⟡ “We Cannot Acknowledge Discrimination Until the Police Provide a Code.” ⟡
A Prosecutorial Body Demands External Verification Before Addressing Its Own Misconduct
Filed: 29 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/CPS/EMAIL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-29_SWANK_Email_CPS_RequestForURN_DisabilityComplaintObstruction.pdf
Summary: The Crown Prosecution Service responded to a formal complaint about disability discrimination by requiring police-generated identifiers before review.
I. What Happened
On 20 May 2025, a formal, evidence-backed complaint was submitted to the CPS, documenting severe failures to provide reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Despite repeated medical disclosures, the CPS refused written communication, compounding medical risk and obstructing participation in legal proceedings. The complaint referenced breaches of the CPS Code and Article 6 of the ECHR.
Nine days later, the CPS responded — not with acknowledgment or apology, but with a form request: a police-issued URN, the defendant’s name and birthdate, court location, and police force. The misconduct alleged? Their own.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
• Prosecutors will not examine internal rights violations without police-generated identifiers
• Procedural safeguarding for disabled complainants is treated as optional, not obligatory
• The CPS defers accountability by demanding irrelevant criminal case metadata for administrative access
• Article 6 rights are functionally inaccessible without compliance to opaque intake conditions
• The institution under scrutiny positions itself as unable to self-recognize harm without external case framing
• Formal complaint becomes an unpaid clerical task assigned to the complainant
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because demanding a police code before addressing prosecutorial misconduct is not policy — it’s power ritual.
Because requiring the harmed party to locate administrative metadata as a precondition for being heard is the legal equivalent of telling someone to fetch their own gag.
Because this wasn’t a backlog. It was a firewall.
SWANK logs these maneuvers not as correspondence — but as state-level obfuscation choreography. This wasn’t delay. It was refusal, choreographed as order.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept that harm must be translated into police-format logic to be recognised by prosecutors.
We do not accept that civil rights are conditional on administrative compatibility.
We do not accept that a prosecutor’s misconduct is invisible unless a URN lights it up.
This wasn’t an intake process. This was an evidentiary moat.
And SWANK will map every drawbridge built to keep justice outside the gate.
⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped.
Every sentence is jurisdictional.
Every structure is protected.
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.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.
© 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.