Present Case Facts

High Court judgement: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2015/26.html

I. Bias for Abusers and against the General Public as ‘Competent Authority’

1. It is clear from the very start in delivering her conclusions in this case that Justice Pauffley’s judgement was coming from a place of empathy on the side of originally alleged abusers.

2. Paragraph 3 expresses the Judge’s opinion that members of the public who were appealed to by mother and concerned others and who have subsequently shown an interest and concern in this case are themselves, paedophiles.

II. Violation of EU Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography

3. This is a very serious condemnation and judgement against the British Public as a legally recognised ‘competent authority’ in this case, which according to EU Directives and having exhausted all other regular avenues for Justice, both mother and her counsel had a lawful duty to turn to as the only remaining competent authority available that was capable of demanding an immediate police investigation and ensuring the children’s safety.

See EU Legal Directives here with special attention to Sections 26, 28 & 50 of :


Investigating offences and bringing charges in criminal proceedings should be facilitated, to take into account the difficulty for child victims of denouncing sexual abuse and the anonymity of offenders in cyberspace. To ensure successful investigations and prosecutions of the offences referred to in this Directive, their initiation should not depend, in principle, on a report or accusation made by the victim or by his or her representative. The length of the sufficient period of time for prosecution should be determined in accordance with national law.


Member States should encourage any person who has knowledge or suspicion of the sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a child to report to the competent services. It is the responsibility of each Member State to determine the competent authorities to which such suspicions may be reported. Those competent authorities should not be limited to child protection services or relevant social services. The requirement of suspicion ‘in good faith’ should be aimed at preventing the provision being invoked to authorise the denunciation of purely imaginary or untrue facts carried out with malicious intent.


This Directive respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in particular the right to the protection of human dignity, the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the rights of the child, the right to liberty and security, the right to freedom of expression and information, the right to the protection of personal data, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and the principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties. This Directive seeks to ensure full respect for those rights and principles and must be implemented accordingly.

Demonstrating Partisanship and Unjustified Bias

4. Justice Pauffley condemns the public authority and publicity given to this case. She focuses on the impact of that publicity on alleged abusers whom she states as “living in fear because they have been identified on the internet as abusers of children and their contact details including telephone numbers, home and email addresses have been published” [p6] continues for another five paragraphs.

5. It is important to note here, that at NO point in delivering her judgement does Justice Pauffley refer to P & Q’s repeated and recorded allegations that their father had threatened to “kill” them – there is no equal concern expressed nor mention of their fear. This is a very serious omission in what is supposed to be a BALANCED judgement in which all sides of a case are given equal and fair consideration and in which children’s lives and safety from serious risk are directly and fundamentally affected.

6. It is most significant that a Judge in a case of child sexual abuse, pays more attention to the suffering of alleged abusers and their “fear” than s/he provides to the suffering of the children as alleged victims of prolonged and repeated sexual abuse and who lived in fear under threat of death from a violent, sexually abusive father who along with other abusers, are directly involved in every level of this case considering their professions as Cafcass officers, social workers, police. The possibilities for any of those suspects to influence other professionals among their peers and superiors, is a possibility/risk  that cannot be denied and because of that possibility/risk and according to EU Legal Directives, the victims fear of alleged abusers has to be taken into account in light of the very serious allegations.

III. Home Office Referral to Operation Hydrant for Paedophiles in Public Authority

7. It is for all of the above reasons that several special Police Units have been established to investigate suspected paedophiles in positions of public authority: The Home Office has referred this case to one such Police Unit; ‘Operation Hydrant’ and being forced to operate somewhat undercover, it is most unlikely, their investigations are anywhere near complete considering the Home Office only very recently, referred this case to them in response to a letter sent to them specifically about this case on February 18th 2015 (see copy sent to Home Office via on March 28th 2015). This means that lawfully, this case should have been adjourned to await the results of ongoing Police investigations and with a decision made for the children’s safety in the interim in accordance with the increased possibility that children may be under control and influence of alleged abusers which is an ignorance of EU directives for Authorities to tolerate that level of risk. 

IV. The Supposed Retractions

8. According to EU Directives, retractions given by P & Q in care and control of multiple alleged abusers, cannot be given any legal precedence over the original allegations. 

9. Because of the power and professional status of alleged abusers, the same shadow of doubt is cast on all who have examined or had involvement on a professional level with P & Q while they are in care of alleged abusers and who have subsequently, spoken in support of the retractions.

10. Concerning the mother Ella Draper, Justice Pauffley comments: “It may be the mother would contend that she has been prevented from attending this hearing as the result of police action on the evening of 12 February. DS Paul Speer from Colindale police station described in evidence what happened firstly on the morning of 10 February when he spoke with Ms Draper over the telephone to discuss the material on the internet. Ms Draper told DS Speer that “it was nothing to do with (her).” She did not wish to speak to him and did not trust the police.” p52

V. Alleged Abusers are Suffering the Effects of Negligent Authorities and Legally Necessary Publicity Online

11. Justice Pauffley here neglects to make the distinct connection between a mother and her children having been failed by every UK Authority a British citizen would normally turn to for legal help in such a case and that the mother in face of rejection and ignorance, legally, has no choice but to make a public appeal and alert that same public to a serious public risk via the powers of allegedly, abusive Authorities. In the same way, Justice Pauffley  neglects to acknowledge that had Authorities acted according to EU Directives from the start, a desperate mother would not have been driven to making a public appeal for help. Legally therefore, it is through negligent Authorities that alleged abusers are suffering the results of the legally necessary publicity now given to this case.

VI. No Naming of the Crimes by their Legal Terms

12. It is noticeable as yet more evidence of Justice Pauffley’s imbalanced judgement over this case, that at NO point does she refer to the allegations as crimes in their true, legal terms of regular and repeated multiple acts of sexual abuse of children, making and distributing child pornography, child trafficking and child murder all committed by multiple professionals including the children’s father Ricky Dearman. Instead, she talks of “lurid” allegations as if there were any such thing as ‘normal’ or ‘acceptable’ levels of child sexual abuse, child trafficking and child murder: Justice Pauffley says; “In a variety of ways, it was suggested that P and Q were part of a large group of children from North London who had been sexually abused, made to abuse one another and that they had belonged to a satanic cult in which there was significant paedophile activity.p11

Specifically, it was said that babies were supplied from all over the world. They were bought, injected with drugs and then sent by TNT or DHL to London. The assertions were that babies had been abused, tortured and then sacrificed. Their throats were slit, blood was drunk and cult members would then dance wearing babies’ skulls (sometimes with blood and hair still attached) on their bodies. All the cult members wore shoes made of baby skin produced by the owner of a specified shoe repair shop.” p12

13. Here, Justice Pauffley is clearly playing on the internet headlines associated with this case and by refusing to refer to the allegations according to their legal definitions, she places emphasis on the fictitious element of the precise details of the alleged crimes and thereby, clearly undermines the seriousness of alleged crimes by placing them in the realm of ‘fantasy’ as if the words ‘Satanic Cult’ automatically deny both possibility and reality of child sexual abuse, child pornography, child trafficking and child murder. 

14. Regardless of how strange a story may seem, child sexual abusers are very strange people and EU Law is devised to eliminate and eradicate the crime of all forms of child abuse and the adult fantasies and depravities this kind of crime is regularly committed to satisfy. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that every kind of child abuse was not and is not being performed by ‘unions’ of adults who mutually ‘enjoy’ and profit from, abusing and killing and even, eating children under cover of worshipping ‘Satan’. 

15. Though such a ‘union’ of abusers might call themselves ‘Satanic’ and act as part of a ‘cult’, in reality all of the ritualism is simply the ‘stage’, an arena which is more inviting for the events of abuse and murder and certainly, any child involved who did speak out to non-abusers is not so likely to be believed because the ‘Satanic’ aspects are difficult for most people to accept as a reality. The ‘Satanic’ aspect of the abuse could be a deliberate ‘cover-story’ by which abusers feel protected given the incredibility factor they knew would be a common response to anyone reporting their crimes.

16. All the alleged abusers are intelligent, educated and professional people who have both means and intellectual sophistication to devise such a cover as a ‘Satanic Cult’ for a backdrop toward satisfying depraved desires and fantasies. 

17. Nonetheless, Justice Pauffley goes on to say: “I am able to state with complete conviction that none of the allegations are true. I am entirely certain that everything Ms Draper, her partner Abraham Christie and the children said about those matters was fabricated. The claims are baseless. Those who have sought to perpetuate them are evil and / or foolish.” p16

VII. The Evil and / or Foolish British and International Public

18. Here we have yet another condemnation and judgement against a legally recognised competent authority in this case, as being the British Public who have heard and witnessed all the evidence and for a very much longer period of time than Justice Pauffley and her 12 day “fact finding” mission. For a British High Court Judge to label members of the British Public who have chosen to stand by EU Legal Directives for the sake of ensuring children are not at risk, as “evil and/or foolish” amounts to gross disrespect. 

19. For that comment alone  in light of the very serious negligence of British Authorities to abide by EU Directives, Justice Pauffley reflects a serious misunderstanding of her public and lawful duty as a High Court Judge which is; to serve and uphold the law for the sake of delivering lawful justice: She condemns the public as evil and foolish but no such condemnation for the equally ‘evil and foolish’ Authorities who failed to abide by the law and immediately investigate all the verifiable facts in this case. 

20. Certainly, by their very negligence in following EU Law, the Authorities are both evil and foolish, if they are actually child abusers, if they have ignored medical evidence, if they have wrongfully persecuted a concerned mother and her counsel, if they have conspired to silence their victims, if they have wittingly or unwittingly conspired to assist abusers by giving them warning of the allegations, by giving abusers time to hide evidence and even, flee and/or change their identities. 

