Martin Redston wants a Judicial Review of DPP's failure to bring Dominic Cummings to account

Dominic Cummings running from Downing Street

Martin Redston, who many readers will know from the Save Willesden Green Library campaign has his sights on Dominic Cummings. Martin has launched a crowdfunder to finance legal action over the Director of Public Prosecutions' failure to hold Dominic Cummings to account. Cumming failed to comply with government instructions over Covid19. Martin is instructing well known QC Michael Mansfied.

Coverage of the move in the Guardian LINK

This is what Martin wrote on his fundraising page:

Who am I?

My name is Martin Redston and I am bringing judicial review proceedings against the Director of Public Prosecutions for his failure to properly consider the actions of Dominic Cummings, the chief advisor to the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, in relation to a potential breach of Regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020/350.

I, like many other citizens, have fully complied with the Government’s lockdown requirements at all times. Despite the police and the public having been made aware of Mr. Cummings’ potential breaches of the rules since 22^nd May 2020, there has been no investigation into those potential breaches in London.

Why does this matter?

The rule of law should apply for all persons, irrespective of any friendships in government. The public health measures which were put in place to protect us must be applied to everyone, including in particular those who helped to make the rules. A number of individuals in public office who have flouted those strict rules have resigned. That provided some accountability for breach of the law by those who are central to the public health message and the need to encourage full compliance. In respect of Mr. Cummings, however, representatives of the Government have taken to social media in support of him. The Attorney-General has tweeted in support of Mr. Cummings’ actions. This raises a real concern over the state’s obligation properly and fairly to investigate the case of Mr Cummings where a law officer has prejudged it by issuing a peremptory statement that sought to exculpate Mr Cummings, without due process of the law.

Dominic Cummings left London on 27th March and travelled approximately 260 miles north to Durham in a car together with his wife and child. At the relevant time the law required all persons to remain at home save for limited prescribed purposes. The journey would take 5 hours or so, not allowing for breaks and stops on the way.

On the same day, 27th March, and before leaving London, Mr. Cummings had left work and gone home to see to his wife, and then returned to work in the afternoon, despite his wife exhibiting symptoms of Covid-19. Mr. Cummings subsequently, together with his wife and four year old child, also took an unnecessary car journey to Barnard’s Castle which, he has said, was in order to test his eyesight while driving, in preparation for a longer journey back to London.

Since these events three months has passed, and there has been no indication that any state authority, including the DPP, shall inquire into the matters relating to the London breaches. Indeed there have been some very quick indications that no inquiry would follow from the briefest of possible considerations by some state bodies. By 22^nd May it was known to the public and the police that Mr. Cummings had potentially breached the regulations. Since then there has been no due consideration of accountability for Mr. Cummings’ actions in London on 27^th March.

Ultimately Mr. Cummings then held a press conference on 25^th May ending with the following words: “I know the British people hate the idea of unfairness. I wanted to explain what I thought, what I did and why, over this period, because I think that people like me who helped to make the rules should be accountable for their actions.”

At that juncture police were already in possession of the fact that Mr. Cummings had left his house in London twice on 27^th March 2020.

I have instructed lawyers to assist me with this matter: Michael Mansfield QC, who is leading counsel Philip Rule, instructed by Lorna Hackett at Hackett & Dabbs LLP.

What are we trying to achieve?

Last Wednesday, 3rd June, my lawyers wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions expressing concern that no action had been taken in relation to the alleged breaches by this public figure in London. This inaction may result in the loss of additional evidence which could otherwise be gathered by prompt investigation. This in turn could lead to the serious loss of public confidence in the accountability of government employees. There is a current public health emergency, and I am alarmed at the inactivity over the actions of Mr. Cummings which could be contributing to breaches of the lockdown rules at a time when this will cost lives.

Despite setting a deadline for substantive reply that has now passed, the only response was by email on 8th June 2020 wherein the DPP notified my lawyers that “This has now been passed to colleagues in our Special Crime Division, who will provide a response to you in due course.” This reply does not suggest that any investigation has been instigated, otherwise they would have said so.

When further urgent confirmation was sought that there was any active consideration taking place, it was met by silence. We, the public, must be at the forefront of the seeking of a just process in this case to restore public confidence.

