If ever there were a time for trust, candour, empathy and a commitment to the highest standard of ethics and morality, it is in death and bereavement.
The betrayal of a coroner is to defile the reputations and good work of those that do uphold their commitments and far worse, is to rip apart the wounds of grief and the spiritual peace of passing.
My experiences with Westminster Coroner Services have denied Gerhard his peace and condemned me and his family to an enduring process of suffering.
The door to failure and corruption in the coroner services is left open by the Coroners Act and those responsible for it, including especially, for its reforms over the last decade. The current reform committee ignores accountability of coroners and also the critical need for meaningful checks and balances in case management of the coroner. The Chief Coroners and Justices along with the Ministry for Justice should and must be held to account for their failures. (My submission 2021 Coroners Services Reform) + (2021 Coroner Reform Gov.UK - Other written Evidence)
In death, if you are placed into the wellbeing of the coroner services, it means you did not die a natural death and there needs inquisition into the circumstances surrounding your death. Facing the sudden death of someone you love and rely on must surely be the most challenging of instances anyone could ever face. It is a time of an explosion of emotions in grief and confusion; a time of facing head on one’s faiths and beliefs, whatever they may be. If ever there were a time where you expect and desperately need the highest standards of candour, truth and honesty, it is in death. Both for the deceased and for the bereaved.
As with policing, I will stop there and stress that while I complain of the most harrowing of experiences in dealing with Westminster Coroner Services, I recognise completely that all coroners cannot be painted with the same brush. That many coroners do their jobs diligently and with honesty and commitment to the deceased and bereaved. They serve an incredible role in the need for the bereaved to find peace and healing in their loss.
Equally, my negative experiences that I refer to are of the coroners and it is not a wider accusation of everyone that made up the back office and administration of the coroner services at Westminster. My rage is specifically targeted at the coroners of Westminster Coroner Services who were responsible for Gerhard’s case . In the evidence section of my campaign, I will cover in substantially more detail, the dangerous and alarming nonexistence of balance and controls in the coroners’ conduct of their case management. It was a staggering, shocking revelation.
Coroner Shirley Radcliffe was the coroner responsible for Gerhard’s case management and ruling of suicide. Her direct line management is Senior Coroner Fiona Wilcox; the coroner also ordering the removal of Gerhard's body from Westminster Mortuary.
I believe and strongly assert that coroner Radcliffe presided over a kangaroo inquest and stuck to her sole objective in ruling suicide no matter the evidence. Whatever was presented, she either ignored it or twisted it to suite that objective. The extent of influence and direction exerted from Senior Coroner Wilcox, I do not know, but I believe there to be reasonable grounds to request that it be investigated and made known. This too will be more comprehensively dissected at a later stage, especially in the context of Gerhard’s killing and cover up, and the people linked thereto.
My dealings with coroners Radcliffe and Wilcox dealt a gut-wrenching blow to any trust of the coroner services. I have discovered it to be a system of abusive autocracy in which it finds protection absolute from accountability or answerability. Words could never fully express my revulsion of their conduct. The coroner hides behind the label of “a type of judge”. While responsibility for the coroner services falls under the Ministry for Justice, it does not form part of the Judiciary. The coroner Services has its own act, rules its own roost and plays by its own rules: of which there are little or none.
My first slap of reality across the face came in trying to find legal support. The firms I contacted were unwilling to support, with the one explaining that the coroner services are too inconsistent, and they felt a moral obligation towards advising me against the financial burden of relying on legal representation in such an environment and under the circumstances that I found myself to be in. And there it was, the legal profession had no faith nor trust in the coroner services. What hope did I have in navigating my way through the atrocity that was unfolding in Gerhard’s inquest?
