⟡ Addendum: On the Etiquette of Submissions and the Cloud-Based Patience of the Litigant ⟡
Filed: 6 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/HIGH-COURT/PC-095
Document: 2025-05-06_Core_PC-095_HighCourt_JRFollowUp_RBKCWestminsterHMCTS.pdf
Summary: Follow-up correspondence to the Administrative Court reaffirming the claimant’s Judicial Review filings against Westminster Children’s Services, RBKC Children’s Services, and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service—an email so civilised it ought to have been bound in vellum.
I. What Happened
On 6 May 2025 the claimant, polite to the point of weaponry, reminded the Administrative Court that her Judicial Review existed, intact, and somewhere in the digital empyrean known as Google Drive. The note contained no threats, no flourish—only the serene confidence that justice could, perhaps, click a link.
II. What the Letter Establishes
That due process now floats in the cloud, while human patience remains resolutely terrestrial.
That “please find attached” has become an act of faith.
That the Administrative Court’s greatest test is not jurisprudence but broadband.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this message is pure procedural poetry: a missive whose subject line alone (“Judicial Review Supplement – Simlett v Westminster / RBKC / Crown Court”) could silence a chamber.
It embodies the modern paradox—to file is divine, to follow up, inevitable.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 – failure to accommodate written-only adjustments.
Article 6 HRA – justice delayed by administrative latency.
Article 8 HRA – family life compressed into attachments.
Digital Decorum – breach of responsiveness beyond reasonable human patience.
V. SWANK’s Position
The High Court’s inbox remains an altar of unread supplications; SWANK, however, treats each email as liturgy.
To press “Send” under these conditions is not communication—it is devotion.