What you can do to help

We need to raise £30,000 as an initial target to enable the case to proceed. Please do contribute whatever you can to ensure that the DPP complies with his legal obligations and share as far and wide as you can on social media to enable me to meet the target needed to lodge proceedings in court. I am deeply grateful to you for reading my crowd funding page. Thank you.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/investigatedominiccummings/

We should learn lessons from the huge victory won by Ealing and Charing Cross hospital campaigners

Hammersmith and Fulham Council's campaigning video

Amidst the distraction of the Brexit farrago a statement was slipped out in the House of Commons last Tuesday of great significance for everyone campaigning to save the NHS and against austerity cuts to public services.

The Secretary of State announced the decision with many a swipe at the local MPs (starts with Karen Buck's question):

A key factor in  the campaign was how Hammersmith and Fulham Council got behind the local community and hopsital campaigners and devoted resources to savinf their local hospital A&E. Unfortunately the Shaping the Healthier Future plans that led to the closure of the A&E  at Central Middlesex Hospital, although well fought.,were implemented and the A&E is still missed today, particuarly by residents in the Park Royal, Harlesden and Stonebridge areas.

Save our Hospitals Hammersmith and Fulham said:

The Secretary of Health Matt Hancock announced on March 26^th that the closure plans for both Charing Cross and Ealing hospitals contained in the cuts & closures plan known as Shaping A Healthier Future have been withdrawn.  We’ve won. It’s not been easy taking on a well funded posse of spin doctors, management consultants and political ideologues but many thousands of people have done just that and after a 7 year fight we’ve stopped a closure plan that was downright dangerous. Everyone has done their bit whether that’s signing petitions, challenging bureaucrats in meetings, running street stalls, demonstrating, fundraising or delivering & displaying posters. We should feel really proud of ourselves and celebrate our collective achievement.

Of course there are still huge problems: The £30m primary & community cuts planned for H&F, the state of disrepair in our hospitals, on going understaffing & under resourcing coupled with the threat of privatisation by the likes of Babylon and Virgin. Some may have seen the laughable attempts of local conservative MPs and councillors to claim responsibility for a victory they have consistently done their best to sabotage  It’s also true that the government could change it’s mind and come back with new closure plans in the future.

So we’ll have to keep campaigning - we’ve proven today that campaigning works. But for now let’s just celebrate a victory won by lots of different people (including you) working together to Save Charing Cross Hospital.

Kind Regards AD(SOH chair)

Ealing Save Our NHS said:

Finally, the Government has admitted the horrible ‘Shaping a Healthier Future Plan’ (SAHF) is not workable!

Former NHS England chief executive Sir David Nicholson had called these plans “the most significant reconfiguration project in the country”. But since they first announced SAHF plans to cut nine major hospitals in North West London down to five, Ealing Save Our NHS has been campaigning against it side by side with many others including Save Our Hospitals Charing Cross and the Councils in Ealing and Hammersmith & Fulham. SAHF spent tens of millions of pounds of NHS cash on management consultants. All for nothing. 

Now Secretary of State for Health, Matt Hancock, has announced the Department of Health no longer supports it. Ealing Save Our NHS has distributed a quarter of a million leaflets, held protests, attended carnivals, organised parties, lobbies, petitions, car convoys and much more to spell out the truth. On the other side huge amounts of NHS money was spent on public relations staff and glossy leaflets to pretend that our health would mysteriously be improved if they closed A&E’s and hundreds of beds. It didn’t work.

So what will happen now? Ealing Save Our NHS will keep on campaigning. This disastrous SAHF plan has seen the closure of two local A&Es, Central Middlesex and Hammersmith, as well as the closure of Ealing A&E to children. As a direct consequence, waiting times for Type 1 urgent A&E visits increased greatly. Ealing Hospital’s excellent maternity department was also closed, forcing Ealing mothers to travel long distances and negatively effecting continuity of care for many.

But health bosses appear to have learned nothing and continue to defend the indefensible. Mark Easton, the head of the North West London Clinical Commissioning Groups, in announcing the death of SAHF has just made the mind-boggling claim that maternity care and emergency paediatric care have improved. This is certainly not the view of local parents whose local services have closed. Ealing Hospital remains seriously underfunded and in crisis. But at least there is a ray of sunshine, the horrible plan underlying all these cuts has gone and we can focus on calling for proper funding and restoration of local health services.

