Make your own free website on Tripod.com

BABY SUNAINA UK DEATH INVESTIGATION

Application in the European Court of Human Rights for a second Inquest

Home | RPSGB vs two pharmacists | GMC vs 22 doctors | Pathologist 1 report 301200 | Toxicology report | Pathologist 2 report 310101 | Medical 1 report 010501 | Police Paediatrician 1 & 2 150804 | Pharmacist 1 240304 | High Court | Police report | Pharmacist 2 080608 | IPCC complaint | ECHR

The family of baby Sunaina are making application to the European Court of Human Rights for the body of baby Sunaina, expatriated to Delhi, India, to prevent destruction by UK authorities, to be returned to the UK for a new Inquest in the UK death over 8 years ago.

ECHR

Baby Sunaina died on the sixth day in the care of London Borough of Redbridge social services and Police protection.  Yet her body was tampered with by unlawful organ removal.  The same local authority made application to destroy the body of baby Sunaina Chaudhari, six years later, to prevent the family carrying out independent investigations on the body.  The family were forced to expatriate the body to India where it remains to date, 2009 

 

European Convention on Human Rights application under Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14
 
A. The family allege that they have been unlawfully restrained by doctors and NHS Hospital Trusts in a breach of the  European Convention on Human Rights in the injunctions of July 2002, July 2003 and the Permanent Mandatory Restraining Order dated 06 April 2004 under Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14.
 
B. Family allege ineffective investigation by the Coroner on 11 September 2001, under Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and seek a remedy for a new Inquest on the grounds of fresh evidence dated 15 August 2004.
 
C. This is an urgent request to the European Court of Human Rights for a request for the third post-mortem to be conducted in India as soon as possible.  The body was expatriated on 19 March 2007 to Delhi, India after London Borough of Redbridge took legal action to destroy the body under the Diseases Act despite family allegations of ineffective investigation and after their requests for proper investigations were denied and refused.
 
D. Neelu Chaudhari hereby applies to declare this disciplinary action against her as a qualified pharmacist and witness, a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights as victimisation, discrimination, denial of justice, inhuman degrading treatment, breaching right to her family life, breaching right to life of baby Sunaina.
 
E. The family hereby apply that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, the General Medical Council, the Nursing & Midwifery Council, the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence and the Police failed in their public function for the protection of the public, putting the lives of the public at risk and subjecting baby Sunaina and her family to discrimination, denial or justice, inhuman degrading treatment, breaching right to her family life, breaching right to life of baby Sunaina.  The police failed to protect Sunaina despite family raising concerns that her life was at risk.  Sunaina died in hospital on the sixth day of being put into the care of Social Services and on the sixth day under Police protection.
 
CHRONOLOGY
 
During an antenatal scan at 21 weeks pregnancy, Sadhana Chaudhari, was advised termination, on the grounds that the foetus may not survive the pregnancy, or the birth or an operation to correct a left Diaphragmatic Hernia, whereby her stomach had slipped through the diaphragm and was growing in the chest area next to the left lung, see E000 birth.jpg. 
 
Sunaina was born on 25 May 2000, full term, by normal delivery, at King George Hospital, Ilford, Essex, and was put on a ventilator.  Doctors did not make arrangements for the operation on the grounds that she would die soon after birth or on grounds that she would not survive the operation.  An assessment by cardiologist at one day age found the heart was strong enough to withstand surgery, E000 cardiology.jpg
 
She underwent a successful repair of the hernia at 1 week age at Great Ormond Street Hospital for sick children, London, whereby the stomach was pulled back into the abdomen.  She came off the ventilator and was transferred back to King George Hospital after at two weeks old. 
A decision was made on 09 June 2000 that it was not in Sunaina’s interests to undergo further surgery or resuscitation see E000 DNR on 090600.jpg
 
On 30 June 2000, another decision was made that it was not in Sunaina’s interests to undergo further surgery or resuscitation. See E000 DNR on 300600a.jpg,  E000 DNR on 300600ba.jpg,  E000 DNR on 300600c.jpg
 
The family believe that doctors prime considerations for advising termination were to save costs of the intensive care, surgery and hospitalisation.
 
Both the left lung and stomach were premature due to the stomach having grown in the chest during pregnancy.  Sunaina was therefore given continuous feeding and low flow oxygen whilst she recovered. 
 
