“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label private prosecution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label private prosecution. Show all posts

In the Matter of Hornal (A Study in Public Office Without Ethics)


⟡ SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue

Criminal Consequence as Procedural Remedy: On the Unlawful Behaviour of a Public Official

Filed Date: 22 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-CBKH-0723
PDF Filename: 2025-07-22_CriminalBundle_KirstyHornal_PrivateProsecution.pdf
1-Line Summary: A formal private prosecution bundle submitted to Westminster Magistrates’ Court against Kirsty Hornal for criminal safeguarding abuse and public office misconduct.

I. What Happened

On 22 July 2025, Polly Chromatic, acting in her capacity as Litigant in Person and Director of SWANK London Ltd., formally submitted a private criminal prosecution against social worker Kirsty Hornal to Westminster Magistrates’ Court. The information was formally laid, and a stamped filing was received.

The prosecution cites multiple offences committed in her professional role, including:

  • Misconduct in Public Office (common law),

  • Perverting the Course of Justice,

  • Wilful Neglect (Children and Young Persons Act 1933),

  • Harassment (Protection from Harassment Act 1997).

The decision to proceed with criminal charges arose from a cumulative pattern of misconduct, procedural malice, reputational manipulation, and child welfare harm that exceeds administrative remedy.

II. What the Bundle Establishes

This evidentiary bundle provides:

  • Chronological and thematic documentation of Ms. Hornal’s professional misconduct;

  • Safeguarding abuse patterns including emotional control, contact interference, suppression of parent–child bonding, and escalation without basis;

  • Evidence of institutional complicity, including non-responsiveness from Westminster legal representatives;

  • Cross-referenced complaints and procedural documentation already submitted to multiple regulatory bodies.

The submission is not symbolic. It constitutes a lawful, court-filed criminal prosecution of a named public officer, supported by written evidence, legislative authority, and procedural integrity.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

SWANK London Ltd. logged and filed this criminal bundle to formalise the threshold at which civil grievances cross into criminal misconduct.

When a safeguarding official:

  • Harasses a family under false pretence;

  • Suppresses due process to manufacture compliance;

  • Misrepresents facts to justify harm;

  • Or exerts state power against the vulnerable for administrative convenience—

then they must be held accountable in a court of law, not merely in abstract policy.

This bundle asserts that position as both factual and principled.

IV. Violations

  • Misconduct in Public Office: Abuse of safeguarding powers beyond statutory mandate;

  • Children and Young Persons Act 1933, s.1(1): Wilful neglect of child welfare duties by creating psychological harm;

  • Protection from Harassment Act 1997: A pattern of hostile contact and interference;

  • Equality Act 2010: Disability-based procedural obstruction and emotional distress;

  • Article 6 and 8 ECHR: Interference with parental rights and denial of fair process.

V. SWANK’s Position

This prosecution is not a bluff, protest, or rhetorical device. It is a lawful recourse to criminal accountability, meticulously filed, procedurally clean, and evidentially documented.

If safeguarding powers can be weaponised, they can also be scrutinised.

This filing now sits on the record of the UK criminal court system. Let it remain there as a permanent testament to institutional retaliation—and as a warning to any public servant who believes impunity is built into their job description.

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.
No comments: