Page 1701 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

Such fabricated medical intelligence was prepared by a Dr Rosemary Mill a St4 doctor in
response for Dr Julia Cranitch, who states she has personal knowledge of Mr S. Cordell,
nd
Since the 22 of august which is understood to be the start of her Job title for St Ann’s
hospital, contained in a prepared doctors statement that was requested to be served in a paper
format as legal required for a tribunal.
th
on the 25 08 2016 a prepared copy of the doctors notes made from all nurses assessment
notes and their own personal involvement with myself, should have been served towards
myself so to be able to prepare a fair deface for tribunal this should have been achieved by
mid-day and was not. When staff was asked it was said my acting solicitor will be able to
show myself a copy even low a consent form had been completed and submitted into St
Ann’s hospital.
I Mr Simon Cordell feel that was I not served in accordance of the legalisation framework
that represents the mental health act 1983, neither assessed at the correct opportunity
falsifying my illegal detainee.
I Mr S. Cordell was in fact shown a copy of the doctor’s reports 20 minutes before the
tribunal started by my acting solicitor due to a break down in communications and never had
the opportunity to analyse any official documentation to in fact be able to stand a true legal
defence.
As a matter of fact the tribunal did go in my favour and I feel a fair and equal decision was
made by the boards official panel this decision was of the conclusion as quoted The section 2
Mental Health act 1983 was removed of my statue of liberty and I agreed to the doctors
decision of staying in St Ann’s hospital as a formal patient,
As the tribunal is held in St Ann’s hospital there is less than a 5 minute walk from the
assessment wing to where I have been detained while being assessed and on arriving back to
the ward after the panel turned the decision in my favour I had the first opportunity to assess
the doctors notes used in the tribunal in regards to myself that had been pre drafted and not
severed to myself in accordance of the duration of the time limit that legal jurisdiction
apposes and felt the need to correct wrongful lintel and state the true claims such tribunals
should be based upon.
I have contained evidence that is overwhelming to the fact of the matters that I do quote
within this official document of complaint.
779,
This has led to my human rights 1998 being in breach such
as the listed: -
• Article 3: Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment what is the
prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, this is one of
the most important provisions in the Human Rights Act, and clearly states the following: -
• Article 3 is like the right to life article 2, the prohibition in Article 3 requires an official
and effective investigation to take place where there are credible allegations of serious ill-
treatment by public officials to which Mr Simon Cordell claim and provide the supported
evidence beyond reasonable doubt R V Bones, as provided within this official complaint.
The most obvious obligation that I claim my rights towards do in fact prevent State
officials from torturing a person or subjecting them to inhuman or degrading treatment.
This applies anywhere in the UK jurisdictions and this can include places outside the UK,
as well as in UK prisons, hospitals, schools etc.
Any person’s human rights may be affected within Article 3, whom is being contained
within a Government policy that does in fact put a person in a situation where they face
inhuman or degrading treatment to which I Mr Simon Cordell do feel I have been subject
towards.