Sunaina was said by doctors to have made a remarkable recovery and was discharged home at 2 months of age on 31 July 2000, see E000 discharge.jpg .
 
Sunaina’s mother was trained to monitor her oxygen levels and adjust the oxygen supply according to her baby’s needs.  Sunaina’s oxygen requirements were much reduced, varying between 0.25L/min to 1.25L/min.
 
During an out-patient clinic appointment on 07 September 2000, see E001, the consultant stated she was “doing very well” since her discharge home, was following and fixing, cooing etc. and apart from an eye infection, the rest of her examination was “normal”.  He asked to see her again after 4 months.  Ranitidine, previously prescribed as 3mg three times daily, was not amongst the prescribed medication in the letter dated 16 September 2000, sent to the family General Practitioner Dr Suri, see E001.
 
On 26 September 2000,  Dr Suri, prescribed for 4 month old baby Sunaina, an overdose of ranitidine, 150mg to be given twice daily, an adult dose.  Ranitidine is licensed for reducing acid in children above the age of 2 years.  It is not licensed in children under two years of age and not recommended for long term use. 
 
The pharmacist on duty at Tesco pharmacy, Barkingside, dispensed the overdose at 8.29hrs, the same day.  Over the next four days, baby Sunaina’s oxygen requirements increased from 0.125L/min to over 2L/min, the maximum limit for the home oxygen equipment. 
 
She was admitted to King George Hospital on 01 October 2000 with difficulty in breathing.  Her blood oxygen level was 51%, see E002.
 
The hospital doctors failed to take sufficient medication history to detect the overdose or to monitor levels of ranitidine on admission.  Instead, hospital doctors wrongly prescribed further overdoses of ranitidine in hospital, 30mg three times daily for a further four days.  The manufacturers do not take responsibility when it is prescribed for children under 2 years old.  In those cases, the responsibility falls on the prescribing doctor in case of overdose.  Doctors are therefore advised vigilance in unlicensed use.
 
On 04 October 2000, the Guys Poisons Unit was misinformed by Dr Gavel that baby Sunaina had received only one single ten times overdose of ranitidine some 9 hours earlier, in error, and that she was well.  The Poisons Unit advised the hospital to monitor the child’s heart and breathing.  In fact she had received a total of several hundred times overdoses over an eight day period which had accumulated in her body. And she was highly reliant on CPAP oxygen as a result.
 
Despite the advice, the child was not transferred to an acute hospital with proper monitoring facilities for heart and breathing.  She was left in a cubicle on an ordinary ward, with a low level of nursing care.  Sadhana was living in the cubicle and providing acute nursing care 24 hours a day.  Ranitidine was not stopped to allow the overdose to leave Sunaina’s body.  Blood levels of ranitidine were not taken or monitored. There was no proper equipment for proper monitoring or CPAP oxygen (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, oxygen under pressure).  The family allege that the failure of the hospital to transfer baby to an acute hospital was suspicious.
 
Sadhana raised the alarm with nurses on several occasions that baby needed CPAP but was told that only a doctor could authorise it and that there was no doctor available.
 
By 05.41hrs on 05 October 2000, the child’s blood oxygen level fell to 57.5%, and by 06.25hrs it fell further to 37.4% (normal 99-100%).   An x-ray showed baby to have a “large heart” E003.
 
The next morning, baby was found to be blue.  A formal complaint was filed with the Chief Executive about the care being provided stating that if Sadhana had not been with her baby to raise the alarm her baby would have died. 
 
The family asked for a transfer to another hospital but this request was frustrated.  Baby was continued with ranitidine for another three weeks without monitoring levels and without a break to allow the ranitidine overdose to leave the body.  Sunaina continued to rely on CPAP oxygen for most of the admission.
 
