Blog Posts - Page 2 of 7

Madeleine McCann Case – UPDATE – Application seeking permission to commence a Judicial Review.

Madeleine McCann Case – UPDATE – Application seeking permission to commence a Judicial Review.

When Madeleine McCann disappeared, on 3rd May 2007, unprecedented worldwide publicity followed. Donations to aid finding her, flooded in from across the globe. Donations were made by members of the public and celebrities.

Twelve days after Madeleine had been reported missing, her parents opened a limited company
Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited. It has a UK company number: 06248215

Donations accumulated in this company.

In May 2011 when David Cameron was the UK Prime Minister, ‘Operation Grange’ was set up by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) London, at the request of the Home Secretary.

Every 12 months since, as regular as clock work, the Metropolitan Police have applied to the UK Home Office for further funding of their investigation in to the disappearance of Madeleine. The last time they applied was February 2024.

On every single occasion, the Home Office have granted more and more public funding, to the Metropolitan Police. Always giving them (to my knowledge) the full requested amount. To date the funding stands at over 13 Million pounds.

On no occasion, have the Metropolitan Police, asked for any funding for ‘Operation Grange’ from Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited. The Met Police have confirmed that to us in writing. As of 31st March 2024 the free publicly accessible online accounts confirm, there is in excess of one million pounds just sitting in the bank account, controlled at least in part by Madeleine’s parents.

As a UK tax payer it is difficult to understand why people are unwittingly giving a second time, to the same cause, when the original donations are just allowed to sit in a bank account.

In May of 2025 I thought it was reasonable therefore, to ask the High Court, Strand, London to consider if the latest round of funding, agreed to be granted to the Metropolitan Police from the UK Home Office in 2025, was ‘irrational.’

Since filling the documents of my application, in person at the High Court, on 19 May 2025, I have been waiting to have the matter considered by a Judge. My application was simply asking, if a Judge would grant me permission to commence a Judicial Review hearing. A decision made with out a hearing, just on paper. A permission only legal decision to proceed or not.

Nobody could possibly have for seen, when Madeleine was reported missing all those years ago, 3rd May 2007, the public would be funding her search now in 2025.

There appears to be no end, to this endless funding for one child, and no question ever been asked, by any Judge as to what the 13 million pounds to date, has been spent on. So I guess the public will still be funding, ‘Operation Grange’ in ten or even fifteen years time, or may be twenty years.

I am sure you can understand by now from my tone, a Judge has refused my application seeking a Judicial Review.

Mr Justice Swift on the 06 January 2026 made the following order.

“The application is certified as totally without merit.’

Mr Justice Swift also stated, ‘as the application was considered to be totally without merit, you may not request that the decision to refuse permission be reconsidered at a hearing before the Administrative Court [see Civil Procedure Rule 54.12 (7)].

He then gave me fourteen days to pay court costs. They are payable to the Home Office!

What other missing child, has ever had thirteen million pounds spent on their case? I cannot think of one such case, only Madeleine McCanns case.

Ben Needham. Help I am confused.

I am reading today 8th December 2025, an article in the Mirror newspaper from Ben’s Mother Kerry.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/missing-toddler-ben-needhams-mum-36345828

Kerry states when uncle Stephen left the farmhouse at 2.30pm Ben was still playing outside. After a couple of minutes, it was realised Ben had gone quiet. Stephen had been seen by a witness riding off alone from the Farmhouse on his motor bike. On checking Kerry’s mum discovered Ben was nowhere to be found.

Kerry further states, ‘the digger arrived sometime around 4.30 to 5pm’ Dino the driver, asked where he should create the drive way.

Therefore the question must now be raised, where was Ben from minutes after 2.30pm, until the digger arrived at 4.30 to 5pm?

The substantial search conducted around the farmhouse, by South Yorkshire Police in 2016, discovered on the day Ben disappeared, there was an active heavy plant digger machine, being used very close to the farmhouse. SYP even released a map showing the area where the digger had been active.

At the end of their extensive week long search, SYP held a press conference at the Farmhouse. They stated it was their professional opinion, Ben had met with a fatal accident involving the digger, on the lunchtime he was last seen alive.