Dr Tony O’Sullivan, Co-Chair of Keep Our NHS Public added,

This is a very important victory for the people of Ealing and Hammersmith & Fulham. Campaigners must be proud of themselves for standing up for the NHS and their local communities for 7 long years – with integrity, skill and huge impact. Elections unseated the council backing closure of Charing Cross and the Ealing MP backing government attacks on the local NHS and public services. Campaigners won the local councils to their side and refused to give in to the irresponsible plans of ‘Shaping A Healthier Future’ in North West London. Well done and thank you. The battles are not over. We are with you in your fight to restore the damage done and win back maternity and children’s services in Ealing Hospital.

Hammersmith and Fulham Council said:

We did it together! The government has finally been forced to retreat on closing Charing Cross Hospital.

Thanks to Save Our Hospitals campaigners, Michael Mansfield QC (who ran the independent commission that provided such unchallengable evidence against the plans) and to the many, many residents who have fought with us so hard and for so long.

Council Leader, Cllr Stephen Cowan says: “This is a huge validation of Michael Mansfield QC’s findings and a huge victory for the Save Our Hospitals campaign. Thank you to all the residents who worked with us to save Charing Cross Hospital.”

Statement from North West London CCG (26 March 2019): “We will not be taking forward the plans as set out in SaHF for changes to Ealing and Charing Cross hospitals.”

What was planned?

We’ve won the battle to save Charing Cross Hospital from proposals to demolish most of it and replace its A&E with an urgent care clinic – leaving just 13 per cent the size of the original hospital.

·      We joined forces with local residents and with Ealing Council, who have been fighting the closure of Ealing Hospital

·      We commissioned a public inquiry led by Michael Mansfield QC that has provided a strong evidence base for why the proposals are wrong. Read the full report here.

·      We’ve refused to sign the ‘North West London STP’ – because it restates the plan to reduce acute services from nine major hospitals to five.

·      We commissioned a review of the NHS proposals and the STP – Read the review (pdf 4MB).

·      We’ve held scrutiny meetings to publicly quiz NHS managers on their plans

·      We’ve invited local people to public meetings, rallies and demonstrations

·      We’ve presented petitions and published individual residents’ own experiences and stories

·      We’ve kept local people updated on the campaign through letters, leaflets, posters and social media.

The current much-loved Charing Cross Hospital was to be replaced with an urgent care centre, diagnostics and out-patients only.

The NHS plan included:

·      Demolishing the current Charing Cross Hospital and selling off most the site

·      Replacing the current Charing Cross Hospital with a series of clinics on a site no more than 13 per cent the size of the current hospital

·      Replacing the current A&E with an urgent care clinic

·      Losing more than 300 and possibly all the acute care beds

·      The detail on the proposals is in the NHS Case for Change.

CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYONE INVOLVED

Mansfield slams NW London hospital plans: Brent Patient Voice responds with proposals and asks 'Why is the NHS silent?'

 From Brent Patient Voice

-->

Brent Patient Voice welcomes the findings of the Mansfield Report. BPV Chair, Robin Sharp, said: “We are pleased that Mansfield endorses the extensive evidence that we and many other independent people submitted. Why has the NHS greeted it with silence?”  

The Report of the Independent Healthcare Commission for North West London under Michael Mansfield QC was published on 2^nd December. It brings no comfort for the NHS chiefs in our area – and none for patients either.

The Report says that the Shaping a Healthier Future programme is “deeply flawed”. Launching the Report Michael Mansfield said that the planned reforms provide “no realistic prospect of achieving good quality accessible healthcare for all and any further implementation is likely to exacerbate a deteriorating situation.”

The Commission calls for the programme to be halted, for the decisions to close the A&E Department at Central Middlesex Hospital and the Maternity Unit at Ealing Hospital to be reversed, for the increasing size of the population in NW London to be properly established and factored into future planning, for the so-called “Implementation Business Case” to be published and for there to be a new public consultation on the plans which they believe to have changed significantly. They suggest that the local authorities should consider seeking judicial review if the NHS press ahead with the programme in current circumstances.

However we are deeply disappointed that neither the eminence of Michael Mansfield nor the extent of public concern revealed by the evidence have moved the NHS authorities responsible for Shaping a Healthier Future to be sensibly open about the current state of the programme or its likely costs.

Commenting further, Robin Sharp said “Our fundamental criticism of the whole initiative is that the NHS in NW London has broken its promise in the consultation document that out of hospital services will be in place before changes are made to hospital-based services. Two A&Es and one Maternity unit have closed. Where are the openings to take their place?”

In order to be constructive we propose:

·      That the NHS should publish an intelligible version of the Implementation Business Plan for Shaping as it now stands, with outline costs, as is normal for any major public project;

·      That full consideration of the future of Central Middlesex Hospital be resumed, including the option of restoring its acute status with a fully-functioning A&E, bearing in mind the inadequacy of a stand-alone Urgent Care Centre there and the continuing intolerable situation at Northwick Park;

·      That Council officers be instructed to work with GLA statisticians to provide reliable estimates of the size of the current Brent population and growth rates, taking account of births, deaths, net migration and planned major developments;

·      That in collaboration with all partners Brent CGG produce a clear account of their Out of Hospital Strategy, including the role of the new GP networks, to restore confidence in this vital missing element of the Shaping programme;

·      That full and meaningful patient consultation and involvement should be integral to all future consideration of these proposals.

Brent Patient Voice  5^th December 2015

Visit the Brent Patient Voice website HERE

THEIR CUTS-YOUR HEALTH Deadline for submissions to Independent Healthcare Commission extended to February 24th

From Brent Fightback

The Independent Healthcare Commission set up by four boroughs and chaired by Michael Mansfield QC to look into the effects so far of the implementation of the Shaping a Healthier Future proposals has extend the deadline for submitting evidence to February 24th. This is the evidence Brent fightback has submitted:

In addition to the points made in the BTUC submission which Brent Fightback endorses, we would like to add that effective out of hospital care, care in the community, cannot be provided if social care provided by the Council is slashed.

Brent Council's funding has been drastically cut and among their proposals to achieve a balanced budget are many cuts which will severely damage the quality of care available - in particular the reduction in time from 30 to 15 minutes for carers' visits which has been widely criticised by elderly peoples' charities as ineffective and dehumanising. Also the closure of the (ironically titled New Millenium Day Centre which caters for 80 plus people with complex mental and physical needs - the group SAHF proposals are supposed to focus on.

Also the withdrawal of any provision for rough sleepers who have a high level of unmet health needs and already a disproportionately high level of A&E attendances because they lack alternative means of care.

At the other end of their residents' lives, Brent Council proposes to close ten of its seventeen children's centres. As well as providing facilities for play and education, children's centres often host health services for under-fives including baby and child clinics and advice on health and diet for parents and their small children. Brent has a very poor record on child immunisation, dental health, child mental health and obesity. If these facilities are lost, the NHS primary care services will be put under even more strain.

This is the Submission made by Brent Trade Union Council
 

-->

Over many years the Brent Trade Union Council has campaigned with other concerned organisations and the local trade union movement about the cuts to the local health service.Our colleagues in the health service unions warned us that the removal of services from Central Middlesex Hospital (CMH) would lead to the eventual closure of A & E.

Central Middlesex Hospital was rebuilt and extensively modernised at a cost of more than £62 million, reopening fully in 2008. This modernisation was funded in large part by PFI and was specifically designed for emergency medicine.

In spite of this, over the intervening years, many services have been moved from CMH to Northwick Park Hospital in a far more prosperous area. Services were transferred without consultation, because there was no obligation to consult since the two hospitals were part of the same trust. Staff were often given only a few days' notice that they were required to transfer and eventually Central Middlesex was left without the back up services needed for its A & E to remain viable. So we have a situation where management moved the services, then used it as a justification for saying that A & E was no longer safe or effective as maintaining an A & E service is dependent on the full range of hospital services being available to patients. Yet, right up to the day of its closure the A & E department at CMH was still being sent patients from the overstretched departments at both Northwick Park and St Mary's.

Having moved so many services to Northwick Park and closed the A & E at Central Middlesex, the CCG is now responsible for a splendid modern building which they will have to pay for until the end of the PFI contract and the dilemma of how to make use of it.

