Safeguarding as Sabotage: The Velvet Gatekeeper Files
Polly Chromatic v. Sophia Khan
Procedural Obstruction, Legal Misrepresentation, and Retaliatory Conduct Wielded in a Barristerial Tone of Utter Indifference
Filed Date: 25 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-PROSECUTION-SK-0725
PDF Filename: 2025-07-25_LayingOfInformation_SophiaKhan_ProceduralObstruction.pdf
One-Line Summary: Private prosecution filed against Westminster’s solicitor for procedural sabotage and retaliatory obstruction of justice.
I. What Happened
Between 3 and 25 July 2025, Ms. Sophia Khan—solicitor for Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services—engaged in a campaign of carefully tailored legal negligence. While feigning procedural stewardship, Ms. Khan in fact:
Failed to schedule any assessments despite multiple written requests and full availability
Obstructed access to lawful remedy even after the original medical safeguarding allegation was formally disproven
Ignored direct challenges to misrepresentation of fact, jurisdiction, and family history
Enabled the unlawful continuation of an Emergency Protection Order now rendered legally indefensible
Her conduct was not merely incompetent—it was institutional gatekeeping refined into delay doctrine, polished with the gloss of procedural civility.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Ms. Khan now joins a formal criminal docket already populated by her colleagues Ms. Kirsty Hornal, Mr. Samuel Brown, and Ms. Sarah Newman—all previously referred for prosecution. Unlike them, however, Ms. Khan’s offense is singularly cynical: she knew exactly what she was doing.
The Laying of Information establishes:
Misconduct in Public Office
Obstruction of Justice
Neglect of Legal Duty
Harassment through procedural coercion and professional misrepresentation
She acted in close procedural coordination with all three co-defendants and functioned as the legal firewall enabling the continued misapplication of power.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because no court should be expected to deliver justice while the advocate for the local authority is knowingly enforcing a safeguarding fiction. Because the role of a solicitor is not to rewrite the facts of a mother’s medical crisis in defence of a disproven safeguarding narrative. Because there must be a record—precise, public, and procedural—of what happens when legal actors forget the limits of their position.
And because institutional immunity dies when the velvet gloves come off.
IV. Violations
Misconduct in Public Office (common law)
Obstruction of Justice (perverting the course of justice)
Harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Procedural sabotage contrary to Family Procedure Rules 2010
Material interference with Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR
Dereliction of legal duty under the Children Act 1989
V. SWANK’s Position
Sophia Khan operated not as legal counsel, but as the quietest enforcer of procedural discrimination Westminster had left. While the named social workers destabilised the family, she ensured no resolution could occur. This prosecution is not simply about her personal failings—it is a direct challenge to the abuse of institutional position under the colour of law.
She has filed her last delaying email. This is the reply.