The second obvious question must be, South Yorkshire police must have been informed of these two important timings, during their excavation and search of the land, and a near by rubbish tip, known to have been used by Dino. So how could they attribute any blame to Dino, if Ben had been missing for two or two and a half hours, BEFORE Dino arrived with the digger?

Did SYP waste time and public money conducting their extensive search on Kos Island in 2016?

As a long term investigator of this case, weighing up all the the probabilities, my theory that Ben’s body was deliberately buried close to the Farm House, and has remained undiscovered there for the past thirty four years, is the best advancement this case has ever seen.

My story written up by the Sun newspaper in October 2025, was presumably not published, as Kerry was about to launch a website, and had now decided that she no longer agreed with the professional view concluded by SYP.

Kerry has previously stated on ITV Loose Woman, when asked what she thought had happened to Ben, replied she believed what SYP believed. Now we get suddenly this information and timings about ‘the digger machine’ coming out for the first time. A digger machine which apparently appeared two and a half hours AFTER Ben was last seen.

Ian Crosby.

Jack’s case. Will £100,000 help?

Whilst it is incredibly generous, by the anonymous person, now offering £100,000 to help in Jack’s case, there is no sum of money, which will make any individual come forward. Eighteen months ago it was £20,000 now is has increased five fold. Financial help like this can help in some cases, but in Jack’s case, sadly it will not help.

13.2 million pounds to-date of British tax payers money, has done absolutely nothing, to find Madeleine McCann.

There are several KEY things which need to be done, even at this late stage, in order to advance this search. Funding of these things would be helpful, in expediting this stagnant case.

One of the key things is to locate Jack’s mobile phone.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04qpd7y9k0o

STOCKWELL SIX Court of Appeal – 17 July 2025

Very pleased to see a change in performance at the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Their review of the case of Errol Campbell, considered today at the High Court, was significant in obtaining Justice for this deceased convicted man, after fifty years! Yes fifty years!

https://news.sky.com/story/errol-campbell-man-jailed-after-investigation-by-corrupt-police-officer-has-name-posthumously-cleared-13397877

Congratulations Dame Vera Baird

7 July 2025.

Dear Dame Vera Baird,

7th July 2025

Dear Dame Vera Baird,

I congratulate you on your recent, appointment, as interim chairwoman of the CCRC.

I am not sure what your directive is, but my own personal experience of dealing with the CCRC, over many years, may afford you some opportunity of understanding, why I believe the CCRC has failed many, in its very purpose of existence. As you and the general public are fully aware, through high profile media coverage, the CCRC continue to endure public criticisms, when cases are successful at the court of appeal, despite previously being turned down by the CCRC as ‘without merit,’ usually years earlier.

In my experience, there are specific, common problems, which significantly cause, the failure of CCRC cases, to expedite and correctly be reviewed, with diligence. Where the appellant is convinced the CCRC decision is wrong, especially if they have researched the law themselves, this will inevitably cause, them to re apply to the CCRC. Clogging up the system of reviews even further.

All the CCRC then do, is to put an order in place, which states you will not look at any further applications, unless submitted by a solicitor. They would of course be expected to have considered if there is any ‘merit’ in the application. But without a solicitor, the appellant may still be determined that years later they are still pursuing their right of appeal in one way or another.

Three specific problems associated with CCRC case reviews.

1. Targets and Time limits set on determining and completing cases.

2. Insufficient legally qualified professionals, who can accurately and without pressure, consider cases diligently.

3. An inability of appellants to afford, or obtain legal advice (legal aid) before applying to the CCRC for a case review. This basic inability of a convicted person, to obtain legal opinion on any case of ‘merit’ is frustrating for the applicant.

The Court of Appeal has previously ruled, that any material, which can assist the defence case, and which lessens the prosecution case, must be disclosed. In my case, the CCRC decided that the Court of Appeal ruling didn’t apply. That decision by the CCRC is extraordinary. To me that application (not this current re application) was obviously never considered properly.