The frustrations within the legal profession in laying bare the protected status of coroners in their failings is illustrated in the rulings of Assistant Coroner Munro on 15 July 2019 in Pre-Inquest Reviews against representing lawyers for the bereaved in another case unrelated to Gerhard’s:
“4. Is it permissible for me to include in the scope of these inquests the conduct of Ms Persaud/the Waltham Forest Coronial Office …
5. The issue arises because it has been suggested there may have been shortcomings in the way in which Ms Persaud investigated the deaths. The areas in which there is alleged to have been insufficiency of investigation include (but are not limited to):
I. Whether either body has been moved;
II. The authenticity of the suicide note;
III. ….. movements in the days leading up to his death. The criticism would be that Ms Persaud did not sufficiently explore those matters or, alternatively, adjourn the inquests for others (the police or her own coroner’s officers) to investigate them. Put another way it would be argued that Ms Persaud did not ensure that all relevant evidence was called/adduced before her. […]
24. … The mechanisms for challenging coronial investigations are limited by statute (S13 of the 1988 Act) and common law (Judicial review). […]
30. The scope will include reference to those matters identified in this application together with other questions around the suicide note, the sheet, movement of the body/ies, DNA and fingerprint evidence. Those matters will be explored with appropriate care and in detail and those with the duty to investigate them challenged as to their failures to do so. However, it can be no part of the scope of these inquests to challenge Ms Persaud’s decisions (eg. to leave the extent of any investigation up to the police or not to adjourn for further investigations to take place). Those prime examples of the acts/omissions which are open to criticism when articulated are quite obviously judicial acts or omissions which all agree and I have concluded cannot be challenged”
The dangerous autocracy under which the coroner gets to rule has become more evident over time and I have found a kind of solace in understanding that I am not alone in the damage wielded by the failure of the coroner services to protect against the horror of coroners that fail, or far worse, consciously act with deception, bias, prejudice and under influence of self interests – business, institutions or organised crime.
In the final pre-inquest review, coroner Radcliffe showed the extent of her bias and conscious prejudice towards Gerhard and me. In opening of the review session, she launched an attack on the extent of communications and submissions I had with her in trying to get her to properly conduct her case management. If that was not enough, she continued with labelling my accusations of police corruption submitted as a complaint through the IOPC, as “spurious”. It was a shocking revelation of the extent of her determination of ensuring a ruling of suicide and attempt to protect and negate police failure and corruption of which I remain resolutely determined in my accusations to this day.
Coroner failure serves as an enabler of corruption, in the institutions it interacts with in the process of case management. In Gerhard’s case, Met Police.
What I talk of is confirmed by the following interactions I have had in order to obtain understanding of and for justice against coroner Radcliffe’s actions:
20 November 2019: Judicial Conduct Investigations Office:
“It might help if I explain that judges are constitutionally independent. This means that they are entitled to make decisions and manage cases free from outside interference by officials 9including this office), government ministers or other judges. In regards to point a), an important part of the judicial function is to form and express an opinion of the case and parties before them in court. Therefore, a coroner stating that your allegations were ‘spurious’ would in fact be considered to form part of their case management and, as such, is outside the remit of the JCIO”
There it was, coroner Radcliffe’s licence to bias , prejudice and whatever else she chose to wield in her objectives of suicide. The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, her enabler.
It would make sense to point out at this junction that the coroner does not sit in judgement of two arguments presented by a defendant and a complainant, independent of each of their case managements. The coroner manages case management in its entirety, assisted by the defendant (Met Police), mostly secret to the complainant (Gerhard and me). The coroner is free to pick and choose what to investigate, what to apply inquisition too. The coroner is free to twist and corrupt the flow of information and quality of evidence. An atrocity.
The only ability to reasonably defend against it, is after Inquest ruling within 90 days, through Judicial Review, and which is so complex, requires and recommended that it is submitted only through the use of lawyers. In other words, coroner conduct is protected through cost. Most of us, cannot afford ongoing and extensive legal costs at a time that we are so emotionally fraught.
