Tag: misconduct in public office

If an employee is killed in their place of work The Health and Safety Executive will generally fine the negligent firm around £8,000.  

This is one measure of the value of human life. It is the cost of a life lost through casual disregard for safety.  

But how much does it cost for the state to actively destroy the life of a human being, leading to their illness and death? 
 

I would be willing to bet the overall cost of this is significantly more than about £8,000. Currently Wakefield Council are refusing to reveal the cost of legal proceedings against an elderly lady, the concerns caused to her by the actions of the Council and their agents resulting in weakening of her immune system, illness and premature death.

Regardless the cost would be equivalent to the hourly rate of a solicitor employed by Weightmans of Liverpool and the additional cost of time for employees of Wakefield Council, at around six months of chargeable time for each.

What am I about to detail to you in this blog entry links into a previous blog entry seen at https://legalbabble.law.blog/2022/09/03/elder-abuse-social-worker-coverup-in-evidence-to-the-high-Court/ 

Because of events detailed in that previous entry I was effectively gagged from being able to discuss any of the things that happened in this matter while they were actually happening. The Court’s imposition of an order effectively restricting my ability to discuss any aspect of a malicious pursuit of a seriously ill elderly woman while the matter was still active. As a result of this gagging a significant instance of structural violence practised by the state against one of its more vulnerable citizens was allowed to continue. In silence.

The definition of structural violence can be seen here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence

There is of course an interest on the part of a Court, which sought to largely misdirect itself and neglect any form of protective role for a vulnerable person, in preventing the wider public becoming aware of the more significant abuses of Mrs. X. The Court effectively turned a blind eye to these abuses carried out by the legal firm Weightmans acting on behalf of Wakefield District Council, even when made aware of them in an application in proceedings.

All these forms of abuses of Mrs. X detailed in this blog entry could only be carried out in a situation in which the issues I raise cannot be discussed in the media or online. It is highly likely that the gagging order on the prior blog entry was imposed upon myself as the judge in the matter was fully aware that he intended to largely ignore his duty or responsibility under the Equal Treatment Bench Book or the duty to Mrs. X as a party in a claim who possessed what HMCTS define as “protected characteristics”.

This blog entry details what happened within the case brought by Wakefield Council against Mrs. X, the effect on her health of that case which led directly to her early death and calls to account the persons responsible. It also considers the extent to which Wakefield Council Social Services failed to take into account the degree of distress and anxiety that their own actions caused towards an elderly person, and how the malice and negligence of the Council, The High Court and of the solicitors firm Weightmans ended up causing illness and premature death for an already ill elderly lady.

This is Mrs. X.

Although she had Parkinson’s she maintained a healthy lifestyle and had an active, social life. At eighty seven she lived life to the fullest despite advancing years. An application was made by her in early 2022 to obtain Continuous Healthcare Funding from the NHS. This funding enables a person who is growing progressively worse over time to have relevant care and nursing fees paid for by the NHS. In the course of an assessment in person, Social Worker Joanne Cave of Wakefield Council Social Services was invited by the NHS to attend.

Now it’s important to recall that there had been numerous previous errors by Wakefield Council in the care of Mrs. X, including failure to record correct information, refusal of access to Council services, and harassment by a previous social worker, Chantelle Hawkins when informed by Mrs. X and her family that social care from the Council was not needed.

Wakefield Council are highly invested in the idea of inserting themselves as much as possible into the lives of elderly persons on the basis that they will attempt to find out the extent of the persons assets and income so they can levy against these assets the the event the elderly person needs nursing care. Categorically at no point was any social care provided by the Council: and there was no need for such.

Therefore Mrs. X. would never have agreed willingly to a Social Worker from Wakefield Council attending the Continuous Healthcare Funding appointment because in the past the Council had proven themselves to be inept, negligent and reluctant in correcting obvious errors that they made to the detriment of Mrs. X. I’ll give you one brief example of this: in order to deny Mrs. X access to any Council run services in the period late 2021 to May 2022 a report was written which ignored any medical conditions that Mrs. X had. The content of this report ran completely contrary to previous social care reports which mentioned her medical conditions clearly and in full. True enough the Council, then used the existence of this report to claim that Mrs X was not ill enough to require access to certain services provided by Wakefield Council. I have every expectation that this is a regular tactic used by local authorities to deny access to services for the elderly and the ill.

