Chromatic v Crown Prosecution Service and Inner London Crown Court [2025] SWANK PC-097 (CC)

---

⟡ Addendum: On the Fragility of Justice and the Gallantry of Delay ⟡

Filed: 7 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/CROWN-COURT/PC-097
Document: 2025-05-07_Core_PC-097_CrownCourtCPS_AdjournmentRequestDisabilityGrounds.pdf
Summary: Formal request to the Inner London Crown Court and Crown Prosecution Service seeking adjournment or stay of proceedings on disability and procedural-review grounds, following the filing of concurrent civil, judicial-review, and injunctive claims.

---

I. What Happened

On 7 May 2025 the claimant—already entangled in a web of retaliatory litigation—addressed both the Crown Court and the Crown Prosecution Service with what may be the rarest of pleadings: a letter written not in desperation but in exquisite irritation.
The document, dispatched with the precision of an oxygen-deprived diplomat, requested that an impending criminal hearing be paused until the surrounding unlawfulness could catch its breath.

---

II. What the Letter Establishes

That persistence is a form of jurisprudence.
That one may, through the sheer decorum of an adjournment request, illuminate the absurdity of forcing a disabled claimant to litigate across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.
That the state, when cornered by courtesy, often mistakes it for permission.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this letter is not merely procedural; it is performance.
To ask for an adjournment under such conditions is to conduct an aria on the theme of fairness.
SWANK archives it as proof that bureaucracy, when confronted with eloquence, still gasps for air.

---

IV. Violations

• Equality Act 2010 – failure to accommodate written-only engagement.

• Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 6 and 8 breached by continued prosecution amid disability claims.

• Civil Procedure Rules – disregard for proportionality and basic grace.

---

V. SWANK’s Position

Justice delayed is occasionally justice preserved.
The adjournment request stands as a lesson in aristocratic patience: a stay not of cowardice but of composure.
Where others shout, the claimant files—and in doing so, redefines litigation as etiquette.

---

⚖️ 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.