Thereafter, a S13 Application can still be made, but the same argument exists – protected by the extensiveness of cost. My early stage request for a quote for submission was £15 000. A cost I cannot afford. Things have moved on substantially since then and costs to be certain to have at least doubled.
12 February 2021 Ministry of Justice
On 13th July 2020, I wrote to Lucy Frazer, Minister for Justice, requesting the opportunity to present my case and to obtain intervention in the failure of the coroner and the kangaroo process of inquisition that was followed. I reiterated by assertions in my writing to the minster of crime the week before, of Met Police corruption and cover up. She did not respond, remained silent. As did not Kit Malthouse, the Minister for Crime.
Her office did respond to my letter dated 12 February 2021 in which I requested assistance in the security of Gerhard’s body under threat from the corruption that surrounded the circumstances of his killing and cover up. Her office responded:
“Although the MOJ has responsibility for coroner law and policy, coroners are independent judicial office holders and as such, it would not be appropriate for Government Ministers, nor the officials to comment, or intervene in judicial decisions.
Similarly, the police operate independently of Government. This is to ensure the police can carry out their duties and make decisions free from political influence”
Those two sentences are loaded with contradictions relevant to Gerhard’s killing and the cover up that followed. They will be handled later in the more detailed peeling back of Gerhard’s Truth under the evidence section.
What is relevant here, again, is the enabling of coroner autocracy, unaccountability and the open door for bias, prejudice, undue influence and corruption. An abdication of responsibility by the ministry of justice. In any case, it was a letter relating to the protection of Gerhard’s body of evidence, it had nothing to do with the travesty of Gerhard’s Inquest!
From that same letter in which was addressed to Rt Hon Priti Patel and Chief Coroner HH Edward Thomas, the Chief Coroner’s Office responded on 18th January 2021:
“I must advise that the Chief Coroner has no power to intervene into individual matters such as this. The Chief Coroner does not have the power to review, alter or reverse the decision of a coroner which the coroner has made or about to make in the exercise of his or her judicial position as a coroner. I suggest that you consider speaking to a lawyer.”
And there it is again, abdication of responsibility in the first instance but of far greater significance, the protection and enabler of the coroner for failure, bias, prejudice, undue influence and corruption.
I reiterate, my letter did not ask for anything that the Chief Coroner referred to. I asked for the protection of Gerhard’s body of evidence held, and still is, and under threat from the corruption that surrounds him at Westminster Mortuary. As with the Ministry of Justice, an abdication of responsibility and an enabler of coroner bad behaviour.
My message to the Chief Coroner Thomas who flippantly suggested I “get a lawyer” is that we are not all as privileged as he may be in wealth. Equally in significant in his flippancy, coroner failure and bad behaviour protected by cost!
On 22 September 2021, Stuart Love, Chief Executive of the City of Westminster responded to my letters:
“Insofar as your letter is a complaint about the actions or conduct of HM Senior Coroner, I regret it is not a matter I can deal with. HM Senior Coroner is an independent judicial officer and the Local Authority has no supervisory jurisdiction over the way in which she carries out her duties. Those are matters for the courts should you proceed with the S13 application. The role of the local authority is limited to providing the Coroner with accommodation and administrative support.
For the same reason, I am unable to overrule any decision taken by the coroner with respect to how or when Mr Venter should be laid to rest. However, I understand from the Coroner’s office that this is a case which has been thoroughly investigated and in which an inquest has been held. In the absence of a legal challenge to the outcome of the Inquest, the coroner is “functus officio”, which means she has no further role to play in the matter”
In therein lies the hot wind of deception and subterfuge in his writing. My complaint was of abuse of her power in her role as senior coroner of Westminster in the ordering of Westminster Council to bury Gerhard and that she would not be prepared to grant more than the two week order given, unless on the order of a high court.
But Stuart Love waffles on about “functus officio” and a S13 application !