VIII. The Effects of Sheer Negligence by the Responsible British Authorities

21. Through sheer negligence, British authorities involved in this case could and possibly have permitted many professional / powerful people the freedom to continue their abuse of many other children who are all now at risk: Justice Pauffley nowhere expresses any concern regarding this very real possibility in her judgement on this case: That possibility is exactly the kind of risk to children that EU Legal Directives are written to eradicate.  

23. Justice Pauffley states in support of her judgement: ‘The law in this area is well-known. There is only one standard of proof, namely the simple balance of probabilities. The burden of proof is on the party who makes the allegations: Re B [2008] UKHL 35. The ‘inherent probability or improbability’ of an event is a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred – “common sense, not law, requires that in deciding this question regard should be had to whatever extent appropriate to inherent probabilities.” p64 In other words, she is claiming it is up to the children and their mother to prove their allegations as “appropriate to inherent probabilities“, which clearly, Justice Pauffley has decided they are not and that the retracted allegations enforced now, with allegations against mother and Mr Christie, are.

IX. Balance of Probability as Required Level of Proof

24. Re B [2008] UKHL 35: “The balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied an event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. When assessing the probabilities the court will have in mind as a factor, to whatever extent is appropriate in the particular case, that the more serious the allegation the less likely it is that the event occurred and, hence, the stronger should be the evidence before the court concludes that the allegation is established on the balance of probability. Fraud is usually less likely than negligence. Deliberate physical injury is usually less likely than accidental physical injury. A step-father is usually less likely to have repeatedly raped and had non-consensual oral sex with his under age stepdaughter than on some occasion to have lost his temper and slapped her. Built into the preponderance of probability standard is a generous degree of flexibility in respect of the seriousness of the allegation.

Although the result is much the same, this does not mean that where a serious allegation is in issue the standard of proof required is higher. It means only that the inherent probability or improbability of an event is itself a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred. The more improbable the event, the stronger must be the evidence that it did occur before, on the balance of probability, its occurrence will be established.http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2008/35.html

25. In this case, probability is heightened concerning original allegations because of the following facts:

A: Two child Witness/Victims report credible, separately and repeatedly given testimonies which match and are supportive and do not contradict one another.

B: Medical evidence confirming sexual abuse and emotional trauma.

C: Details are given in testimonies which children aged 8 & 9 are not in probability likely to have experience of, know about or even, so accurately imagine i.e. ‘special tools for removing babies skin’.

D: A huge amount of instantly and easily, verifiable facts are given.

E: Multiple professional people including father Ricky Dearman, are cited and named as alleged abusers: 

  • Was it probable that Jimmy Savile was a paedophile? British authorities decided for a very long time it was not ‘probable’ and his victims were until very recently, ignored.
  • Was it probable that David Cameron’s Senior Policy Adviser, Patrick Rock, would be forced to resign from his role at number 10 Downing Street in light of his admittance to and later conviction for paedophile activity?
  • Was it probable that SENIOR Essex police officer  Ben Hodder, would be ‘facing jail after pleading guilty to making five indecent images of children’?
  • Was it probable that a British Prime Minister, namely, Margaret Thatcher would be guilty and complicit in covering up paedophile crimes among her own cabinet and other Government Ministries as has been recently revealed to the British public?
  • Was it probable that multiple Councils, Police and child care providers would all be found complicit in covering up and participating in paedophile activities of every kind?







X. Considering Facts of Crime in the Light of Historical Victim Survivors

26: Because all of the above once considered improbabilities are now proven FACTS OF CRIME and with a multitude of historical victim-survivors pressing charges for the crimes they suffered and which were SYSTEMATICALLY IGNORED as “improbable”, all present allegations of sexual abuse of children which involve multiple professionals can no longer be dismissed as improbable. Indeed, it is these ever increasing revelations to the British public that have contributed to even deeper suspicions of mother, her counsel and the lawful, public authority in this case in the sense, that P and Q’s initial allegations are actually, very probable.

27: It is interesting that Judge Pauffley cites the probability factor as grounds for arriving at her judgement against a concerned mother and her counsel whose only efforts have been to be sure that children are not at risk; how many cases are regularly shared in the British media about mothers who take part in abusing their children and torturing them so they will repeat a story to police and other authorities about satanic, ritual abuse involving 8 schools and 20+ other children and include such details as baby killing and baby eating and “dancing with skulls”?

28: What probability exists to suggest even, a reason for a mother and/or her partner to commit such vile abuse of two children in their care because if it was indeed, as Justice Pauffley suggested, to discredit their father and thereby deny him any contact with his children? Then it makes no sense that they would engage in abusively coaching the children to memorise and independently and accurately repeat in police custody, such a lengthy and detailed story involving not just the father but a multitude of others and even embellished with “drinking blood” and “eating babies” ?

