News

Latest Campaign News

18 May 2017

In January 2016, we submitted a Freedom of Information Request and Data Protection Requests from each member of our immediate family to the Coroner in regards to a 106 page statement of a key witness at Carol’s inquest,the statement was ordered by the Coroner upon specific directions from two High Court Judges and was directly about the involvement of the witness at the time of Carol’s death. At the inquest 87 pages out of the 106 page statement were redacted (censored). Our family believe that morally and legally we are entitled to see the full testimony of this witness. The Coroner refused in writing to supply any of the information. We then submitted an official complaint against the Coroner to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), stating that the Coroner was in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The ICO have upheld our complaint and have written to the Coroner to ask that she provide all information requested by family in our Subject Access Requests (SARs). We believe that this information is very important and is crucial to providing more of the truth of how Carol died. The Coroner refused to provide any information. It then became necessary to escalate matters further. Two MP’s, William Wragg MP and Ann Coffey MP acting on behalf of our family have also requested the Coroner to provide the information, yet again, the Coroner has refused to provide any information to either MP. This matter has now escalated further. We have today received a letter from William Wragg MP who has sent us a copy of a letter that he has written to the Lord Chancellor The Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP and asked if her offices can bring pressure to bear to ensure that we receive the information that we are legally entitled to.

10 January 2017

The application to the Attorney General’s Office to gain his consent to start High Court proceedings to quash the second inquest into Carol’s death has been has been completed and submitted. Tracking of the application has confirmed that it has been received today at the Attorney General’s Office.

16th October 2016

The application to quash the second inquest into Carol’s death, which is to be sent to the Attorney General’s Office is nearing completion, we have completed about 85% – 90%. New evidence has very recently come to light, which has very serious implications because it completely destroys the official testimony of a key witness at the second inquest, and as a result it also destroys the official narrative of the second inquest. We believe that we are now in a position to deliver a very strong application to the Attorney General’s Office.

29 July 2016

We have today received the final response from the Policy Team at the Information Commissioner’s Office in regards to gaining access to a key witness statement at Carol’s inquest and other documents held by the Coroner responsible for conducting the 2nd inquest into Carol’s death. The key witness statement is directly in regards to Carol’s death and is 106 pages, at the inquest 87 pages were completely redacted and the remaining pages were partially redacted. We applied under the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act to the Coroner for access to the information. The Coroner refused access to all information requested. In a very significant step forward the ICO have today found in our favour, The ICO have now requested that the Coroner provide us with all information requested in the Subject Access Requests (SARs) from each of our immediate family.

25 June 2016

After careful consideration of all of the evidence from both previous inquests into Carol’s death, We believe that it can be clearly demonstrated that the Coroners from both inquests, have deliberately withheld vital witness testimony from our family in regards to Carol’s death. we have therefore decided that it is necessary in the interests of justice to submit a further application to the Attorney General’s Office for a third inquest into Carol’s death.

1st April 2016

In January 2016, we submitted a Freedom of Information Request and Data Protection Requests from each member of our immediate family to the Coroner in regards to a 106 page statement of a key witness at Carol’s inquest, the statement was ordered by the Coroner upon specific directions from two High Court Judges and was directly about the involvement of the witness at the time of Carol’s death. At the inquest 87 pages out of the 106 page statement were redacted (censored). Our family believe that morally and legally we are entitled to see the full testimony of this witness. The Coroner refused in writing to supply any of the information. We then submitted an official complaint against the Coroner to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), stating that the Coroner was in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The ICO have upheld our complaint and have written to the Coroner to ask that she provide all information requested by family in our Subject Access Requests (SARs). We believe that this information is very important and is crucial to providing more of the truth of how Carol died. A letter has today been sent to the Head of the Coroner’s legal team and informed him that if the information is refused, we will immediately instigate court proceedings to obtain the information. we have asked him to provide the contact details of the individual(s) from his legal team that we will need to subpoena to court.

In a separate development, we have officially complained to the regulatory body of one of Carol’s therapists about Carol’s appalling treatment. They have also upheld our complaint and found that the therapist does have a case to answer. The therapist now has to appear at a disciplinary hearing, which is yet to be arranged.

16th February 2016

On the 19th December 2014 at the High Court In London our family successfully applied and overturned the original inquest verdict into Carol’s death. The original inquest was quashed. The case was heard before two High Court Judges, the Honourable Mr Justice Ouseley and His Honour Judge Peter Thornton QC, Chief Coroner for England and Wales.