Nevertheless, Social Worker Joanne Cave attended the Continuous Healthcare Funding meeting alongside a representative from the NHS, despite not being invited into Mrs. X’s home. And for a number of weeks afterwards consistently rang Mrs. X to pester her to take Council social care services. It was clearly stated that these were not needed as sufficient care was already in place alongside care paid for privately. However the calls continued.

The aim of attempting to push social care provided by the Council is very simple. The Council will not provide social care without having conducted a financial assessment on an elderly person first. This financial assessment enables them to see the extent of the persons income, assets, and suchlike. Again, the purpose of involvement of the Council is always the same – they want to discover the extent of a persons wealth so that they can levy against that in the event the person needs nursing care, and take their assets in order to pay for that care.

It is not difficult to harass an elderly lady who is already ill and upset her to the point where she becomes more ill, as Social Worker Cave knew full well. The constant pestering from Joanne Cave induced a urinary tract infection in Mrs. X, which produced nocturnal incontinence lasting until her death some eight months later. Thus the unwarranted intervention of the social worker caused needless misery and unhappiness for Mrs X.

A complaint was made to Wakefield Council Social Care Complaints, but no response was given by the Council. They stonewalled the complaint in order to avoid investigating or admitting a breach of duty of care which had made Mrs. X’s medical conditions and quality of life worse.

Social Worker Joanne Cave was not so reticent, and immediately on learning of the UTI infection caused to Mrs. X by her actions (being told by the Coucil’s Social Care Complaints office), rang Mrs. X’s GP and attempted to obtain confidential medical information from the GP without the permission of Mrs. X and in full knowledge of the fact that such incitement to reveal confidential medical data would have been inducing the GP practice to breach data protection regulations & GDPR.

Cave did this in full knowledge that that she had no right of access to any that information. These are the actions of a social worker who seeks to misconduct herself to obtain some form of protection from the results of her own professional misconduct.

You can read all about this in the blog entry I referred to above.

A copy of these call recordings were supplied to me in full by the GP practice together with the emails Social Worker Joanne Cave had sent to the practice.

Something more important to the Social Worker than caring properly for people under her charge is maintaining her professional reputation, especially in a situation where she has now committed potentially damaging professional misconduct, leading to further illness on the part of someone under her care.

Joanne Cave must’ve known that she had acted illegally in attempting to obtain medical data, as well as having breached her duty of care and professional standards in inducing a UTI in Mrs. X by her pestering.

Failing to obtain confidential medical data via the underhanded methods used meant that Joanne Cave had to go another route. Despite the content of a report written by her when the NHS funding assessment was undertaken speaking in glowing terms about the care provided for Mrs. X she decided that the easiest way to obtain this medical information was by creating a High Court claim falsely stating that Mrs. X was not being properly looked after by her family and that by creating a hue and cry over this matter she would be able to obtain the medical data, and possibly pressure Mrs. X to obtain a care package, producing income & financial data for the Council. This being the original plan of her continual pestering of Mrs. X.

Consequently proceedings were launched at the High Court in which Mrs. X was made a defendant with the aim of the case being that she would be forced to justify her own care arrangements, her mental capacity, and domestic situation & to produce proof that all of these were satisfactory. Presumably the same people who had induced in her a lasting UTI, falsified care records (legally amounting to a criminal offence in law), and we are now inducing further needless stress on Mrs. X would be the ones to determine if the existing care arrangements were “satisfactory” or not.

I repeat for the avoidance of any doubt that the report produced by Cave herself in May 2022. Spoke well of the care marrangements for Mrs. X

At no point did Wakefield Council carry out an assessment to determine if its malicious claim was causing Mrs. X undue anxiety and distress. They will of course have known from the fact that Cave’s actions induced a UTI in her in May 2022 that a High Court action would have created even more stress and anxiety for Mrs. X.

On this basis it is strongly considered that the case was in part brought precisely to cause distress and anxiety to Mrs. X possibly because a complaint had been launched regarding Joanne Cave’s behaviour and there existed the need for her to throw attention away from herself in relation to that by creating a hue and cry over Mrs. X’s care arrangements.