However, there was a gap of opportunity. Without going into the detail, it turns out Gerhard did not die in Westminster but on a sliver of land in The Regents Park that in fact falls under Camden Council.
Using the technicality, Camden City Council was able to intervene and grant a stay of protection against damaging any evidence that still may be contained in the wounds on his body, that burial would cause. I remain grateful to them in their taking a balanced view on the matter and have until end of November 2021 to arrange a private forensic autopsy of those wounds. Unfortunately, Gerhard still remains under threat of interference and destruction of evidence while under the roof of Westminster Mortuary – a place of direct access by the corrosive forces that threaten his truth and justice.
It should be noted that the order from Senior Coroner Wilcox to have Gerhard removed from the mortuary and buried came in the two weeks after my letter to Dep Commissioner House requesting that there are reasonable grounds for my request that coroners Radcliffe and Wilcox be criminally investigated for any complicity in the cover up of Gerhard’s killing, and the links between the coroners to the circumstances of Gerhard’s killing in Regents Park on 1 September 2018.
On 30 July 2022, the Coroner’s Court Manager, Inner West London communicated by email:
“It is not appropriate for you to correspond directly with the coroner, because she is a judge and cannot therefore liaise directly with you.”
Just another example of the abusiveness of the coroner hiding behind het status of “judge”. What has judge got to do with the burial of Gerhard’s body. Her instruction is one of administration and has got nothing to do with the coroner’s act or her role as a “judge”.
To confirm that, Camden Council’s letter refers:
“In the absence of the above, section 46(1) of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 places a duty on the local authority in which a death has occurred to make arrangements for burial of the deceased’s body where it appears to the local authority that no suitable arrangements are being made by others”.
Coroner Fiona Wilcox was not acting as a judge, she was acting in the capacity of an administrator, I guess somehow of Westminster Mortuary, which is owned by Westminster Council, both of which being linked to the circumstances of Gerhard’s killing and cover up.
It serves only to confirm her abuse of power in invoking her “judge” status to hide behind and serves further to rubbish the letter of Westminster City CEO, Stuart Love, the council to whom she is under contract to. The instructions and orders from her have nothing to do with the coroner’s act. My liaison has as much to do with her being a judge as it is to do with her liaising with an electrician to fix her light bulb, with whom she would liaise with directly!
To illustrate further the sickening “pick and choose” inconsistencies that is borne of coroner autocracy and unaccountability, Wilcox infers as a “type of judge” she is precluded from speaking to me to ensure “independence of the judiciary”, yet Radcliffe finds it quite okay to exceed all independence of the judiciary by stepping outside the boundaries of “judgeship – the special type” to write a letter to the investigating officers superior to ensure he gains “recognition” for his “good work” in the investigation of Gerhard’s killing. Not only does it mock the idea of “independence” which Wilcox chooses to hide behind, but it is on show, the extent of Radcliffe’s bias and prejudice towards me in my complaint of police corruption. (Radcliffe’s betrayal was exposed while following up on the destruction of evidence with Met Police).
Of further concern in Radcliffe’s bias, in the case unrelated to but similar to the Stephen Port murders, the Kentonline reports on 14 August 2018 (16 days before Gerhard’s killing, also with GHB as the killing weapon):
“Barristers hope the new hearing will look into the adequacy of those original inquests.
The pre-inquest review heard presiding senior coroner Nadia Persaud technically oversees the work of the assistant coroner in the Eastern area of Greater London, Dr Shirley Radcliffe.
Legal representatives argued that although coroners are technically independent holders of public office, the structure could give the appearance that new proceedings presided over by Dr Radcliffe could be biased.
This could undermine the public’s and family’s confidence in the proceedings, it was argued.
Paul Clark, representing the four families, said: "The family's concerns are whether certain discrepancies around the circumstances of the second set of deaths were impacted by how they were dealt with.
"The question is whether the well informed observer would have concerns.
