⟡ “A Record Denied — Because Due Process Doesn’t Vanish on Request” ⟡
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILY/TRANSCRIPT-REQUEST
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_Request_for_ICO_Hearing_Transcript_and_Record.pdf
Formal request for court transcripts and attendance records after a secretive Interim Care Order imposed without notice, representation, or consent.
I. What Happened
On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic (Director, SWANK London Ltd.) issued a formal written demand to Westminster Legal Services, the Family High Court, and multiple related bodies requesting the complete transcript and legal submissions from the hearing that removed her four children.
She specified that:
She was never informed the hearing was scheduled.
No documents were served.
No solicitor was authorised to act.
No consent was given for any filings in her name.
The request invoked Article 6 of the ECHR, the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and the Family Procedure Rules, insisting that the authorities confirm whether they would disclose the record as a court document or an FOI response.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
A procedural black hole: no notice, no service, no participation.
Institutional gatekeeping preventing parents from even seeing what was done in their name.
The absurdity of having to formally request basic records to prove one’s own exclusion.
The transformation of safeguarding into a closed-circuit theatre of power.
This was not an administrative formality. It was the deliberate concealment of process.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because you cannot exercise rights over your children by clairvoyance.
Because an unnotified hearing is not justice — it is administrative seizure with a legal gloss.
Because if the record is hidden, there can be no accountability, only anecdote.
And because SWANK is not in the business of anecdote. We are in the business of evidence.
IV. Violations
Human Rights Act 1998 — Article 6: Right to a fair hearing
Equality Act 2010 — Sections 20–21: Duty to make reasonable adjustments
Family Procedure Rules 2010 — Participation and disclosure
Freedom of Information Act 2000
V. SWANK’s Position
This was not due process.
⟡ This was procedural erasure. ⟡
SWANK does not accept the normalisation of clandestine hearings or the casual deletion of parents from the legal record.
We will document every exclusion. Every time.
⟡ 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.