On 20 October 2000, a meeting was held by two hospital consultants, a hospital doctor and the hospital ward manager.  A note was put in Sunaina’s medical file, E004
 
“Discussion with intensivists at GOS (Great Ormond Street)
Outcome plan
-Obtain restriction order to exclude mother, father & aunt from the ward. Restrict access to 4 hours per day supervised by nursing staff
-Meeting with parents, Chief Executive, Carmel, Legal Team
-Contact Social Worker Maria Murphy to initiate court proceedings asap
-Inform medical & nursing staff on ward over weekend
-Arrange press release from press officer
-2 consultants for GOS to attend Monday 23/10/00 to give an opinion on Sunaina’s condition
-Aim for Judicial review re plans for DNR
 
The hospital doctors abused the process of law to involve London Borough of Redbridge social workers, who had n o previous dealings with the baby or the family, to put Sunaina into the care of the state, whilst she was restrained and detained in hospital against her parents wishes, to obtain an emergency protection order whilst the baby was in danger from the doctors, to exclude the family from hospital and to prevent the baby from leaving the hospital or being with her family at home.  This was inhuman and degrading treatment as well as torture of the baby and family. 
 
An entry was made in the medical notes at 15.00hrs on 20 October 2000,
“Following a meeting with the consultants at GOS, it was agreed that over the weekend the CPAP should be weaned off and they will come and assess the baby on Monday.”
 
The decision at 15.00hrs on 20 October 2000 for the CPAP to be weaned off  after a decision was made for “Do Not Resuscitate” confirms that the Emergency Protection Order was taken out by the doctors for the doctors to assume the power of the High Court to implement the “allow to die” decision in the parents absence and against their wishes.
 
At 18.00hrs, on 20 October 2000, Sunaina’s aunt, Neelu Chaudhari, a pharmacist, asked the Consultant, “Are you trying to kill this baby?”.  The Consultant did not answer, smiled, lowered his head and left the cubicle. 
 
At 18.49, unknown to the family, a fax was obtained by King George Hospital from five intensivists of Great Ormond Street Hospital recommending palliative care, withholding and withdrawing treatment and “Do Not Resuscitate” against the wishes of the parents.  The letter recommended that it was in Sunaina’s best interests be allowed to die and doctors seek Judicial review but this advice was not followed. 
 
Doctors and social workers obtained an Emergency Protection Order against the parents and aunt, preventing them from being with Sunaina in hospital, preventing them visiting Sunaina in hospital, preventing Sunaina leaving hospital, preventing Sunaina going home.  The EPO was used unlawfully to deny visits by all other family members who were not named on the EPO, to see Sunaina in hospital in the last six days of her life, including Sunaina’s three cousins, two grandparents and another aunt.
 
An entry in Sunaina’s medical file at 24.55hrs on 21/10/00
“Discussion with Teresa Walsh Jones, Head of Social Work Child Protection Team.  Emergency child protection order to be served, agreed restricted visiting time to be between hours of 10-12.00 hours and 18.00 to 20.00 hours
 
In the event of Sunaina’s condition deteriorating at any time Paul McCarthy, principle officer for social work services to be contacted”
 
Ranitidine was continued without monitoring levels for overdose until 24 October 2000. 
 
A fax dated 20 October 2000 from five intensivists from Great Ormond Street Hospital, recommending that it was in Sunaina’s best interests to be allowed to die in the parent’s absence and against their wishes recommended an application to the High Court for judicial review. But no application was made to the High Court.  Instead, an application was made in the Family Proceedings court to put Sunaina in the care of Social Services, under Police protection whilst she continued to be administered ranitidine drug overdoses and deprived of oxygen.  Family members were to be arrested if they tried to visit Sunaina in hospital:-
 
An entry on 01.15hrs on 21/10/00 confirms that Sadhana was removed from her baby’s cubicle by Police officers, Child protection officer and social worker early on a Saturday:-
 
“Emergency Protection Order served on Mrs Chaudhari in the presence of two Police Officers by Teresa Walsh Jones and Maria Murphy.  Mrs Chaudhari spoken to at length by Teresa Walsh Jones.  Attempts by Social Services to get transport for Mrs Chaudhari to go home from family members was unsuccessful.
Mrs Chaudhari’s property packed by staff and given to Teresa.
Action Plan
1)     Hourly record of observations of Sunaina whilst on CPAP
2)     Any deterioration in Sunaina’s condition
Paul McCarthy must be contacted on previous number.
If any relatives or visitors attend the hospital premises, once asked to leave, should they refuse, Police must be called.
 
On 21 October 2000, Neelu Chaudhari reported to Police that doctors had taken out the ex-parte protection order to deny family visits to hospital and to isolate Sunaina in hospital to kill her.
 
English law under the Children’s Act at the time prevented the family from appealing to the Emergency Protection Order until after a period of several days.
 