I understand Criminal defence law states, very clearly, where not guilty pleas are anticipated or have been entered in a court of Law, secondary disclosure must be made by the prosecution.
I hope you may find some of this helpful.

Sincerely

Ian Crosby.

Criminal Cases Review Commission – Another resignation

So Karen Kneller, who has been the CEO of the CCRC for the past twelve years, has also resigned. In January this year Helen Pitcher also resigned from her senior role in the CCRC.

Three days ago, my Member of Parliament, after chasing Karen Kneller THREE times, finally had a response from her, concerning my case. A case which the CCRC are suppose to be reconsidering, under what they have stated ‘a substantive review.’

The CCRC keep repeating they have todate, looked at my case five time. For them to have stated, I have no grounds to seek referral of my conviction to the court of appeal, on the basis that the vale of glamorgan council, failed to disclose to my solicitor, secondary material, demonstrated the decision of the CCRC, was not in line with a previous ruling made by the Court of Appeal. It would appear therefore their decision making is not inline with that of the Judiciary.

A New Dawn a New Search but will it reveal any clue?

The search which commenced this morning in Atalaia near Praia de Luz, Portugal is based around the German suspect Christian B. Is this all a matter of convenience, as he is due to be released from custody in September 2025, or do the German prosecutors actually have any hard detail which has not been disclosed to the World?

My feeling has always been, Madeleine will be found within four or five miles of the Apartment number 5a – where she was last seen.

I do not believe this latest ground search in land in Portugal, is going to reveal anything of any significance.

https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-latest-new-search-for-british-girl-who-went-missing-in-2007-to-get-under-way-in-portugal-13378427

Enderby Murders case

DNA profiling was invented by a British Scientist. In a case known as the Enderby Murders, in 1986 DNA profiling helped exonerate an ‘innocent’ suspect.

It did not help Peter Sullivan’s case, that apparently he eventually signed a confession. How ever I suspect that was made under ‘duress.’

Peter Sullivan was convicted in 1986 but went on to proclaim his innocence.

In 2016 the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) declined to refer his case to the Court of Appeal.

Questions must surely be asked, why has it taken thirty eight years, to establish Peter Sullivans DNA is NOT on the murder weapon? Didn’t the CCRC think in 2016 to establish this fact, that was nine years ago.

Court of Appeal Release a Man after 38 years in Jail!

Tuesday 13 May 2025.
Peter Sullivan has spent thirty eight years in prison, for a crime which the Law now accepts he never committed.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission, (CCRC) correctly discovered Peter’s DNA is not on the murder weapon. But WHY has it taken 38 years to discover this very simple basic FACT in this case?

httpss://news.sky.com/story/peter-sullivan-who-has-spent-38-years-in-jail-for-murder-has-conviction-quashed-13363928

POLICE and SOCIAL MEDIA

POLICE and SOCIAL MEDIA

I have been advised by Catherine, (Jack’s Mother) recent and highly distressing activity on social media, have caused the Family to involve the police. This does not involve the Facebook group page, I established, ‘So where is Jack O’Sullivan now?”

Out of respect for Jack and his family, who are trying to deal with this extremely challenging ongoing situation, I have of course agreed to the family’s request, not to post anything, at the present time, which is not already in the public domain.

The announcement on the group page, concerning Jack going on his app for an Uber, and my disclosure concerning his mobile, disconnecting from the iCloud, before leaving the party at Hotwells Road, were posted before, I was aware of the added distress the family are currently being subjected to.

The family have previously acknowledged, delays they have already experienced, may have caused this investigation, to have progress at a slower rate than they had reasonably expected.

In cases like this, there is no purpose served, in simply setting up social media pages and groups, which simply churn out the same information. That information may become subject to partial or totally inaccuracy with the passing of time. Judges frequently refer to this as ‘Chinese whispers’ Lady Lucan use to say to me ‘Red herrings.’ All this detracts from what should be the focus, and sadly hinders case progression.

The purpose therefore in setting up the Facebook group, was and continues to be, for the purpose of advancing the search for answers in Jack’s case.

‹ 1 2 3 4 ›»