XI. Motive with Intent: who benefits from Coaching and Cover-Ups?

29: Unless an individual is suffering from severe, psychotic illness, it is not at all probable that a mother would go to such extremes and risk losing custody of her children, to put them through such trauma of police interviews and medical examinations and then later, out of pure malice against the father, publish her children’s ‘coached testimonies’ on Youtube with a cry for help – for what purpose? Because certainly if her issue was with the father, then it all could have been a very much simpler process to only focus on abuse via the father and even more certainly, allegations of sexual abuse pertaining only to the father, would have been easier to coach and more likely to be accepted and believed by others.

30. It is the lack of probability pertaining to the mother and her partner Mr Christie’s as the only abusive parties in this case, that is another important legal point of FACT because in any crime (unless committed through severely impaired psychology), there has to be a motive with intent. What was the motive and what was the intent behind Ms Draper and Mr Christie’s alleged coaching and abuse of P and Q? Was any evidence presented to the Court of the couple’s deep hatred and resentment toward Christchurch School and the Hampstead community that might provide motive? No such evidence was presented or implied.

XII. Psychiatric evidence

31. ‘Dr Sturge assessed the children on 5 November 2014. P related that Mr Christie would tell her that “for lying she would go to prison for 20 years and never see her grandparents or Mum again.” P commented, “Abraham loved my Mum so much. He even blamed her for being in the gang.” p144

32. It is highly improbable that given the short time Mr Christie had known Ms Draper, that he could have been responsible for the extent of repeated abuse as revealed via medical examination. It is also highly improbable that a man who was coaching a mother’s two children to memorise false allegations in order to report them credibly to police, would also, in the presence of those children, have “even blamed her for being in the gang.” What ‘gang’ – surely, he wasn’t referring to the ‘Satanic Cult’ that both he and mum were allegedly, ‘coaching’ the children to lie about?

33. Though it may seem a very little thing, that statement from P as child who in light of the evidence and according to the EU legal requirements for suspicion in good faith, is probably suffering in the hands of alleged abusers who have contrived to control her, speaks volumes. It is these ‘little things’ that Authorities investigating child sexual abuse need to be vigilant for and most particularly, a High Court Judge presiding over a case in which the mother and her counsel are prevented from attending via force of allegedly abusive authorities and all their collective and influential powers as supported by the secrecy rules of the UK Family Courts.

34. It is probable that in the event of their guilt, all alleged abusers have conspired to abuse their powers and influence toward covering up their crime and silencing victims and intimidating them to retract their original allegations and issue new allegations against their mother and her Partner. Their motives and incentives to do this are obvious.

35. Motive and intent on part of mother & Mr Christie, have not in any way been credibly established and therefore, there is no probability that they have committed any abuse of the children except as they acknowledge, they somewhat desperately responded to their own innate need to know the truth of the dreadful fear and the horror of what P & Q had suffered for so long and in secret from their mother and which, only in August 2014 was finally disclosed while on holiday in Morocco.

36. Motive and intent according to the evidence presented in light of mother’s compassionate and lawful actions which are in keeping with EU Directives, most probably relate to serious and genuine concern for her own and other children’s safety being as she has in no way stood to gain or profit or benefit in any way but instead, has suffered severely and to the extent of being forced to flee Britain under threat of arrest via Authorities she is clearly convinced, have collectively abused her own and other children.

37: In expressing her concern and empathy for alleged abusers and their local community in having to suffer public suspicion, Justice Pauffley expresses no equal recognition for the suffering caused to mother and her partner who had to go through the process of literally, dragging the disclosures out of the children who are recorded as stating they were under threat of death by their father, if ever they broke the rule of secrecy. Justice Pauffley in no way acknowledges that the mother and Mr Christie’s actions were probably reflective of shock and trauma and even, disbelief. 

38: In light of the above evidence and on balance of law it is fair and lawful to acknowledge that Mr Christie is shown, according to P’s testimony to police in form of allegations and to Dr Sturge after the retractions, to be probably in a state of shock and clearly, on hearing the children’s story, suddenly has suspicions against their mother being as he has known her only for a short time. 

39. Dr Sturge: ‘P related that Mr Christie would tell her that “for lying she would go to prison for 20 years and never see her grandparents or Mum again.” Is that statement allegedly issued by Mr Christie, most probably said by a man trying to get a child to tell the truth or is it more relfective of a man trying to force a child to lie? WHY would a child go to “prison for 20 years” for lying unless those possible ‘lies’ are so serious they could cause a very lot of damage to a lot of innocent people? WHY would a man allegedly, forcing a child to lie then threaten that child with 20 years in prison for lying? Where is the “common sense”?

XIII. The Sacrifice of P & Q for the Benefit of Twenty and how many others?

40. Mr Christie strongly advised Ms Draper not to return to Britain with the children from their holiday in Morocco, but Ms Draper felt the allegations were far too serious and with many other children being at risk, she decided to report her children’s allegations to British Police.