On 24 October 2000, parents met with social workers and warned them that the ex-parte emergency protection order had been taken out to deny family protection to enable the doctors to isolate Sunaina in hospital to kill her.
 
On 25 October 2000, a Care Plan was drawn by a hospital consultant recommending that baby was to go home on low flow oxygen and she was to be reviewed in clinic in 4 weeks time. E009
 
On 26 October 2000, the family was in court to overturn the protection Order.   At 11.05hrs they were informed in court by a consultant “baby died this morning”.
 
Family immediately reported to Police that baby had been murdered by hospital doctors. 
 
The family found massive evidence of an unnatural death when they tried to resuscitate Sunaina in the cubicle.  Baby was found with seven needle marks, including one in the neck, which was omitted from both post-mortems.  Baby was found with a large volume of milk in her lungs, mouth and nose, which gurgled out after mouth to mouth resuscitation.  There was a large wound on baby’s right arm. 
 
It was suspicious that the consultant at court was seen making several calls to Dr Solebo at the hospital, instructing him to abandon his duties on another ward, to enter Sunaina’s cubicle to puncture her repeatedly with needles.  Dr Solebo stated that he received calls from the counsultant in court.  He stated that Sunaina died suddenly from a cardiac arrest whilst he was puncturing her with needles.  This is contrary to the natural death finding of the Inquest.
 
On 25 and 26 October 2000, within minutes and hours of her sudden death, baby Sunaina was suspiciously administered potassium chloride on four occasions without monitoring potassium levels and without reviewing the indication.  Potassium is given as last lethal injection in death row.  Its use was suspicious since the doctors had implemented withdrawal and withholding of oxygen and water.
 
Despite the family’s objections to the Coroner against Great Ormond Street hospital conducting the post-mortem, she instructed its pathologist to conduct the post-mortem on 30 October 2000 at Great Ormond Street Hospital.  The pathologist had earlier refused to do the post-mortem stating “What do you expect with Edwards?”  His post-mortem omitted chromosome analysis and vitreous test for ranitidine and potassium levels at the time of death.  He failed to consider the drug overdoses stating that he did not have the complete medical file.
 
On 27 December 2000, family submitted details of the drug overdoses in a draft chronology.  On 27 December 2000, Police paediatrician Professor Weindling stated that the standard of care given to baby Sunaina was of an exceptionally high standard. 
 
The Police undertook to conduct a second post-mortem and promised the family it would include chromosome analysis, vitreous test for ranitidine and potassium levels, photographs and video recording and blood samples, but later stated after the second post-mortem on 31 January 2001 that the second pathologist did not feel they were necessary.  The family suspect that the body was not even opened.  The second pathologist later stated that he was not given the complete medical file for the last 9 days of Sunaina’s life.  The lack of the complete file did not explain why the pathologists did not consider the ranitidine drug overdoses given to baby Sunaina since 26 September 2000 since this fact had been established by 04 October 2000.
 
During April and May 2001, the family sought the medical opinion of two medical doctors of the nhsexpose.com, Dr Rita Pal and Dr Rani Pal.  They researched the medical files and responded in several emails, see E010.
 
On 23 July 2001, the family made allegations against several doctors to the General Medical Council but no doctor has been subjected to disciplinary action.
 
The Coroner stated in a letter  that the body was stored at King George Hospital.  She later wrote stating that she had been misinformed, and that it was kept at her secure mortuary.  The family later discovered from Great Ormond Street Hospital, that it had been kept at King George Hospital
 
The Police failed to investigate the family’s criminal allegations against doctors independent of the Coroner’s Inquest on 11 September 2001.  Professor Weindling gave oral evidence at the Inquest stating that the care provided to Sunaina was of a high standard.
 
The Coroner refused to allow pharmacist aunt of baby Sunaina to come as witness at the Inquest. 
 
The Coroner refused the family legal representation. 
 
The Coroner failed to investigate the evidence of unlawful organ removal including eyeballs tongue and brain, in particular the evidence of two pathologists which suggested that the organs were removed prior to the first post-mortem. 
 
The jury was misinformed that there was no way of determining potassium levels after death.  The eye jelly can show the levels of drugs in the body, including potassium, at the time of death for upto 20 years, (pathologist Professor Michael Baden, USA)
The Coroner ordered the post-mortem to be conducted on frozen tissue, confirming that she was aware that the body had been tampered with by the removal of organs prior to the post-mortem.  Both pathologists concealed the unlawful removal of organs.
 
