⟡ SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue
Filed Date: 21 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-CR-WCC0225
PDF Filename: 2025-07-21_SWANK_CriminalLiability_WestminsterChildrenServices.pdf
1-Line Summary: Westminster Children’s Services and named officials now face criminal exposure under four high-order public justice statutes.
THE CRIMES THAT WESTMINSTER NOW FACES
A Catalogue of Institutional Criminal Liability
Affiliated Officers: Hornal, Brown, Newman, and Legal Counsel
I. Misconduct in Public Office (Common Law)
Maximum Sentence: Life imprisonment
Venue: Crown Court or higher
Legal Context:
This ancient common law offence applies when a public officer, acting in their official capacity, willfully neglects to perform their duty or willfully misconducts themselves, to such a degree that it constitutes an abuse of the public's trust.
In this case:
– Retaliatory safeguarding
– False referrals based on disproven allegations
– Suppression of disability accommodations
– Strategic obfuscation of procedural rights
All satisfy the threshold of deliberate abuse of state power, causing foreseeable harm to vulnerable children.
II. Harassment (Protection from Harassment Act 1997)
Maximum Sentence:
– 6 months (Magistrates’)
– 5 years (Crown), plus Restraining Orders
Legal Context:
A course of conduct that amounts to harassment — including unwanted contact, surveillance-style visits, and persistent interference with daily life or health — especially where this conduct is repeated and targets an individual under the guise of professional authority.
In this case:
– Coercive correspondence
– Surveillance-like pop-ins
– Email threats against protected contact
– Suppression of lawful parenting
The actions are neither benign nor bureaucratic. They are strategically injurious — and documentably so.
III. Perverting the Course of Justice
Venue: Always Crown Court
Maximum Sentence: Up to 7 years
Legal Context:
This offence is reserved for the most serious misconduct involving fabrication, misrepresentation, or obstruction of the justice process.
In this case:
– Knowingly filing referrals based on disproven incidents
– Misrepresenting home conditions without lawful entry
– Manipulating contact restrictions
– Blocking evidence submission
The law is explicit: when public servants distort the judicial process to achieve an outcome they could not lawfully obtain, they are no longer acting lawfully at all.
IV. Wilful Neglect (Children and Young Persons Act 1933)
Maximum Sentence: 10 years
Venue: Either-way offence
Legal Context:
Where any person who has responsibility for a child willfully neglects that child in a manner likely to cause suffering or serious impairment, they may be criminally liable.
In this case:
– Unjustified removal from stable home
– Denial of medical continuity
– Isolation from siblings and parents
– Suppression of educational access
The harm is not theoretical. It is measured in A&E records, missed schooling, trauma symptoms, and state-led fragmentation of a bonded family unit.
V. SWANK’s Position
This is not merely a child welfare dispute. It is a multi-agency cover-up, wrapped in safeguarding language, and executed by officers who confused state power for personal impunity.
Let it be formally recorded:
These actions meet the criteria for criminal prosecution.
The evidence is already filed, served, and indexed.
The Crown now has a choice: intervene, or become complicit.
⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer
This SWANK dispatch is filed as part of a private evidentiary record, legal complaint archive, and prosecutorial precursor. All references to named individuals refer strictly to professional actions already submitted in legal proceedings or formal complaints. This post is not defamatory — it is documentary.
Protected under:
– Article 10, ECHR
– Section 12, Human Rights Act 1998
– Civil Procedure Rules (Disclosure)
– Crown Prosecution Guidelines on Public Interest
This is not a blog. It is a legal-aesthetic indictment.
Filed with solemn scorn.
Backed by statute.
Drenched in velvet fury.
© SWANK London Ltd. 2025.