Ahead of the action being launched, Joanne Cave’s immediate superior Meuhun Nessa called Mrs. X and her family to gloat about the impending claim. The purpose of such a call was simply to cause anxiety and distress ahead of the actual proceedings.

Enter now the Liverpool law firm Weightmans.

This is Jamin Lennard and his collegue Morris Hill of the firm. Both are jointly and severally responsible for what happened to Mrs. X by allowing themselves to be used by Wakefield Council to carry out a claim that they will have known had no merit, and was being pursued purely for malicious purposes.

This is a firm that particularly likes to hoover up contracts from local authorities and particularly will seek to protect such organisations from the consequences of their own misconduct, in so doing acting malignantly in the interests of their client. And so this proved to be.

In order to deflect attention away from Social Worker, Joanne Cave inducing a UTI in Mrs. X by her actions, the firm proceeded to issue a meritless claim based on wholly misleading statements, and which the firm would have known would produce no reasonable outcome for any party. The fact that up until a complaint had been made regarding Joanne Cave’s behaviour that no questions had been raised regarding the quality of the care provided to Mrs. X is clear. It is also equally clear that the claim made by Wakefield Council had no merit and was brought for an improper collateral purpose.

The case was assigned to High Court judge Mr. Justice Poole, or Nigel Poole as he was previously known, of Kings Chambers Leeds.

The defendant’s family on her behalf made a number of applications in the case, only one of which the judge decided to hear – in April 2023. It was safe for the Court, and for Wakefield Council that this one application should be heard because by that point Mrs. X was dead with the actions of all the organisations concerned in this claim having a significant of a contribution to her death.

All of the prior applications made on behalf of Mrs. X would have – if the Court had bothered to hear them – acted to protect her from the excesses of Weightmans and thrown sharp light on the actions of the Council in bringing this claim, and the accuracy of statements made within the claim by their sole witness, Social Worker, Joanne Cave.

By contrast the claimant, Wakefield Council, made a number of applications which were immediately actioned by the judge.

The defendant this case was at no point legally represented. And instead, had to rely on her family to enable her take part in the normal administration of a Court process on her behalf. This in itself creates an injustice as there is little equality of arms between the parties.

At hearings Wakefield Council was represented by Tom Semple of Park Lane Plowden, Leeds. You may well consider that this man’s mendacious character is amply expressed in his facial features.

Applications to obtain legal representation for Mrs. X went unheard by the judge.

Except of course for the sole application which was heard, but only after her death. This is a deliberate strategy on the part of the Court to cause significant disadvantage for a defendant in person.

Equally an application that the validity and merit of the claimant’s case should be examined in full to head off their allegations and dismiss them at an early point in the history of the claim was equally ignored. The balance of equality of arms which is normally a part of any Court case did not apply in this matter.

Rather that Mr. Justice Poole made every effort to cause significant disadvantage for the defendant and give undue advantage for the claimant. This can be seen most obviously in the fact that the claimant was completely unable to produce any evidence to support their claims to the Court and that their case ran significantly contrary to comments made in the social care report written by Joanne Cave just weeks before the claim was launched. Wakefield Council had made significant allegations regarding the quality of care of an elderly person but that these allegations were at no point tested by the Court before orders were made & decisions reached.

This represents an abdication of responsibility on the part of the judge: the integrity and accuracy of the claims made by Wakefield Council were assumed to be accurate, despite the considerable wealth of information in documents produced by Mrs. X’s family for the Court to show there were no issues with her care and that the Council had often acted maliciously or negligently towards Mrs. X.

Interestingly enough, neither Council, nor Weightman’s reverted to any other care professional apart from Social Worker Joanne Cave to provide evidence in relation to Mrs. X’s care: because if they had done, so the quality of the care provided for Mrs. X would have been evident from numerous interactions with other care professionals such as doctors, District Nurses and suchlike.

The Council principally sought two things from the case.

Firstly, they sought access to Mrs. X in her home alone and against her wishes. This frightened her, given the degree of malfeasance and misconduct practised by the Council towards Mrs. X for around 18 months prior. They wished to be able to enter her home and interview her regarding care related issues when she had clearly stated that she did not wish or require Council social care.

They also – outrageously – wanted access to her medical records.

Having failed to obtain access to medical records by devious methods described above with Mrs. X’s GP, social worker Joanne Cave was clearly mindful of trying again to do this. Her interest in obtaining these medical records were related to Cave inducing a UTI in Mrs. X by constant telephone pestering of her; in actual fact, the aim of such pestering was to obtain financial data.

Mrs. X objected to both the aims of the case against her and especially the attempt by the Council, no persons of whom are medically trained or able to act to intervene in her care, to obtain medical records. Mrs. X objected to any person unconcerned with her medical care having access to her medical records. Such records are confidential for a reason.

In an October 2022, hearing, carried out remotely via Microsoft Teams, Mrs. X demonstrated clear mental capacity and stated clearly what I have laid out above. Mrs. X clearly stated that she was happy with her care arrangements and she did not wish interference from the Council or anyone. She particularly objected to the idea that the claimant, Wakefield Council should obtain copies of her medical records.

Mr. Justice Poole generally deals with Family Court cases, often those in which he passes orders leading to the deaths of very ill children. Therefore he likely had no qualms whatsoever to pass an order, allowing an instructed expert, Professor Alistair Burns, of Manchester University to be allowed access to the home of Mrs. X against her wishes.

However, for the second time, the Council failed to obtain copies of Mrs. X’s medical data, when it was agreed that this should only be seen by the instructed expert except for in circumstances, where these medical records were quoted directly in any report written by the instructed expert..

From the point of October 2022 onwards, the new solicitor from Weightmans, Jamin Lennard in charge of the claim would email Mrs. X virtually every day. In fact, it’s fair to say that he harassed her and that this was likely done for the purpose of causing her anxiety and distress.

These were often pointless emails that Mrs. X could do nothing about. However, from a point of view of the firm, these emails represented a nice little earner because each one would increase the amount of chargeable time that the firm could bill their client, Wakefield Council for.

Even at the point where the firm was informed that such emails were making Mrs. X ill they simply continued the bombardment. Mrs. X was unable to make the first date for meeting with the instructed expert because the frequency and content of the emails from Wakefield Council’s instructed solicitor were making her ill.

The instructed expert, Prof. Alistair Burns, was also informed that this matter and the conduct of the case by Weightmans was making Mrs. X ill. He was asked directly if he really wanted to align himself with a firm instructing him professionally who were acting in such a way as to cause anxiety, distress, and ill health for a defendant in the claim.

Relevant applications were made to the Court to try to protect Mrs. X from the conduct of the case by Weightmans inducing medical deterioration, including one last-ditch application in December 2022. Needless to say these applications were not actioned by the Court.

The judge and HMCTS must themselves bear some considerable responsibility for Mrs. X‘s medical decline from November 2022 onwards and her subsequent death in February 2023 because even when made aware in the December 2022 application that the claim was making her ill, through worry causing deterioration of her immune system, they decided to do nothing about it.

It is clear that the Court was well aware from the offset that Mrs. X was a vulnerable defendant in a claim and that previous contact with the Council harassing her for a financial assessment which would reveal to them extent of her assets resulted in medical deterioration in the form of a UTI.

A application requesting the appointment of a solicitor to have defended Mrs. X would have protected her from the excesses of Weightmans. The application to do just this was ignored by the Court which then gave the firm free reign to act oppressively and harass Mrs. X. It is highly likely that this oppressive conduct and harassment of Mrs. X was the purpose of the Council’s actions in bringing the case alongside their interest in furtively, obtaining a copy of her medical records.

The daily bombardment of emails from Jamin Lennard began to cause deterioration in the health of Mrs. X. The worries regarding her being forced to allow someone into her home against her wishes, and who also had free access to her confidential medical records distressed her day and night.

As stated this caused her immune system to be compromised over time. The fact that she demonstrated clear capacity in the October 2022 hearing and stated that she was happy with her care arrangements, home situation and was being looked after satisfactorily were ignored completely by the Court at that hearing. This also caused her considerable distress. But the Court and instructing solicitors failed to obtain any independent third-party evidence to show that Mrs. X was being well cared for under her current arrangements. The effect of all of this worry on her already poor health, began to cause deteriorations both in her physical health, continence and mental capacity.

The daily bombardment of emails from the firm Weightmans in pursuit of claim they must have had reasonable knowledge was brought maliciously continued from November 2002 and into December 2002. These frequency of the emails from the firm map exactly on to further progressive deterioration caused to Mrs. X’s health and it is clear that they caused her immune system to be compromised through concerns and anxiety induced by the firm in pursuit of a case which had no merit.

