Below is the summing up of Mr Justice Hodge - husband of the Government Minister Margaret Hodge. It seems to me that this man - the third Administrative Court Judge who has stood between my father's murder and justice, (quoting Law - in I believe a perverted way), has either not read the documents which were in front of him
, or is incapable of understanding what he reads
or is tinkering with the Law
(believing that he is above it) or is totally corrupt.
I am fed up with the deliberate misinterpretation of the Law of the Land, which I believe was supposedly set in place to protect the honest citizen, yet is being used in a totally perverted way, to deny that citizen the justice which the law states is his right.
My father was murdered. I have the proof of that. I have proof of who ordered that murder, who carried it out and why it was done. That proof has been put before South Yorkshire Police Force, (rubbish that they are), two Coroners (the second who I believe has never been a Coroner in England until after he formally sat at my father's 'inquest' and three High Court Judges of the Court of Administration (who appear not to be able to read.)
It is that simple. What am I supposed to do now to gain justice?
If I took a shotgun, there would be too many people to deal with, who have covered up this murder. It is also the case that I do not agree with violence. Yet what else can be hoped for? At least with a shotgun there would be a form of natural justice.
I believet that would be far less perverted than the hoped for justice, which we have found to be so unobtainable. However, there must surely be another way to find it.
I have always been a law-abiding citizen. I will not be pushed by sheer corruption, into acting against my own moral code.
Below is the Summing Up of Mr Justice Hodge, which goes totally against what he said during
the Hearing. Lewis Carroll would have found much to puzzle at, in this Judge and his stupidities. But that does not help us.
Summing up of Mr Justice Hodge in the case of
The Queen on the application of Peters Rock v HM Assistant Deputy Coroner
This document is made from my verbatim notes made during the Summing up process. I believe it to be accurate, since I wrote it down – in the main - word for word as it was spoken. Information on the two previous Hearings is copied directly from the Court Documents.
Charlotte Peters Rock
This application for Judicial Review is brought by the applicant who is a daughter of Ralph Winstanley
The original inquest was set for 5th October 2005.
On 4th October 2005, the Honourable Mr Justice Sullivan refused the claimants petition for Interim Relief – as being too late an application. He stated that:
“Interim relief refused. The Assistant Deputy Coroner’s decisions are set out in the letter dated 1st August. This application was not made until 3rd October. It is far too late to seek interim relief in respect of an inquest that it due to be held on 5th October. The inquest must proceed, in accordance with the Assistant Deputy Coroner’s directions.”
“If in consequence, there is any judicially reviewable error of law, application can be made for permission to apply for judicial review to challenge the Deputy Coroner’s verdict.”
Following the inquest, the Application was renewed.
On 7th March 2006, Mr Justice Calvert Smith refused permission for Judicial Review, stating:
1 The decision challenged, namely to hold an inquest without a jury is now past history as the result of the late application for interim relief and its refusal by Sullivan J on 3.10.05.
2 Even if that were not so, there are no grounds for believing that that decision was unreasonable and therefore amenable to challenge by way of Judicial Review.
3 In consequence, the application, if any, should be, as set out in Sullivan J’s Order: “for permission to apply for judicial review to challenge the Deputy Coroner’s verdict”
4 This last is not meant to indicate that such an application is likely to succeed.
The situations in which a coroner must hold an inquest with a jury are set out at Section 8 (3) of the Coroners Act 1988 summarised in the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service.”
Permission to apply for Judicial Review was renewed. To be heard today.
1 MRS PETERS ROCK , the daughter of the deceased, appears to represent herself, with her sister MRS LINDA KIRBY.
2 MR RICHARD DAVID WINSTANLEY, son of the deceased and younger brother, intervenes. He has submitted a fair bundle of documents and a lengthy statement – basically supporting the application.
3 The Coroner is represented by MR MARK BISHOP, who has submitted a Skeleton Outline:
4 The three NHS Trusts, which had some dealings, via staff – both doctors and nurses – during the deceased’s last illness.
MR SIMON CRIDLAND is Counsel
5 MISS SEARLE is here - to listen only - on behalf of the Police Authority.
I have read some of the considerable bundle of papers. There is considerable background history. Mr Winstanley was a successful businessman, running an engineering business with help from his son. He retired with £1.5 million at least.
