An application to quash the inquest verdict

Justice for Nikki Bulley via the judiciary

Introduction

This may turn out to be the most important blog I write in the pursuit of seeking justice for Nikki Bulley (and her two daughters).

Before publishing a post dismantling the newly scripted police timeline which requires some application in determining what really happened, it’s crucial that consideration is given as to how a formal challenge can be made to overturn the inquest verdict. Below, I summarise the process as I understand it and then sketch out the bare-bones of a possible first draft to support an application, in the hope this may motivate someone with the relevant skill set to take it a step further.

Inquest challenge - process

A challenge to the verdict delivered at Preston County Hall can be made in one of two ways.

(1) A time-limited (within 3 months of the coroner’s decision) application for a judicial review to the High Court. Based upon public law principles it challenges the fairness of the procedure and whether Dr James Adeley properly exercised his powers.

(2) Not subject to the same deadlines, an application under section 13 of the Coroner’s Act 1988 requires the consent of the Attorney General (Rt Hon Victoria Prentis KC MP). Once consent has been given, on hearing the application the High Court may quash the determination of the original inquest and order a fresh investigation and inquest. Section 13 of the Act provides that the High Court must be satisfied that it’s necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that another investigation be held (whether because of fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity, insufficiency of inquiry, the discovery of new facts or evidence or otherwise).

Inquest challenge - rationale

In simple terms a basis for an application to quash the inquest ruling of accidental death by drowning could be fleshed out from the following short draft summary. The content is more important than how I’ve worded this, which requires much improvement.

Dr James Adeley was presented with the following letter by email, addressed to the Home Secretary, on the 12^th May.

At no point between the 12^th May and the final verdict given at the conclusion of the two-day inquest in Preston on the 27^th June did Dr James Adeley make any reference to the events of the day of the alleged discovery of Nikki’s body. The above letter confirms there’s evidence to corroborate that the official claims from the day of the alleged discovery of Nikki’s body are bogus. Dr James Adeley also withheld the witness statement Jason Rothwell provided him, electing not to include it at the inquest. It is suggested this was done so because it can easily be proven his statement is a lie and consequently so as not to reveal that Nikki Bulley was subject to unlawful death.

From the very first day (27^th January) and throughout the police investigation, Nikki was treated as a missing person and at no point was it ever considered by the police that a crime had taken place. It has been emphasised from the start that there’s no third party involvement and consequently all avenues that would have led to what transpired on that day have either been ignored or dismissed out of hand.

Significantly, SGI headed up by Peter Faulding (proven specialists with decades of relevant experience in underwater search) were not requested to provide copies of the relevant side scan sonar search data, search reports, photographs or notes made at the scene. Peter Faulding was not been requested to attend the inquiry nor submit any evidence or statements for the inquest. In February, further to extensive search, he stated that Nicola Bulley was not in the river.

At the inquest itself the following witness statements under oath were given:

• Helen O’Neill (a local resident) testified to hearing a woman scream in the approximate location at c. 9.35am. She also testified to seeing an unknown vehicle arrive in the lane at c. 10.00am

• Penny Fletcher (a local resident), who was the first person to find the dog and phone, testified to having “arrived 9.40am earliest”

• DC Keith Greenhalgh for Lancashire Police testified that the examination of Nikki’s Fitbit watch revealed that it had remained charged until 4^th February, eight full days after Nikki’s disappearance. There’s evidence to prove that the Fitbit watch (and therefore Nikki) could neither have been pushed nor fallen into the cold river, whereby the battery could last no longer than a few days at most assuming it to have been fully charged.

Therefore, Lancashire police provided the very proof that Nikki could never have been in the river at the inquest itself backing up Peter Faulding’s findings. Furthermore there was testimony that points at something untoward having happened to Nikki, which has always remained uninvestigated.

The assertion is that the verdict given of accidental death by drowning is an abuse of power by the coroner for one or all of the following reasons: fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity, and/or insufficiency of inquiry.

Summary

It was important to have kept this short and sweet. Having made a commitment to seek justice for Nikki, this is the route that will offer the best chance for this to be realised.

Lest it not be forgotten the the Home Secretary herself remains silent while the College of Policing are actively running a sham ‘independent’ investigation allegedly reporting on Lancashire police operations due in an autumn report. This sham investigation being headed by Andy Marsh (CEO) was initiated by PCC Andrew Snowden who, in addition to DSI Rebecca Smith, was subject to complaints of serious corruption.

These complaints were blocked by Professional Standards Department and by the Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner for Lancashire, as set out in the above letter dated 12^th May.

• The doctrine of the separation of powers requires that principal institutions of state - executive, legislature and judiciary - should be clearly divided in order to safeguard citizens’ liberties and guard against tyranny.

In the UK, the executive comprises the Crown and the Government (including Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers). The legislature, Parliament, comprises the Crown, the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

It therefore remains that it can only be via the judiciary - comprising of the judges in the courts of law, those who hold judicial office in tribunals and the lay magistrates who staff the magistrates’ courts - that justice may be served.