Throughout these years, Primary care services have been severely overstretched and continue to be so despite the Shaping a Healthier Future organisation and the local CCG having a “vision” of improving those services by investing to prevent illness, lessen the need for hospital admissions and shorten the length of time patients need to spend in

hospital. Of course the BTUC supports improvements in primary care, but promises were made that these improvements would be in place before radical changes were made to hospital services. However, they remain, to quote the CCG's own documents, “visions” and “aspirations”.

There is a crisis in recruitment of GPs, community nurses, health visitors and other staff needed to transform these visions and aspirations into reality, just as there is a crisis of recruitment for hospital staff and an expensive and destabilising reliance on agency staff. BTUC believes that the government's refusal to pay NHS staff even the 1% advised by their own pay review body and the housing crisis which is extreme in Brent, contribute to the recruitment crisis in the NHS, while cuts to the Council's budget threaten the provision of adequate social care, essential if patients' needs are to be met in the community.

The two Brent wards closest to the hospital, Stonebridge and Harlesden, are some of the most deprived in the Borough. The Locality Profile for Harlesden makes for grim reading. Harlesden is ranked in 30s for deprivation for England.

Despite having a young population 32% below the age of 20 years, in Harlesden ward, life expectancy is 13.4 years for men and 9.6 years for women less than the highest expectancy rate in Dudden Hill ward. It can be described by a tube train journey. If you take the train from Harlesden station and travel a few station north you will gain a decade in life expectancy.

Chronic Illness is significantly higher when compared to London and England figures, the biggest killers are Cancer, Circulatory and Respiratory diseases.

Mental illness affects one in six residents, TB is the second highest in the Borough and HIV is “considered to be very high” (Locality Profile).

Too many Children are found to be obese in their reception year when starting school and teenage pregnancies are also high.

We have only outlined a few items from the Brent Locality Profile for Harlesden Ward but we want to emphasise how completely unacceptable it is to close the A&E and other services in the middle of a population that so desperately needs a proper A&E and the important the general health services that go with it.

To compound this misery the facilities at Northwick Park which is the A&E that is suppose to replace the CMH facility, cannot cope with the extra load from the CMH and was rated as the worst A&E in the country.

The near impossibility of using public transport to go to Northwick Park. The difficulty of taking a sick child in the middle of the night to the A&E does not bear thinking about. Again the Harlesden and Stonebridge wards have the lowest levels of car ownership and minicab costs are prohibitive for those on low incomes.

Brent Trades Council also want to support and be associated with the submission from The Hammersmith and Charing Cross Save Our Hospital Campaigns.

On behalf of the Brent Trades Union Council please place our submission before Mr Mansfield.

 Brent Fighback adds:

In addition to the points made in the BTUC submission which Brent Fightback endorses, we would like to add that effective out of hospital care, care in the community, cannot be provided if social care provided by the Council is slashed.

Brent Council's funding has been drastically cut and among their proposals to achieve a balanced budget are many cuts which will severely damage the quality of care available - in particular the reduction in time from 30 to 15 minutes for carers' visits which has been widely criticised by elderly peoples' charities as ineffective and dehumanising. Also the closure of the (ironically titled New Millenium Day Centre which caters for 80 plus people with complex mental and physical needs - the group SAHF proposals are supposed to focus on.

Also the withdrawal of any provision for rough sleepers who have a high level of unmet health needs and already a disproportionately high level of A&E attendances because they lack alternative means of care.

At the other end of their residents' lives, Brent Council proposes to close ten of its seventeen children's centres. As well as providing facilities for play and education, children's centres often host health services for under-fives including baby and child clinics and advice on health and diet for parents and their small children. Brent has a very poor record on child immunisation, dental health, child mental health and obesity. If these facilities are lost, the NHS primary care services will be put under even more strain.

 

Submissions should be made to: Peter Smith, Clerk to the Commission, at Hammersmith & Fulham Council. Submissions should be addressed to him at Room 39, Hammersmith Town Hall, London W6 9JU or sent by email to peter.smith@lbhf.gov.uk. Later submissions will be forwarded to the Commission but may not be given the same attention as those received by the deadline.