His second wife, Nina Ann Clayton, was with him for a number of years, she says. The deceased’s children doubted the length of the relationship.
There is bad blood between the children and Nina Clayton.
I am less clear, but there is some dispute over the number of years and a money dispute by members of the family.
Mr Winstanley died on 23rd April 2004 – aged 83. For the last 6 or 7 days of his life, he was given terminal care.
Mrs Peters Rock states that over 40 nurses attended him during that time, to help him. He received constant supply of drugs during his last 6 days – to ease such pain as he was in.
CORE OF CASE
Mrs Peters Rock has deep suspicion about the way in which her father died. She states that her father’s condition was nothing like as bad as the trteatment indicated it was.
She states that lies were told by the deceased’s second wife, to a number of medical staff and nurses. She appears to be persuaded that the second wife played a role in killing her father. She thinks that the medical personnel involved were in some way complicit with this.
The nurses did their work and left.
Serious allegations were made, which need to be considered with care.
Worries were raised shortly after the death of her father. She did not think he was particularly ill.
There were disputes with Her majesty’s Coroner over letters. As a result of the many communications, Mr Hooper recused himself.
Mr Paul Kelly was appointed shortly after.
The appointment is heavily challenged by Mrs Peters Rock. Effectively, she says, he is not a coroner. She says the inquest was not properly called or conducted and asks or the verdict to be quashed.
Coroners Act 1988, Section 6, states that a Coroner should act for himself.
I am satisfied that Paul Kelly was appointed on June/July 2003. He was properly Appointed and entitled to conduct the inquest.
This challenge is without merit.
Mr Bishop’s Skeleton states that even where a coroner has not been officially appointed, if he has conducted an inquest, his acts are “de facto” valid.
(cited Fawdrey & Co and Murfitt (CA) and Sedley – 4(?) and 6.4)
“Wade & Forsyth Administrative Law 8th edition 2000 – pp291-292
“The acts of [an] officer or judge may be held to be valid in law even though his own appointment is invalid andi n truth he has no legal power at all. The logic of annulling all his acts has to yield to the desirability of upholding them where he has acted in the office under general supposition of his competence to do so.”
Allegation is that the Respondent failed to communicate properly with the family in respect of the inquest.
There was some communication. I cannot quash the verdict.
I am asked to take such steps as I can to order police to investigate the circumstances in respect of the death
The Respondent states that those are matters for the Chief Constable not the Coroner.
In these proceedings the Court has no power to order an investigation of any sort.
Detective Superintendent Haworth
Detective Superintendent Haworth did give evidence at the inquest. He accepts that further investigation is not considered necessary. But there is nothing that his Court can do in any event. This application is misconcieved.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE NOT ALLOWED INTO INQUEST
In respect of the claim, that documentary evidence was not permitted. There is a letter of the 8th March 2006, from Dr Majumdar. That post-dates the inquest.
Re new evidence: Coroners Act 1988 – Section 13 allows the Attorney General to make application to High Court for another inquest. The Attorney General has to be persuaded and then makes the Application.
I in no sense encourage them to make such an Application.
The letter of Dr Majumdar, in no way provides conclusive evidence and would not lead to a different verdict. Than the inquest produced.
Family say that the illness was not so desperate as to require care from the authorities.
They raised issues with the Coroner. He took a series of steps to deal with it.
PROFESSOR TIMOTHY ILLIDGE
In particular the medical evidence was made available to Professor Illidge, a professor of oncology at Christie’s. He was asked to look at all the evidence. He was understandably troubled. The coroner put before him as much information as he could.
He reports that found that there is no evidence to support the allegations.
“Medical care was entirely appropriate – and to a high standard throughout.”
I reviewed the evidence on which the conclusion was based.
DR DAVID J BROWN
The deceased’s GP Dr David Brown wrote a letter on 1st June 2004, about the treatment given to the patient and described the reasons. He commented on the “startlung enclosure of my Affidavit to Doncaster East PCT.
He says he treated the deceased regularly during the last months of his life. There is also a Statement, dated 16th May 2004.
