We decide to publish this Minute concerning the local authority Social Services, because information of an alarming nature has reached us that forced the part of this case to be publicly known. Any rumour or conjecture of opinions should be informed that Joseph breached police bail condition as a self-help. As this case drag on and not resolved, we would be forced to give response to enquiries and published materials in response to rumours and fake news that may be floating around the place.
However, It is accepted that this Minute does not form part of the conviction, so we are free to have it published and it does not affect Joseph’s ongoing appeal against the conviction proceedings at the CCRC.
POLICE PROTECTION DUTY
1
On 13 April 2015 when the Police arrested Joseph and his partner for walking hand-in-hand on the streets, the Police opinionated that because Joseph’s partner was aged 16, attended a special school and dyslexic, she should be removed from home as a matter of emergency under police protection power under the Children Act 1989. Given that Joseph’s partner was aged 16 in 2015 and regarded as a child within the meaning of Section 105 of the Children Act 1989 that read as follows: “child” means, subject to paragraph 16 of Schedule 1, a person under the age of eighteen;” the law allow individuals aged 16 and 17 to marry with parental consent in 2015. The evidence remain that Joseph and his partner seek parental consent to marry on 12 February 2015.
2
As Joseph’s Miscarriage of Justice campaign intensifies since 2016 creating judicial heat and exposure of corruption and discrimination wherever they are found, in 2022 the law was changed in England and Wales and pushed the legal age to marry to 18 years old under the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022. Before this legislation, individuals aged 16 or 17 could marry with parental consent.
For educational purposes, it should be noted that in Scotland the minimum age to marry remain at age 16, and individuals do not need parental consent. In Northern Ireland, the minimum age to marry remain at age 16 and 17 with parental consent. It was in England where Joseph and his partner reside that the law was changed to prohibits individuals aged 16 and 17 to marry with or without parental consent. However, we raise no criticism of this, it is accepted that in itself the change of the marriage law in 2022 do not apply to Joseph and his partner because their relationship and parental consent to marry occurred in 2015 when the law specifically directed them to do so to legitimise their union.
3
In 2015, the police failed to educate themselves of the marriage law and the legitimacy of the family relationship between Joseph and his partner for persons age 16 and 17. The Police exercised their power under Section-46(1)(a) and (2) of the Children Act 1989 to force Joseph’s partner to be removed from home against her will on the police opinion that she suffer significant harm for being in a relationship with Joseph because of their age gap difference. Joseph’s partner exercised her right under Section 46(3)(d) of the Children Act 1989 to vocally expressed her wishes and feelings that she does not need police protection and that nothing bad had happened to her at home. She begged and cried to be allowed back home to Joseph. On the same day of 13 April 2015, the police exercised their power under Section 46(3)(f) of the Children Act 1989, and forced Joseph’s partner to be placed at an address with an elderly Caucasian couple under their imposed police protection.
4
On 14 April 2015, the police exercised Section-46(4)(c) of the Children Act 1989 to inform Joseph that his partner has been taken into police imposed protection. On the same day, the Police charged Joseph for offence of rape of his partner age 16 or over. He was placed on police bail pending further investigation. Joseph, in his confused state, engaged the police for further clarity. He was informed that the Police intend to carry out a medical assessment to inform them whether his partner has capacity to consent to a romantic relationship. Joseph complied with the Police directives and left the police station.
5
By virtue of Section-46(3)(a) of the Children Act 1989, the local authority Social Services were invited to be involved for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the lady’s welfare. The lady, of course, invoked her right by virtue of Section-46(10)(c) to be allowed contact with Joseph, but the designated police officer Donna Hector refused her right to do so and immediately decided to conduct a joint Enquiry with the Social Services under Section-47 of the Children Act 1989 to keep the couple separated by all means. First on her opinion that the age gap relationship between the couple must be a sexually motivated abusive one, and second on her opinion that the lady attended a special school and may lack mental capacity to be in a romantic relationship and undergoing medical investigation.
