties are under some sort of “safeguarding” protection, akin to a witness protection programme, and that it would be illegal for them to assist me in ascertaining an address for service of my claim. Even the sibling of one of the two interested parties, who has been trying to help me to get my claim to her sibling for the best part of a week now, has been unable to contact her sibling, I am informed.
I have reason to believe that when the interested parties receive the papers that the court has instructed me to serve on them, they will be mighty glad to receive them. It is rumoured on the internet that they are minded to take the same sort of legal action as me themselves. They will learn that they have left it too late to do what I am doing on their own initiative, because of the limitation period of only three months for judicial review. They will be pleased to discover that my prompt taking of the initiative has provided them with the opportunity to do something that they intend to do anyway, but (they will discover) won’t be able to do alone, but can do after all by participating in the legal action that I have started. It will pervert the course of justice to deny them this opportunity, by preventing service upon the interested parties.
The details of my legal action are blogged here:
The papers that I am trying to serve now are here:
The interested parties are known to the police. They are Tom Evans and Kate James, the parents of the late Alfie Evans (9 May 16 – 28 April 18).
Since the police seem to have a role in making it impossible for me to serve the papers on these two parties any other way, I am writing to request the co-operation of the police in effecting service. If the private enquiry agent was mistaken who told me that it would be unlawful to help me to trace the interested parties, please could I have a “To whom it may concern” letter from the police, encouraging any such enquiry agent to assist me in tracing the interested parties in order to effect service of my claim, because the rumour that it is unlawful for anybody do so is false. If the police response to this request is to do neither of these, then I fear the outcome may be a perversion of the course of justice.
There are several ways in which the police can co-operate in effecting service. One of the simplest would be to print two copies of the papers I am trying to serve, and to take one copy each to Tom Evans and Kate James, whose whereabouts I am quite sure are known to the police.
When you open the links to this email, you will see than I am challenging the legality of the defendant senior coroner’s decision not investigate the death of the late son, Alfie Evans, of the parents, Tom Evans and Kate James, the two interested parties. The parents were listed as interested parties at the request of the defendant coroner, so it is not contentious that they ought to receive service of these court papers.
Next week, I shall need to make an application to the court in London for directions, in the light of the failure of service via The Christian Legal Centre. It would be helpful therefore to have a reply to this email before the end of the bank holiday weekend, in order to inform the court’s decision as to what directions to make regarding service, service via The Christian Legal Centre having failed.
(Whilst making this post, I have corrected two insignificant typing errors in the original email.)