41. After reporting the allegations to police on  5 September 2014; ‘On Monday 8 September, the children were taken by the police on a drive around the area in an unsuccessful attempt to identify specific locations where abusive practices had occurred. p39

On 10 September, DS Fernandez and DC Martin visited and inspected the interior of the church adjacent to Christchurch School. No notice had been given of their intended arrival. They had a good look around the vestry, including within the drawers where the priest’s vestments were stored, searching for material to assist in their inquiries. They found nothing of interest to the inquiry.’ p40

42. According to the evidence, the EU Legal Directives and according to UK Law required level of probability, it is well within the realms of probability & possibility that allegedly abusive professionals among police and/or Family Courts had given notice in secret to all suspects concerned, so when police arrived on their ‘surprise’ visit, no evidence would be found. Again, we refer to historical and recent FACTS of paedophiles operating in offices of public Authority and the FACTS of their collusion to cover up their crimes. We note here specifically, the time delay between reporting of allegations and further investigation. 

43. Paragraph 40 of Justice Pauffley’s judgement, is the full extent of Police investigations into verifiable facts given by P & Q to police. 

44. ‘On 11 September, P and Q were made the subjects of a Police Protection Order’ and removed from care of their mother into care of CAFCASS/alleged abusers acting on behalf of the family Courts. Five days later, on 17th November, P and Q are giving retractions statements to Police and the case is then closed.

45. Had Ella Draper and her counsel not made the courageous decision (in light of the severe Family Court penalties and automatic imprisonment for up to 7 years for breaking their rule of secrecy)  to make this case public, there would have been not even the international publicity around the High Court’s recent 12 day ‘fact-finding’ mission.

XIV. The Medical Evidence by Dr Hodes

46: It is interesting that in spite of the many video recordings and testimonies given by P & Q as part of their original allegations both with mother and to Police, that a very large portion of Justice Pauffley’s judgement focuses on discrediting the validity of Dr Hodes’ professional expertise in her medical examination of the children, ultimately, Justice Pauffley concludes: ‘Overall, I feel impelled to observe that the level of Dr Hodes’ involvement in this case was unusual. I remind myself of the several cautionary considerations when a court is considering the contributions made by experts as comprised within Re U; Re B [2004] EWCA Civ 567 – i) The cause of an injury or an episode that cannot be explained scientifically remains equivocal. … iv) The court must always be on guard against the over-dogmatic expert, the expert whose reputation or amour propre is at stake, or the expert who has developed a scientific prejudice.’ p132

XV. Serious Crimes against Many Children by Abusive Authorities and Parents

47: Why would a Judge informed of all of the above listed evidence and associated risks, possibilities and probabilities of serious crimes being committed against many children by abusive authorities and parents, choose to devote so much time and attention toward eliminating the FACTS presented by a medical expert in this case when actually, the Judge is not a medical expert and actually, is reliant on experts for evidence? 

48: Why dismiss the medical evidence as ‘inconclusive’ when it is presented as a matter of fact by the medical expert and one who is in no way associated with other professionals as alleged abusers in this case? Why not withhold judgement until further medical reports and assessments are completed? Especially when we consider Justice Pauffley’s adjoining statement: ‘One of the cardinal messages from Cleveland was as to the importance of multi agency collaboration so as to understand amongst many other things the context in which suspicions arose.’

49: Where was the context for the allegations and resulting suspicions against Mr Christie and the mother and what is the strength of that context according to the legal levels of probability as compared with the context of the children’s original allegations? The point being, that in terms of motive and incentive, there is a diminished context for suspicion concerning mother and Mr Christie, whereas there is an increased motive and incentive in the context of alleged abusers using their powers to legally abduct their victims and intimidate them into retracting their allegations.

50. ‘Dr Hodes’ very last report – of 5 February 2015 – was written in response to written questions. She states that “the overall situation is such that it is my view that the allegations / accounts need to be taken very seriously despite the confusing picture.” Dr Hodes’ view is that whilst it is a matter for the court to decide, she recommends “a series of more detailed observations and assessments over a longer period of time by a psychiatrist or psychotherapist with a particular interest and expertise in child maltreatment including sexual abuse.” p130

Her oral evidence surrounding the importance of the physical sign found in P amounted to this – “It was there – clear – it is rarely seen … it is not diagnostic but is associated with anal abuse – part of the jigsaw.” p131

51. Why did Justice Pauffley not see fit to at least recognise the professionally diagnosed need by Dr Hodes for  ‘a series of more detailed observations and assessments over a longer period of time by a psychiatrist or psychotherapist with a particular interest and expertise in child maltreatment including sexual abuse’ ? Alarmingly, Justice Pauffley instead states in her Summary of Dr Hodes’ evidence; ‘I was bemused by Dr Hodes’ suggestion of further psychiatric or psychotherapeutic intervention when she knew that Dr Clare Sturge – one of the leading and most experienced child and adolescent psychiatrists in the country – had already supplied two reports, the first arising out of her assessment of the children after interview.’