There is a known established culture of unlawful removal of organs from patients who are alive and dead for the purposes of research and for sale to the pharmaceutical industry in the UK.  This scandal was in the national media on 30 January 2001.  The Great Ormond Street Hospital was found to be fifth worst in the UK for unlawful removal and retention of human organs.  In Sunaina’s case, the removal of organs prevented the criminal allegations against doctors to be investigated and the cause of death to be determined, see E011a.jpg,  E011b.jpg,  E011c.jpg, E011d.jpg, E011e.jpg, E011f.jpg, E011g.jpg
 
The family also allege that the Coroner failed to ensure that the pathologists carried out chromosome analysis with photographs and karyotyping which would rule out  Trisomy 18.  The family allege that vitreous test on the eye jelly for ranitidine and potassium chloride levels was not done because the eyeballs were not there.  The Coroner and Police dodged the evidence of unlawful organ removal, including missing eyeballs, see E011
 
The family was unsuccessful in a High Court application on 10 September 2001 for a change of Coroner.   The Coroner gave a judicial undertaking in the High Court to let the jury be a judge of fact but at the Inquest on 11 September 2001, forbade the jury to find a verdict of an unlawful killing.  The evidence of drug overdoses, repeated needle puncturing, milk in lungs, wound on arm, isolation, Emergency Protection Order was not investigated thoroughly or rigorously.   The Coroner then substituted her own verdict, “Multiple Congenital Abnormalities including Edwards Syndrome” for that of the jury “Little Baby girl with Edwards Syndrome before birth”.
 
By July 2002, the family collected 12,000 signatures from members of the public calling for a new investigation into the death. 
In August 2002, the Barking Havering & Redbridge NHS Trust of the King George Hospital sought an injunction under Protection from Harassment law to prevent family demonstrations but this was refused in the Romford County Court.
 
On 11 December 2002, the family complained to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain against the Tesco pharmacist and the King George Hospital pharmacist, responsible for the ranitidine overdoses over a 4 week period, see E012.
 
In October 2002, the five intensivists who issued the fax dated 20 October 2000 and the pathologist of the Great Ormond Street Hospital for children NHS Trust obtained an ex-parte injunction in the High Court to prevent family demonstrations and to shut down some websites with costs of several thousand pounds in compensation.   The family signed a Consent Order under the duress of court costs, E013. 
 
On 24 March 2004, Neelu Chaudhari, a pharmacist, aunt of baby Sunaina, compiled an Expert Report with evidence of ranitidine and potassium chloride drug overdoses and gave copies to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, the General Medical Council and the Police.  The Police sent a copy to Professor Weindling, E014. 
 
On 06 April 2004, the Consent Order was turned into a Permanent Mandatory Restraining Order by the High Court, E015
 
On 09 August 2004, a communication took place between the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, the General Medical Council and the Police, sharing concerns about the ranitidine overdoses.  The General Medical Council enquired about the “Fitness to Practice” history of Neelu Chaudhari, pharmacist, aunt of baby Sunaina.  A note was placed on the computer records held by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain on Neelu Chaudhari to the effect that the Fitness to Practice section were to be informed when Neelu Chaudhari resumed full membership after a period of illness, see E016
 
On 15 August 2004, after Professor Weindling was confronted with the report by Neelu Chaudhari, he reversed his opinion stating that “mistakes had been made by doctors, pharmacists and nurses”, but adding that these did not harm her see E017.
 
Neelu Chaudhari resumed full membership as a pharmacist in January 2006.
 
On 15 February 2007 the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain abandoned the complaint against the (White) Tesco pharmacist and the White King George Hospital Pharmacist on the grounds that they could not ascertain their identity.  However, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain commenced disciplinary proceedings against Neelu Chaudhari claiming that by the appearance of her name on the Emergency Protection Order, the injunctions by the two NHS Trusts, the Cost Order ,the Consent Order and the Permanent Mandatory Restraining Order, she had brought the profession into disrepute amounting to serious professional misconduct.
 