6
Joseph consequently engaged his partner’s parents and asked to be provided historical medical information about his partner from birth. Nothing in his review of the medical records to suggest that the lady has mental capacity issue. She attended a special school because she struggle with reading and writing. She lost two years in formal education because her parents moved home multiple times within a short space of time. Even the significant within the medical records which we are obliged to not release for data protection purposes at this time, do not raise or relate with mental capacity issue.
SOCIAL SERVICES INVOLVEMENT
7
Following the local authority Social Service’s involvement in the case, the Social Services applied to the Court for an Emergency Protection Order and the Police Protection power no longer applied for this purpose. The Social Services later reallocated the lady to live elsewhere. The Social Services failed to recognise the lady’s family relationship with Joseph and failed to provide him copies of their report about his partner under their protection by virtue of the Children Act 1989 being a person with whom she had been living before police interference against her Article 8 right to family life, particularly under Section 17 and Section 47. In the copies of their report provided for the lady’s parent, the Social Services invoked Section 17(10) and (11) of the Children Act 1989 and claimed that the lady was not in a reasonable standard of health or development; that she requires 24 hour care support by her parents; that she require daily care with brushing her teeth, bathing, dressing and eating; that the lady had been sexually abused by Joseph and that she was mentally incapable of giving consent and suffer intellectual disability; that the lady uses pieces of clothes to maintain her monthly period; etc, and the Social Services made their intention known to seek a Care Order for these reasons. The lady’s parents challenged the Social Services at the Family Court, as the allegation were totally untrue.
8
The Social Services knew that their allegation were untrue but they made it anyway with impunity. Realising that they could not produce any evidence to support their allegation to seek a Care Order against the lady to be removed permanently into their care, they made further reports to the lady’s parents where they repeated their allegation as submitted on paragraph-7 above, and further added that the family whom the Social Services placed the lady to live with temporarily may had been coaching her not to make allegation of abuse against Joseph and that the foster family are suspected to sabotage their case in the Family court. This was what caused Joseph’s direct confrontation against the Police and the Social Services. As Joseph’s curiosity grew as to the identity of the family to whom his partner was placed by the Social Services, both the Police and the Social Services ignored his enquiries.
9
Joseph, isolated from the Family Court proceeding, attended at one point in April 2015 but was ordered to leave and that his attendance was not required. Since he was being ignored to be provided the simple answer as to the identity of the foster family his partner was placed and whom the Social Services made allegation against in the Family proceedings about his partner, he resorted to ‘Self-Help’. Joseph visited the address his partner was placed and found out that they were black family – a single mother with lived-in daughters. It became apparent that this is a racist attack by the Social Services.
10
Joseph’s partner, upon seeing him, begged and cried for help for Joseph not to leave without her. Joseph begged and persuaded her to stay put with the foster family and promised her that the matter would be resolved at court as he intend to make an application to be included in the Family Court proceedings by right. Joseph provided her with a burner phone and they kept in touch regularly. The police confiscated the burner phone from the lady and put it through their forensic, but the Social Services failed to reallocate her. Joseph did not engage the black family directly but simply began to deliberately visited the address regularly and made his presence known to the Family, in order to cause the Social Services to remove his partner from that address to protect the black family from the false allegation of the Social Services.
11
On his last visit to the address, his partner began to cry and begged Joseph to leave and that she was informed by the Police that she was taken away from home to protect her from Joseph, and that Joseph is a serial killer and had killed so many women. Joseph, shocked and confused, asked her the simple question: “If I am a serial killer and had killed so many women, why am I not in prison serving a life sentence?”. His partner, looked at him intently with confused expression and asked him, “Yeah, why are you not in prison?”. Realising that she had been lied to, against Joseph who had no criminal record of any kind, she became hysterical and Joseph decided to take her back home with him at that very moment, as the lies against them just kept piling up. A young woman appeared and alerted other resident and prevented Joseph’s partner from leaving. There was a noisy commotion. The police was called. Joseph left the property immediately.
12
Days followed, Joseph received a phone call from his partner’s father and informed him that there was a police arrest warrant on him for breach of police bail condition not to visit his partner. Joseph immediately contacted the police Donna Hector by email and informed her that he would hand himself in to the police station on a Tuesday after the bank holiday. On 5 May 2015, Joseph handed himself in to the police station. The police Donna Hector was waiting at the police reception and immediately placed him under arrest for ‘Witness Intimidation’ that he intimidated his partner when he breached police bail.
