The Case B Willicott v UK [17275/15 & 39415/16]
Bastian's case was first filed and accepted at the ECrtHR in April 2015, the case was accepted on the following grounds:
Violation Article 2
Violation Article 8
Violation Article 9
Violation Article 10
Violation Article 14
It took the ECrtHR just 3 weeks to register the case 17275/15 B Willicott v UK. Janet received the acknowledgement, in May of 2015. Furthermore, Janet then had the arduous task, of preparing the international legal bundle pertaining to all her son's human rights breaches and evidencing said breaches. These breaches were most notability down to lack of Suitable Education, lack of Suitable Educational Environment and Appropriate Social Care Provisions. To prepare for her initial case [17275/15] - Janet had sought help and support from Barristers to Solicitors to Experts to Organisations, Charities to every other sign posting she could follow but everyone said NO, every organisation and firm said the following: 1. No Chance, 2. Too Complex, 3. Ha Ha, is this a joke, 4. We don't have enough staff 5. We do not have enough insurance for these types of cases 6. We do not have resources 7. The case hearing will take too long and cost too much, and it is not worth it, by the time it is resolved your child will have finished education. 8. All disabled children are the same therefore they can all go to the same school.
By the time Janet had knocked on every door, she had 2 weeks left of her 6-month deal line to file. Either Janet was to let it go or prepare the case herself. Janet took the latter path.... It took Janet 22 hours a day over 14 days to research and prepare the grounds for 17275/15. The rest as one says is history. However, that was the easy part.
Upon the case 17275/15 being registered against the UK, Janet had to then prepare the Violations, and supply the entire chronology, evidences and with cross reference arguments. In addition to this, Janet had to produce a Report to lay down the reasons why she took to the ECHR.
It took Janet 18 months to research and prepare the required EU Report titled:
How an Oppugning Schooling Placement and Environment can Adversely Affect a Child’s Mental Health & Emotional Development across the SEND Spectrum.
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
It is more prudent to head off a disaster beforehand than
to deal with it after it occurs.”
– 'De Legibus' (c. 1240
"Meet the malady on its way." ~ Persius (A.D.c 58)
After slogging away at the above report, and spending 3 months preparing the 3000 page bundle, where she even got her loyal friends to help her paginate by hand her bundle pages, she sent off the bundle under the new ECrtHR Reference [39415/16].
Now, the ECrtHT is a unique Court, as it DOES NOT accept cases that have not been through the applicant’s full judicial system, in Janet's case the High Court and then ultimately the Supreme Court. However, as Janet was not allowed permission to appeal, and or seek other remedy to resolve her son's educational violations, either through the High Court and Supreme Court, she had effectively exhausted all judicial processes open to her.
Janet knew this of course, however the fact that the ECHR had even considered and accepted her case [17275/15] meant that there was merit and grounds for the breaches. What Janet, did not anticipate of course, was that the ECHR would hear the case.
Janet's son's case B Willicott v UK [39415/16] was heard in the ECHR, in the first chamber by a Single Sitting Judge. The Judge ruled the following two points:
1. We accept the grounds and confirm that BW's Human Rights were breached
2. Full Judicial Process must be sought via The Supreme Court first.
If, however BW still fails to be allowed a full due process the ECHR would look to renew its position by application to the Grand Chamber.
Janet, or rather Bastian was awarded his acknowledgement and validation that his human rights were indeed beached.
Janet, returned to her Local Government and offered them a second chance, using joint collaborative working, not just for Bastian, but for all Children and Young People. However, were the Government not to adhere to [39415/16], they High Court would then have to comply in challenging the Local Government. Moreover, The Local Government took a further two years to comply with Bastian's views, wishes and feelings, whereby they offered him an education in a suitable environment, in line with his needs, in a split dual placement, whilst ensuring that his Human Rights remain in adherence with ECHR and the case argued [39415/16].
The actual Judgement [39415/16] is not referenced on ECrtHt HUDOC Cite, as HUCOC Rules do not allow for Single Sitting Judgements to be filed. Therefore, the Bailii Case Reference is not listed. Moreover, the Judgment referenced as [39415/16] is being used in a LIVE Damages Litigation (Tort Law) Case (B & J Willicott v LBB) respectively.
M & M v West Sussex County Council (SEN)  UKUT 347 (AAC)
M & M were represented by SM (Legal Aid) for their Bundle Preparation for an EHCP in FTT (First Tier Tribunal) - They had no on day representation. They lost the FTT, and the subsequently lost their Appeal to the UTT, they then applied directly to the UTT (UT4) Janet Willicott who is a Legal, Educational and Public Health Professional & Advocate was instructed to support M & M (L) in the UTT. Janet Willicott used her EU Report for Cases:
[Theoretical and Empirical Reference Guide for all SEND Spectrum Children as used for Bastian Willicott in support of case references: [BWillicott vs UK 17275/15 – 39415/16] at the European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR) as underpinned by the United Nations.]
Janet's argument for M&M (L) were that Children's views, wishes, feelings and perceived emotional feelings were to be taken into account, and not just gleamed views. The UTT Ruled:
That it is desirable for the First-tier Tribunal to consider a child’s views, wishes and feelings must be close to a universally accepted truth. Therefore, the absence of an express statutory requirement to do so is surprising. This decision holds that, despite the absence of an express requirement, the tribunal is required to consider a child’s view’s, wishes and feelings. M & M v West Sussex County Council (SEN)  UKUT 347 (AAC) HS/2370/2017 2 It also discusses, but I am afraid does not resolve, the difficult question whether, in addressing a parental case that is aligned with a child’s views, wishes and feeling, a tribunal will inevitably discharge its obligation to take into account a child’s views, wishes and feelings.
Decision: The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (25 July 2017, First-tier Tribunal file reference EH/938/17/00001) involved the making of errors on a point of law. Under section 12(2) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the Upper Tribunal sets aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and remits to that tribunal for re-determination the appeal made by Mr & Mrs M against the contents of the EHC Plan prepared for the daughter, L, by West Sussex County Council. Directions in connection with that appeal’s re-determination are given at the end of the reasons for this decision. Under rule 14(1) of the Upper Tribunal (Tribunal Procedure) Rules 2008 it is ordered that no person may disclose or publish any matter likely to lead to a member of the public identifying L, the child whose EHC Plan was in issue in these proceedings. This order does not apply to: (a) any person to whom either of L’s parents, in the due exercise of their parental responsibility, discloses such a matter or who learns of it through publication by either parent, where such publication is a due exercise of parental responsibility; (b) any person exercising statutory (including judicial) functions in relation to L where knowledge of a matter is reasonably necessary for the proper exercise of the functions.
Copyright © 2020 Normal Like Me [Registered: 10176663] (2016) - All Rights Reserved.
Data Protected: [A8510012] - GDPR Compliance
Fully Insured: [Public Liability, Professional Indemnity & Directors] Policy number:  - Hiscox
ENHANCED FULL DBS