Mrs. X’s own GP attended at her home in November 2022, and identified that the proceedings were causing her significant distress and anxiety. This written report was made available to the instructed expert, Professor Alistair Burns, and also to the Court. Neither took any action as a result of it.

It is clear that the malicious allegations made by Wakefield Council in order to protect their employee, social worker Joanne Cave, were taking a significant toll on Mrs. X’s health and day to day mental well-being and physical health.

Therefore, I will directly name, Morris Hill and Jasmine Leonard of Weightmans Solicitors Liverpool, Joanne Cave of Wakefield Council, and Mr Justice Poole as each bearing moral and legal responsibility for acting in a way that caused a significant decline in Mrs. X’s health leading directly to her death.

That in each of these instances, the actions of these parties run contrary to clear regulations regarding reasonable behaviour from professionals in such circumstances. That the injustice was allowed to continue contrary to all evidence (produced by the family of Mrs. X for the Court) that the claim brought by Wakefield Council had no substance, and indeed the injustice became worse the longer the case progressed, and the more ill Mrs. X became as a result of it.

The duty of care present in professionals was ignored in favour of pursuit of a claim which the claimant and their representatives knew consisted of a tissue of lies, but which was pursued in order to protect the Council and the Social Worker via deliberate distraction from their own negligent behaviour towards Mrs. X in May 2022.

In the case of both solicitors for the legal firm, Weightmans, the opportunity to increase their own profits in the claim by almost daily emails to Mrs. X was too good an opportunity to resist.

Mr Justice Poole ignored clear mental capacity and clear expression of the wishes of Mrs. X at the hearing in October 2022, failed to action numerous applications which would’ve protected her within the claim from the abuse she was subjected to and instead allowed the firm instructed by the Council to continually harass and cause anxiety to Mrs. X, resulting in her compromised immune system, medical decline and subsequent death. This ran wholly contrary to his responsibilities under The Equal Treatment Bench Book, and the Court’s own requirement to regard Mrs. X as having protected characteristics.

The death of Mrs. X was not a pleasant one. Increasing confusion, disorientation and pneumonic lung infection where all the results of the stress and anxiety caused to Mrs. X by the case and the failure of the Court to observe her status in law as a person with protected characteristics.

Anxiety over the case caused her immune system to be progressively, compromised over November and December 2023, leading to her picking up opportunistic infections. Mrs. X was admitted in late December 2022 to a local hospital where she remained until discharge to a hospice in January 2023 with her death around a week later.

Even at the point of her admission to the hospice Wakefield Council could not leave Mrs. X alone and kept checking on her location by calls to the hospice and hospital.

Prior to this fruitless and meritless claim being started by the Council. Mrs. X‘s health was generally very good, and there was no reason for her to take a sudden medical deterioration excepting for the fact that the anxiety and concerns caused to her by this malicious claim and the aggressive pursuit of it resulted in a significant medical deterioration. This is evidenced in a report from her GP, contemporary to this decline, and data from other NHS services, contemporary with November and December 2022. It is also seen in the way aggressive daily emails from Weightmans map onto the period of her decline.

Indeed a report from the Council themselves around a month before the launch of the claim confirmed that Mrs. X‘s care was more than adequate. These proceedings are then directly linked with her terminal decline caused by compromised immune system as a result of anxiety and worry induced in this claim. The actions of the parties named above, professional negligence and failure to consider evidence clearly put before them in pursuit of their own interests within this matter resulted in a needless death. None of the organisations or persons involved in this matter who had a duty of care in law acted to protect Mrs X.

The aggressive means by which the Council were allowed to launch a claim which had no merit, without assessment of if they had a solid basis of claim. Their instruction of a firm which pursued this matter aggressively and for the purpose of harassing the claimant on behalf of their client. Then the failure of the Court, and in particular Mr Justice Poole, to observe their duty of care towards a person with protected characteristics resulted in misery, illness, and premature death.

In any civilised society, this amounts to an obscene abuse of power by all those concerned. This blog entry holds each of them to account for their actions which amount to abuse of position and the legal system for the purpose of controlling and manipulating a vulnerable person.

---