13
During his recorded interview with the police on 5 May 2015, Joseph exercised politeness and apologised to the police for breach of the bail condition and provided evidence of his self-help, since he was being ignored with no response to his enquiries. He told the police why he breached the bail condition and demanded for his partner to be removed from the black family’s residence and to be placed with a white family instead, to protect the black family from the false allegation of the Social Services. It became apparent to Joseph that the police had attempt to brainwashed his partner against him, to lie to her that he was a serial killer and they needed her help to make false allegation of any kind and help the police to imprison him. The police Donna Hector kept Joseph in police custody, and on 7 May 2015 Joseph was hauled to the Magistrate Court with false allegation and narratives by the Police Donna Hector that he intimidated his partner. The Magistrate Court remanded Joseph in prison custody.
14
On 13 July 2015, at the ‘Witness Intimidation’ hearing, Joseph’s partner submitted a witness statement to the Court that she was not intimidated by Joseph and that she had always wanted to see him and was happy that they had contact. The false ‘Witness Intimidation’ charge was rightly dropped. However, the Court maintained his continued remand in prison custody following the police Donna Hector claim to have further allegation of offence against him.
15
Whilst in prison, Joseph was invited by the Family Court to participate in the proceedings with his partner. He was produced at court from prison by prison officers. He was suffering illness at this point due to the unconducive place of his detention in prison and his autism was rapidly regressing. He was suffering gastro-intestinal symptoms and was in acute pain with lack of concentration. He was later discharged by the Family Court proceedings and was deprived of the decision the Court has taken with regards to his partner. However, during the Family Court proceedings, a Psychiatrist was instructed by the Family Court who provided clinical assessment report that established that Joseph’s partner do not lack mental capacity to sex, that she “presented as a casually dressed young woman, who maintained good eye contact and established a reasonable rapport” “At interview, I could elicit no symptoms suggestive of a mental illness.” That the lady’s “mood appeared euthymic and she was appropriately reactive and did not present with any psychotic symptoms”. There was no longer a mention about any of the Social Services allegation to Joseph’s attention.
CAMPAIGN
16
This is the Minute of the case concerning the Bradford local authority Social Services. We reserve the right to continue to update this Minute and add more to it. The case file is extensive and in thousands of pages, so bear with us as we continue to research through all the paperwork in our possession in order to shore up the malpractices and corruption that took place in the case of Joseph and his partner.
- We campaign for government of the day to crack down on Social Services’ caseworkers and prosecute and imprison those who deliberately made false allegations against members of their service community.
- We campaign for an end to the Social Services’ practice of taking children and young people into care from their families. We are in the 21st century, not the dark ages. Given that accusation against women is the most common way the Social Services employ to deprive families of their children, we raise criticism of this. No woman is born knowing how to raise a child. The experience of raising a child seems to be something women are expected to know simply by virtue of their gender, without any formal training. This expectation contradicts human rights values and discriminates against women everywhere. We see their cries for help on social media forums, where they beg for advice. The duty of Social Services is to guide women on how to raise their children, not to take children away and create a mass culture of foster parenting. The July 2024 riot in Leeds serves as a lesson to us all. Statistics show that individuals who have been through government care form a high proportion of prisoners in the UK. This alone should inform us that the practice of taking children from their families must end.
- We propose that the government train a generation of family caseworkers and assign each caseworker to manage multiple parents at a time. The duty of a family caseworker is to guide parents on how to raise their children to the standards expected by local authority Social Services. The caseworker would become part of the family for as long as needed, with a maximum period until the child or young person reaches the age of 18. They would visit the family home at least three to four times a week, including weekends and bank holidays, following a prescribed timetable agreed with their line manager. This schedule would include visits in the mornings, afternoons, and evenings at different times throughout the monitoring period. The goal is for the caseworker to become part of the fabric of the everyday lives of their assigned families, providing guidance on how to raise their children to government standards.
- The law must change to stipulate that a child or young person should only be fostered upon the application of their parents, not by the forced action of local authority Social Services.