XVI. Serious Professional Failure by Dr Sturge

52. Since evidence of Dr Clare Sturge’s report as presented here in paragraphs 31 & 39, is shown to be ignorant of subtleties which the Public Authority have a right to reasonably expect  “one of the leading and most experienced child and adolescent psychiatrists in the country ” would be alerted to and most especially, when assessing the extent of a child’s physical, psychological and emotional abuse, it seems that Judge Pauffley has not only omitted to take Dr Hodes advice for “a series of more detailed observations and assessments over a longer period of time…” but also, her own judgement about the importance of multi agency collaboration so as to understand amongst many other things the context in which suspicions arose.

53. Two reports by one psychiatrist do not amount to a series of detailed observations. In fact, the ‘series’ of detailed observations so far provided are presented as conflicting in terms that Dr Sturge has failed to notice important discrepancies between original allegations and the later retractions because P very clearly reveals the abusive, duplicity she has very possibly been forced to endure via the original, alleged abusers in whose care and contact she remained at the time of visiting Dr Sturge; what “gang” was Mr Christie referring to when he “even blamed” the mother?

54: Dr Sturge’s failure to pick up on the tremendous implications of P’s above statement, reflects a serious professional failure to make sense between fact and fiction in terms of assessing a possible/probable child victim-witness of sexual, physical, emotional and psychological abuse.

55. In light of the above discrepancy between what Dr Sturge determined from her assessment of P and what her Witness testimony actually reveals, it contradicts her decision that the children were forced to lie about ‘Satanic’ sexual abuse. In fact, it supports Ms Draper and Mr Christie’s testimony that they had to force P and Q to disclose because if as the children now allege, Ms Draper and Mr Christie were jointly complicit in coaching and forcing the children to make false allegations to Police, HOW IS IT POSSIBLE OR EVEN PROBABLE IN THAT CONTEXT FOR MR CHRISTIE TO “BLAME” THE MOTHER, MS DRAPER AS BEING “PART OF THE GANG“?

XVII. Mrs Justice Pauffley’s and Dr Sturge’s Professional Failings

56. According to Dr Sturge’s own evidence presented to the High Court, Dr Sturge exposes her own professional failings and also, Justice Pauffley’s professional failing to herself, notice the discrepancy in P’s statement as reported by Dr Sturge; that discrepancy as previously exposed herein, seriously and fundamentally alters the probabilities Justice Pauffley cites as the premises for her judgement in this case and the extent to which she is lawfully and professionally able to state “with complete conviction that none of the allegations are true. I am entirely certain that everything Ms Draper, her partner Abraham Christie and the children said about those matters was fabricated. The claims are baseless. Those who have sought to perpetuate them are evil and / or foolish.” p16

57. It is important too, that both Justice Pauffley and Dr Sturge fail to notice and/or accept that the children’s emotional disconnection when disclosing details of their original allegations is most indicative of repeated abuse and trauma whereby the child psychology is compelled in interest of staying sane, to emotionally disconnect from the trauma. Instead, both Justice Pauffley and Dr Sturge agree that symptoms of severe PTSD from the traumatic events related in Police videos, is a sign that the original allegations are false; Justice Pauffley comments: “There was no change in the presentation of either child when they described apparently horrific acts as experienced by them and others. There did not appear to be any emotional connection with what they were saying except that they seemed energised.” p117. In light of established medical and psychological FACT, this misinterpretation of evidence is a very serious failure: 

*”During traumatic experiences, victims often report experiencing themselves as separate from their bodies, sometimes watching from above or from the corner of the room. In these descriptions, the victim becomes and observer and is no longer experiencing the emotions of the person who is in the process of being victimized. S/he can see everything that is happening, and may even know how the victim is feeling, but the act of dissociation protects him/her from actually experiencing the overwhelming emotion. This is a highly effective form of responding to unbearable feeling in the moment as it greatly reduces the intensity of emotion. However, recent studies indicate that these responses may have detrimental long-term psychological consequences and are an important predictor of subsequent post-traumatic symptomatology” (see van der Kolk, van der Hart, & Marmar, 1996, for a review).

*Understanding Severe Traumatization Chapter 27

27 http://www.dpa.state.ky.us/library/manuals/mental/Ch27.html  BY LIZABETH ROAMER AND LESLIE LEBOWITZ (At UMass Boston’s 45th commencement exercises in May 2013, Roemer received the Chancellor’s Award for Distinguished Scholarship. In presenting her with the award Chancellor J. Keith Motley recognized Roemer as an internationally renowned researcher on anxiety disorders).

58. Justice Pauffley states: ‘The children’s demeanour during the 17 September interview with the police and in their discussion with Dr Sturge is a factor of relevance to the inquiry. p150

‘It seemed to me that on 17 September P in particular was relieved to be unburdening herself and revealing the truth. Some of the ongoing and quite complex processes in Q’s mind were manifest. At the outset, it seemed as though he was still confused but gradually he, too, became clear in saying he had been forced to make untrue claims. There was none of the frantic scramble to provide answers to questions as in the earlier interviews. Both children were a great deal calmer.’ p151 

Q was evidently and genuinely connected on an emotional level with the content of his revelations to Dr Sturge.’ p152

59. In light of both Dr Sturge’s and Justice Pauffley’s failures to note aforementioned discrepancies in the children’s comments, it appears they were equally, overly keen to formulate their respective opinion and analysis according to predetermined personal feelings regarding the details of P and Q’s original testimonies to Police and later, to foster carers. 