He last saw the patient 7 days before his death at his Barnby Dun Surgery and noticed a marked deterioration. He was struck by the likeliness of his imminent demise. So he arrange for him to be reviewed by his partner.
DR RACHEL S SYKES
For his continuing care he referred the patient to Dr Rachel Sykes. She wrote a letter on 24th May 2004, confirming problems and stating that Dr Brown was fearful that he would die whilst Dr Brown was away. She notes that Mrs Peters Rock was questioning the treatment at the time she visited the deceased. She looked at the syringe-drivers used to treat him with various drugs.
She phoned Dr Sayer for a review of the Doncaster Royal Infirmary notes. They confirmed that he was dying of cancer, whether of the oesophagus or of his chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, because of results of his endoscopy and blood tests.
Dr Sykes states – 2nd last paragraph:
“I consider this chap to be in late terminal care. It is not in his interest to give antibiotics. They would not be appropriate.”
DR GILLIAN MARY HARDING. (saw him only on 23Apr2004)
Told the Coroner, in her summary of evidence to the inquest, she said that she became involved at the request of medical persons involved in the care of the deceased.
She informed Mrs Peters Rock that the deceased was close to death.
PROFESSOR HELEN WHITWELL
She performed the post mortem, agreeing with Professor Illidge in respect of what caused the death.
“Bronchopneumonia” and “disseminated lymphatic lymphoma”
I have read her post mortem report, which shows that the deceased had lymphomas throughout his body, some of which were significant in size. It agrees with Professor Illidge that there was no improper treatment.
Having looked at the evidence, of medical practitioners at the scene and two others who confirmed what they said., the letters of Dr Majumdar and Dr James - now in evidence – who treated the deceased. Neither saw him within the week before he died.
Dr Majumdar suggested on the 8th March that his chronic lymphatic leukaemia was “responsive to treatment.”
Dr James, investigated him using endoscopy – and found no particular cancer in the bowel.
Neither had seen the deceased for some time before his death.
There is evidence from Mrs Peters Rock that her father’s state of health was not too bad. But the doctors treating him state that he was in a bad way.
The position at the inquest was that the coroner did not need a jury. A right and proper decision in the circumstances.
There was no conspiracy involving medical professionals. They cannot be criticised for treating this 83 year old gentleman in any adverse way.
I regret that the families are unable to face their lives in harmony.
My role is to decide if this inquest can be successfully challenged.
I will not give permission.
Re COSTS ORDER
There is an application from the Local Authority for a contribution to its costs.
I am not minded to make and order.
It is refused.
I feel there are various points worth noting in this summing up.
1 It is stated that in spite of the fact that the coroner might not have been properly appointed, the fact that he ran the inquest and reached a conclusion means that whether or not he was properly appointed, his decision is ‘de facto’ legal. This utterly ludicrous statement enters the world of Lewis Carroll – with a vengeance. I also feel it is an agreement that Paul Kelly had not been properly appointed.
2 It is stated that the application in respect of the ordering of a full and transparent police inquiry is misconceived, since this Court cannot deal with it. So why did no-one tell me that before? Why did no-one tell me how I could get a full police inquiry to be forced? Why has the Court system wasted my time?
3 It is stated that Dr Majumdar had not recently seen my father – not since 8th March 2004. That is just untrue. And I supplied the Judge with both written and oral evidence to that effect. Dr Majumdar saw my father, and there is documentary evidence to show that, on 5th April 2004, when he found his state of health to be OK and his chronic lymphocytic leukaemia to be “under reasonable control”. Yet within 6 days, Nina Clayton was having him rushed into hospital ‘dying’ – where he was given no treatment. In fact he had been out with Linda, who had been with him for most of that day. He was well and happy and had eaten well. He was not complaining of pain whether n his stomach, chest or anywhere else.
The only reference which the Judge has is the letter of 8th April 2006, which was written by Dr Majumdar in response to my sister’s third enquiry about my father’s state of health, when he last saw him. The last time he saw my father was 5th April 2004
4 It is stated that there is bad blood between my father’s blood relatives and Nina Clayton? Any bad blood which there was, was caused entirely by Nina Clayton. Even my brothers has always stried to get on with her, originally.