“The submission is based on the question of whether enough questions were asked at the previous inquest. One example is that there was a series of questions about a fake suicide note.”
Rachel Dobbin, representing individual police officers from the Met Police, said: "There were inquests into two of the deaths that the new inquests will consider.
"There were missed opportunities in that distinct independent investigation.
"Public confidence and the family confidence in these new inquests will be very important."
Anton Van Dellen representing Daniel Whitworth’s former partner Ricky Waumsley said: “You (Dr Radcliffe) have referred to the perception that the senior coroner is an overseer of an area of an assistant coroner. We all know they are independent judicial officer holders but it’s about the appearance of bias.
"The coroners investigation is discrete and separate from the police investigation. So that would fall into the scope and that leads back into the issue with the appearance of bias.
” Dr Radcliffe said: “I think that we shouldn’t take any matters further until a definitive decision on this matter is considered. I think I may have to give it some thought and make a written decision on this.
“ Assistant coroner Shirley Radcliffe also ruled that an Independent Office for Police Conduct report into the murder investigations, which runs to 380 pages, should be disclosed to the families within six weeks.”
It should be noted, that Radcliffe ultimately recused herself from proceedings and a Judicial Judge appointed.
Coroner Shirley Radcliffe was actively involved in this case stage of inquisition at the time of Gerhard’s killing and during her own inquisition that followed. This will still require barrister review, but I fear it exposes the extent of her prejudice and bias with regards Met Police failures and the nature of Gerhard’s killing.
The purpose of this section of the campaign is not to review any of the evidence or the process of inquisition and Inquest which will be done on the “dissection of evidence” section.
Its purpose is to give a brief outline and ensure the reader has an insight into the basis for my assertions of kangaroo Inquest, the open door of coroner interference, failure and manipulation. All of which will be covered extensively in that section and which will reveal the extent of it all.
In closing, I refer to my letter to the newly appointed Chief Coroner, HHJ Thomas Teague on 2nd August 2021, of complaint into the actions and conduct of Senior Coroner Fiona Wilcox and Coroner Shirley Radcliffe – he did not respond, remaining silent.
And to my letter on 19 May 2021 to Rt Hon Robert Buckland (Secretary of State for Justice) and HHJ Thomas Teague (Chief Coroner for England and Wales) headed: Your Silence in Gerhard’s Truth, which followed my letter to them on 16 March 2021.
I refer to my sentences to them:
“But your silence, sirs, is no Gandhi. Your silence is the silence that befalls a scorched earth where not even the hot wind dares its sound.
It is with the utmost respect and gratitude that I recognise is owed to the many coroners that have provided the service needed to bring peace for the deceased and healing for the bereaved.
But my letter is not about them. It is about those that fail, those that deceive, those that are corrupt, those that deny the deceased their peace, those that deny the bereaved their healing.
Your silence, is the invitation of an open lavatory door through which those coroners drag and urinate on the souls of the dead, far worse than the drunken lout on the concrete of Churchill; but even he is hunted down, held to account, made to atone.
I fear that there is an entrenched culture of cover up in UK institutions and it is the silence of leaders that feed its oxygen. And it’s the people that feels its burn.
A leader that sees and watches atrocity, stands and does nothing. Are they not as guilty of the atrocity itself?”
I concluded that letter with:
“These three questions should and must be answered. Our fundamental right to trust is dependent on it.
For the avoidance of any doubt, I am not asking of you any comment or intervention in any way into Gerhard’s case or of coroner Radcliffe. My request is of the principles and standards of the coronial services as a whole and not to any specific case.
But I say this, if you are unable to speak truth, act with integrity, stand against atrocity, then rather say nothing at all. I hope I hear from you with the answers we deserve, but am not hopeful.
Yours respectfully”
They said nothing at all !
Coroner Services - What hope is there for Truth or Justice?
Go Fund Me : Help Fund Legal Costs
A little from a lot funds a lot
No matter how small, every bit helps