XVIII. Children Living in Fear of their Lives

60. The aforementioned observations of Justice Pauffley in relation to Dr Sturge’s assessment of P and Q (as above in p58) when coupled with the aforementioned heightened probabilities that the original allegations were not coached by Ms Draper and Mr Christie, could equally indicate that the children were/are living in fear for their lives hence, Q being ‘evidently and genuinely connected on an emotional level with the content of his revelations to Dr Sturge.’ 

61. The children’s ‘calmness’ can equally be interpreted as hopelessness and a sense of foreboding perhaps about what was going to happen to their mother and Mr Christie and it is reasonable to suspect that by this point, both P and Q do now resent that their mother and Mr Christie took so much effort in getting them to disclose, considering the immense upheaval and added trauma they have now suffered as a direct result and ultimately, finding themselves surrounded and controlled by an army of their abusers who have imposed regular contact with an abusive father who kills babies and has threatened to kill them too. 

62. According to the children’s testimony regarding their father and others, the above observations as a probability and as a possibility of risk in terms of EU Legal Directives, cannot legitimately be dismissed or ignored and most especially concerning P’s aforementioned statement to Dr Sturge. 

XIX. No Conclusive Judgement until Doubts are Satisfied

63. Where there is cause for doubt no conclusive judgement can be delivered until those doubts are satisfied and all of the above provides ample and sufficient cause for doubt concerning the retractions and present allegations against mother and Mr Christie and in that process, suspicions supporting original allegations are amplified. 

64. It is noticeable too that P asks Dr Sturge if she can “live with her foster carer until she is 14 or 15?” It is an odd thing for a child to request considering that Justice Pauffley, in making absolutely no comment in relation to the father’s response as an alleged paedophile and child murderer in this case, appears to support Mr Dearman’s claim that he is a “decent guy and a good father.” p63

65. This again is a subtle and yet very important point of evidence in this case in which we have a lawful duty in light of the seriousness of the risk and the legal premise for probability, to be vigilant for, within any and all discrepancies for or against any particular narrative of this case: Why aged 14 or 15 specifically? Why not 16 or 18? Where was P intending on going at 14 or 15? 

66. Since we know the children have continued to remain in weekly contact with their father via Family Court order, it is not beyond fair reason to conclude that Mr Dearman and/or other alleged abusive professionals involved in this case, may have told P that it is best to remain in foster care now until she is 14 or 15. Equally, the statement could reflect that P did not wish to be returned to her father and she felt that by age 14 or 15, she would be old enough to run away. Why did P express no desire to return to her father?

XX. The Father’s History of Domestic Violence and Physical Abuse

67. It is of concern too that Justice Pauffley makes light of Mr Dearman’s history of violence and physical abuse against the mother, Ms Draper and she implies that the relationship ended only because : ‘Their relationship had disintegrated by 2006 when the father went to live in an adjacent street.’ Justice Pauffley then adds,  “There were occasional referrals to the police when domestic violence was alleged. Ms Draper initiated private law proceedings in 2008. p24

‘A non molestation order was made against the father in 2010. There was some involvement on the part of the London Borough of Camden; in December 2008 a core assessment was prepared. Between May 2010 and October 2013, therapeutic sessions occurred intermittently at the Tavistock Clinic. There was a period, notably between November 2011 and November 2012, when the children did not have contact with their father.” p26

68. Here again, we witness very important evidence being casually brushed aside; evidence which tells us that Mr Dearman, an alleged paedophile and baby killer was unable to make any contact with his children for a whole year, due to his need of therapy for domestic violence and all of this via ‘involvement on the part of the London Borough of Camden; in December 2008 [when] a core assessment was prepared. Between May 2010 and October 2013, therapeutic sessions occurred intermittently at the Tavistock Clinic.’

69. Are the assessments of Mr Dearman’s psychological health after  non molestation order was issued against him in 2010, not of any importance or significance to this case or the original allegations?

70. What appears more important to Judge Pauffley, is Mr Christie’s ‘background of criminality for drugs offences, violence and dishonesty. More recently, he received a police caution for assaulting his adolescent son.’ 

71. A Police Caution is NOT an INJUNCTION ORDER: In spite of the as yet, unsubstantiated claims regarding Mr Christie’s drug offences, violence & dishonesty (which we cannot as yet,  accept with any legal weight of probability given these are not supported by criminal prosecutions or convictions and given that Mr Christie’s criminal record appears to amount to one Police Caution in terms of evidence so far presented), questions regarding his mental health and the risk his aggressive behaviour poses, are not anywhere near as relevant and important as a ‘determining factor’ in this case, when compared with the weightier and very much more substantiated legal concerns in relation to the violence and aggression and the adjoining professionally diagnosed, mental health problems exhibited by Mr Dearman.