The grounds for the quashing of the original inquest and the reasons for the High Court ordering a fresh inquest were as follows:

‘The reason which the parties agree justifies a fresh inquest is that the first inquest did not consider the circumstances of Dr Fisher’s emergency call and/or Dr Fisher’s involvement with the Deceased in the period around her death. In particular, the emergency call records indicate (a) that Dr Fisher had reason to suspect that the Deceased had taken an overdose and (b) that she expected the Deceased to be found in her bedroom. At the lowest, these records suggest that Dr Fisher had knowledge of the mood and behaviour of the Deceased which could be relevant to an investigation into her death. They also raise proper questions as to whether Dr Fisher actually knew or believed that the Deceased intended to take or had taken an overdose.’

On the 9th September 2015, Dr Fisher gave her testimony in regards to Carol’s death in an interview with the Metropolitan Police. The interview with Dr Fisher took place over several hours and her statement consisted of approximately 106 pages. This statement was made by Dr Fisher in the full knowledge that all of the content may be read out in its entirety, in public. At the inquest, approximately 87 pages of this 106 page statement was redacted by the Coroner, as in her opinion it was outside the remit of the inquest. In the unredacted 19 pages of Dr Fisher’s statement that was submitted to the court, Dr Fisher made a number of statements that are demonstrably false.

In January 2016, David Felstead submitted a Freedom of Information Request and Data Protection Requests from each member of my immediate family to the Coroner in regards to the 106 page statement of Dr Fisher, as justifiably we want to know the full extent of Dr Fisher’s involvement in Carol’s life. This statement is directly about the circumstances of Carol’s death. Our family believe that morally and legally we are entitled to see the full testimony of Dr Fisher.

We have today received a refusal from the Coroner of all information requested and have now submitted an official complaint against the Coroner to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

3rd February 2016

On the 19th December 2014 at the High Court In London our family successfully applied and overturned the original inquest verdict into Carol’s death. The original inquest was quashed. The case was heard before two High Court Judges, the Honourable Mr Justice Ouseley and His Honour Judge Peter Thornton QC, Chief Coroner for England and Wales.

The grounds for the quashing of the original inquest and the reasons for the High Court ordering a fresh inquest were as follows:

‘The reason which the parties agree justifies a fresh inquest is that the first inquest did not consider the circumstances of Dr Fisher’s emergency call and/or Dr Fisher’s involvement with the Deceased in the period around her death. In particular, the emergency call records indicate (a) that Dr Fisher had reason to suspect that the Deceased had taken an overdose and (b) that she expected the Deceased to be found in her bedroom. At the lowest, these records suggest that Dr Fisher had knowledge of the mood and behaviour of the Deceased which could be relevant to an investigation into her death. They also raise proper questions as to whether Dr Fisher actually knew or believed that the Deceased intended to take or had taken an overdose.’

On the 9th September 2015, Dr Fisher gave her testimony in regards to Carol’s death in an interview with the Metropolitan Police. The interview with Dr Fisher took place over several hours and her statement consisted of approximately 106 pages. This statement was made by Dr Fisher in the full knowledge that all of the content may be read out in its entirety, in public. At the inquest, approximately 87 pages of this 106 page statement was redacted by the Coroner, as in her opinion it was outside the remit of the inquest. In the unredacted 19 pages of Dr Fisher’s statement

4 Responses to News

  1. Marc Ponsford says:

    ~ very similar situation happened to our family , though not as extreme . A clear case of unethical behaviour , and legislation against this form of ‘therapy ‘ must eventually be enacted by parliament . Good luck with your campaign

  2. andy hanson says:

    I am unsure if we can be of any use but if we can, we are willing to help. My partner and I have spent 30 years working inside mental health services and have a very keen insight into how those in power operate. We have both blown the whistle on failing services and managers and survived the experience. We are willing to review all the evidence you have so far collected and suggest some ways forward if we can, obviously we would make no charge for this. We have both worked at senior levels within the NHS and we are currently setting up an effective and new form of patient advocacy service. If we can be of any help please do not hesitate to contact us on the email or phone 07734581561 Yours faithfully Andy Hanson RMN BA MA and Alison Ball RMN RGN BA MA

    • Sally Hughes-Brown says:

      Andy, I too have a wealth of NHS experience at senior level, including the investigation of fraud etc, and would be more than glad to provide support on a no-charge basis to further pursue answers. From reading the material it looks as if the only way to break through the judicial impasse is via a method involving sheer volume of numbers (of people), and a collective needs to form. Please respond if this sounds useful and I will send contact details.

      • Naomi says:

        Hello

        I am a documentary producer working with the Felstead family. I wonder if you might be able to drop me a line regarding your above comment as I would be very interested in discussing this with you?

        Kindest

        Naomi

        naomi@raindaytv.co.uk

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *