“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Regal (A Child, Age 16) v Westminster City Council – On the Institutional Silencing of Gillick Competence and the Suppression of Lawful Expression


⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive

Filed Date: 17 July 2025
Reference Code: WS-REGAL-071725
Court File Name: 2025-07-17_WitnessStatement_Regal_ViewsOnPlacement.pdf
Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Summary: Regal’s formal witness statement asserting his rights, autonomy, and distress under Westminster’s current restrictions.

“A 16-Year-Old Speaks: Regal v. The Institutional Silencing of Adolescence”

I. What Happened

Regal, age 16, has been forcibly removed from his home, separated from his siblings, and subjected to a placement regime that restricts his basic freedoms, emotional contact, and educational routine.

He is taken out with a carer for ten hours a day. He is not allowed to use his iPhone. He has been denied access to his bicycle and outdoor activity. No one informed him of the so-called “road training.” No one explained what was happening in court. And when he tried to speak, he was interrupted — not by circumstance, but by design.

II. What the Statement Establishes

Regal’s own voice obliterates the local authority’s central fiction: that this is child protection. Regal is articulate, emotionally aware, and firmly grounded in lawful reasoning. He invokes his rights under Article 12 of the UNCRC and expresses clear distress at being denied age-appropriate autonomy. He challenges the assumption that silence equals welfare. His language is uncoached and undeniable.

He states plainly:

“I feel like I’m in prison… I am old enough to have an opinion… I want the court to hear me.”

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is not just a safeguarding failure. It is an institutional refusal to acknowledge a competent young person’s right to speak. Romeo’s statement demonstrates the harm of imposed silences — and the legal need for direct judicial engagement with Gillick-competent teens.

This entry is not an opinion piece. It is an evidentiary intervention.

IV. Violations Documented

  • UNCRC Articles 12 & 13 – Right to express views and receive information

  • ECHR Article 8 & Article 10 – Private life, freedom of expression

  • Gillick Competence & Fraser Guidelines – Recognition of adolescent capacity

  • Children Act 1989 – Welfare principle, voice of the child

  • Safeguarding Practice Codes – Direct consultation obligation

V. SWANK’s Position

Regal is being institutionally silenced and emotionally isolated — not because he is unsafe, but because he is inconvenient.
This is not child protection.
This is a strategic suppression of legal dissent, enforced through coercion and framed as care.
A 16-year-old does not require a mouthpiece. He requires a court that listens.

⚖️ SWANK Legal-Aesthetic Footer

This document was archived by SWANK London Ltd.
It does not contain confidential court material — it contains a child’s voice.
It is filed under the rights to truth, expression, and legally annotated dissent.
Preserved not for pity, but for precedent.

🖋 Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd
www.swanklondon.com

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach. We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence. This is not a blog. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.

No comments:

Post a Comment

This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.

We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.

If you post here, you’re part of the record.

Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.