XXI. Seeking the Abuser(s): the Father or Mr Christie?

72. In conclusion, we consider: ‘The father’s response:

Mr Dearman was taken in evidence to the entire series of sexual and other allegations made against him. He denied there was truth in anything suggested. He does accept that the breakdown of his relationship with the mother both at the time and subsequently was acrimonious. But, said Mr Dearman, “There are two sides to the story. I’m not perfect. I’m a decent guy and a good father.” Of the mother, he said this – “When Ella is not doing crazy stuff she is a really beautiful person.” p63

73. The above statement given by Mr Dearman in relation to this case, in light of the allegations against himself, in light of the sexual, physical and emotional abuse of his children which he claims is via mother and Mr Christie, in light of the negative publicity and the fear in which he now lives, in light of the continued trauma suffered by his children, all he has to say to the High Court is “There are two sides to the story. I’m not perfect. I’m a decent guy and a good father.” – “When Ella is not doing crazy stuff she is a really beautiful person.” 

74. According to the seriousness of the allegations and the resulting public concern, Mr Dearman’s response appears unnaturally tame and devoid of emotion and yet, we know according to Police Records and Injunction Orders and Authority involvement toward insisting Mr Dearman receive therapy for his mental health problems, that Mr Dearman is capable of violence against his partner and indeed, the children are recorded as stating to police and an independent witness, that their father would either force or ask them to fight and hurt one another. 

XXII. Professional Negligence in Analysing Evidence and Determining Facts

75. All of the facts presented herein we feel are reflective of serious failings in British Child Protection and Infringement of EU Legal Directives, at every stage and level of this case from the moment it was reported to police, to the conclusion of the recent High Court Ruling.  We have outlined serious discrepancies and professional negligence both in analysing evidence and determining facts for premise of judgement and possible other options in this case.

76. It is in light of the evidence here presented, a remaining FACT that two children we know of and perhaps many more, remain at risk.

XXIII. The Gutter of Press ‘Wolves’

77. In presenting her hereby proven, negligent and unlawful judgement, Justice Pauffley has mercilessly thrown Ms Draper, her counsel and Mr Christie to the gutter of-press ‘wolves’ as condemned and convicted child abusers. It is therefore, of utmost importance that this judgement be swiftly annulled and all presently condemned parties be freed from threat of arrest and permitted to present in person, their case for Appeal.


XXIV. Returning the Children to the Grandparents

78. Further to all of the above, it is of vital importance that P & Q be transferred into the care of their Grandparents with whom it is hoped, the children may at long last find some comfort and feel safe in the arms of the only two people both Public and compassionate authorities can be sure are in no way implicated in abusing the children and who are familiar to the children as beloved Grandparents. It is a further emotional cruelty to deny the children their right and need for this familiar love considering their past and present circumstance.

79. UK Law operates on previous Court judgements which are then, set as a precedent for future judgements unless, evidence arrives to alter those judgements according to certain facts. Read below – presented as a ‘famous’ example in Human Rights to a Fair Trial. The issue here is ‘restrictive order’ and ‘fair trial’:

XXV. Conclusion: Absence of ‘Fair Trial’ due to ‘Closed Materials’ and ‘General Assertions’

The control order regime enacted by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (and still in force at the time of publication) imposes severe restrictions, including house arrest, on anyone suspected of being involved in terrorism-related activity.  Under the policy, the Secretary of State makes a decision as to whether a control order should be made and the courts then consider the decision made.  In many cases, control orders have been made on the basis of closed material – where the person subject to the control order has never been given the chance to see the case against them.

 The House of Lords held in June 2009 that this breached the right to a fair trial under Article 6.  The Law Lords held that a person subject to such a restrictive order had to be given sufficient information to know the essence of the case against him or her. It was held that there could never be a fair trial if the case against a person was based solely or to a decisive degree on closed materials and where any open material consists only of general assertions.  The Court held that in conducting control order hearings judges must consider whether material needs to be disclosed to ensure the fairness of the trial.’

It was held that there could never be a fair trial if the case against a person was based solely or to a decisive degree on closed materials and where any open material consists only of general assertions.’


80. It is our contention and final conclusion that Justice Pauffley’s recent High Court judgement against said mother in relation to her children’s allegations of serious sexual abuse against themselves and 20 other “special” children via multiple professionals including teachers, Cafcass officers, social workers and professional-status parents who also are accused of making child pornography, child trafficking and murder of babies, was delivered in ignorance of both UK & EU Law and especially, considering that the evidence supporting the mother and children was the ONLY evidence that did NOT depend on ‘closed materials’ and ‘general assertions’.


Icon for the Public Domain license

This work (The European Dimension of Forced Adoptions by Sabine K McNeill) is free of known copyright restrictions.

Share This Book