I just avoided her because she was always nasty if I was in her company. So that can hardly be called bad blood, can it? It was no more than avoidance. Doesn’t everybody tend to avoid people who are unpleasant to them?
5 It is stated that there were arguments over father’s money. Not by me there weren’t. I had never had any expectation of receiving anything from my father, whether in his will or otherwise. By ‘receiving’ I refer not only to money but also to fatherly feeling, of which he was bereft.
Nina Clayton was constantly spouting that I was after his money and stating that her own family was also his family, whilst pushing out his own blood children. This served to keep me away from him on many occasions when I might have gone to see him. He was unfailingly welcoming when I did go to see him, though Nina Clayton never was. He was welcome at my house, yet he only visited me twice in the last 21 years of his life.
6 Illidge’s testimony was entirely inaccurate and not based on the medical record as it stands, but rather on Dr Brown’s secretive GP Notes, which we have not been allowed to see. He states:
“Medical care was entirely appropriate – and to a high standard throughout.”
How does he know that? He wasn’t there. He had done no more than read retrospective back-guarding nurses’ notes and doctors’ notes. He misses the point, which was that my father did not need this ‘care’. Also that he had very bad pressure wounds, mentioned under ‘Marks of Injury’, on pages 2 and 3 in the post mortem report, which were entirely due to deficient nursing care.
Illidge’s Preliminary Report, is wildly inaccurate. I make that statement based on the factual evidence contained within the Medical and Hospital Records.
7 Brown and Sykes lied to cover their own backs, though both were aware of the two Consultants’ treatment and findings in respect of my father’s health.
8 Sayer, was not my father’s Consultant. She sent down the result of my father’s second biopsy test to Sykes on 22nd April, which showed that he had no oesophageal or stomach cancer.
9 Harding only saw my father during his last day of life, when it was pretty apparent to anybody, that he was dying – but so would anyone be dying, if they had been denied food and fluid and been kept in a drugged and unconscious state, lain flat on their back by every nurse, until they died. Especially if they were also helped on their way by the application of one (Or ten? The rest of this prescription is not accounted for) doses of Hyoscine hydrobromide – which Sayer recommended – the existence of which is now being covered up. Professor Forrest, the toxicologist did not test for its presence in my father’s blood.
10 In respect of the Judge’s comment about my belief that there was a conspiracy on the part of the medical professionals in respect of my father’s killing. I do believe that. However the conspiracy was brought into play after my father’s death, to cover up what are mainly mistakes of judgement and present a united clean face to the world - which none of these people possess. Others taking a major part in this conspiracy are the Chief Executive and Directors of the NHS Trusts and the solicitors Beachcroft Wansbroughs.No Judge worth his salt could claim to be unaware that such conspiracies to indeed exist, since they are being played out on a daily basis in Courts all over the country, which is why medical negligence Barristers do so well..
10 Professor Whitwell, could only find what was actually in evidence when she performed her post mortem. She found no sign of Oesophageal or stomach cancer. She stated that – by the time he died – he had not only the chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (put down as disseminated lymphatic lymphoma – (which is the same thing – it’s a matter of terminology) but had also fallen prey (during the last 6 drugged days?), to bronchopneumonia. That is not really so surprising, given the way he was treated.
11 The lack of vital witnesses has yet again been completely overlooked by this Judge. Whilst it could be stated that it would have cost more money to have asked Dr Majumdar, Dr James, Dr Lee, and the nurses to give evidence, my sister and I were in Court, and were willing to give evidence. Paul Kelly was fully aware of that. He had sworn Affidavits from us.
12 It was also made clear, throughout the documents nd orally, during the Hearing, that my father stated, over and over again, that he was not in any pain, so why does this Judge persist with the statement that my father was in pain?
13 Because my application failed, we are still without access to vital documents, and my application for costs was disallowed.
However, I feel that it is significant that costs were also disallowed to both Paul Kelly and North East Lincs Legal and Democratic Services and to the three NHS Trusts.
I suppose it might be felt that I should be grateful for the lack of costs awarded against me. I am not. How can I be, when there is still the absolute fact that my father was murdered in front of me? And not only that, but that it was done using the very people who we should all have confidence will be able and willing to help us?