Also on 15 February 2007, the London Borough of Redbridge commenced legal proceedings to destroy the body of baby Sunaina in 28 days.  The family had been denied access to the body by the Coroner and were not aware of the location of the body for several years.  The family managed to locate the body in March 2007 and expatriated the body to India for a third post-mortem.  The Indian High Court and Supreme Court require a request from the UK court or authority confirming that the results of the post-mortem will form part of an ongoing investigation in the UKUK police and courts have refused to give this request.
 
On January 2008, Neelu Chaudhari again reported to UK Police that Sunaina had been murdered by doctors.  In their report dated 26 May 2008, the Police stated that they had insufficient evidence to conduct an investigation into the family’s allegations.  They refused to give a request to Indian authorities to conduct a third post-mortem on her body.
 
On May 2008, Sadhana commenced proceedings against the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain alleging that it failed to effectively investigate the pharmacists responsible for the drug overdoses and alleging discrimination and victimisation against her, her baby and her sister.  This was refused on paper and at an oral hearing.  A permission to appeal was refused at an oral hearing on 12 December 2008 on grounds of “no merit”.
 
On 18-22 August 2008, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain listed an oral hearing for the Inquiry against Neelu Chaudhari.    Neelu requested the copy of the investigation into the drug overdoses but this was refused by her professional body.   The Chairman sitting alone decided to hear her application for withdrawal of her inquiry at an oral hearing to be conducted in private.  She made an application in the High Court that it was contrary to the Statutory Instrument 1978/20 for the Chairman, sitting alone to determine whether an oral hearing could be heard in private, since that was for the committee to decide.  Despite this, the court awarded the sum of 2,500 in court costs to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain on 29 October 2008.  In actual fact, the committee later decided on 07 February 2009 that the Chairman would sit in private and make a decision on paper.  The costs of 2,500 are a breach of the Human Rights of the victim family.
 
On 29 August 2008, Neelu Chaudhari made an interim application for a new Inquest, to overturn the restraining order and for a stay of proceedings against her.  Only the application to overturn the restraining order was allowed and she was advised to apply to the Queens Bench division for a new Inquest.
 
On 08 September 2008, a complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Comission found that the Police had not failed in its investigation in any way.
 
Complaints were made to the Commission for Health Care Regulatory Excellence against the professional bodies, but they stated they could not assist.
 
The Minister of Asia, Lord Malloch Brown failed to assist, advising the family in September 2008 to seek remedy in the UK courts.
 
A permission to appeal for a new Inquest on grounds of fresh evidence was refused at an oral hearing on 09 December 2008 on grounds of “no merit”.
                                        
Article 1 . Obligation to respect human rights
The Human rights of the victim family have been breached by false allegations against the family, by British public officials and authorities, to prevent it from seeking truth and justice, and to punish it for doing so.  The obligation of British public officials and authorities to respect the Human Rights of the Asian family and the British public at large is absent.
 
Article 2 . Right to life
The Human Right of Asian baby Sunaina Chaudhari to her life has been breached.  Concealment of the tampering of the body by unlawful organ removal despite criminal allegations having been made to Police constitutes criminal cover-up by British public officials and public authorities in this case, including Coroner.
 
Article 3 . Prohibition of torture
Baby Sunaina was tortured by being isolated in hospital from her parents and family whilst she was given drug overdoses, denied oxygen and water, withdrawing and withholding treatment and given an unlawful “Do Not Resuscitate” instruction without a court order and against her parent’s wishes.  She was also put into the care of Social services whilst she was isolated in hospital.
 
Article 5 . Right to liberty and security
The Permanent Mandatory Restraining Order against the family and anyone else who is aware of it is a breach of Article 5 since it denies justice, access to justice and violates the family’s right to liberty and security
 
Article 6 . Right to a fair trial
The Permanent Mandatory Restraining Order against the family and anyone else who is aware of it is a breach of Article 6 since it denies justice, access to justice
 
Article 7 . No punishment without law
The Permanent Mandatory Restraining Order against the family and anyone else who is aware of it is a breach of Article 7 since it denies justice, access to justice.  The family is being persecuted for seeking justice and truth
 
Article 8 . Right to respect for private and family life
The actions of the British doctors, NHS Trust, Police, coroner, pathologists, specialists at Great Ormond Street Hospital, have violated the right to respect for private and family life of baby Sunaina and her family
 
Article 10 . Freedom of expression
The family’s right to to seek justice has been violated
 
Article 11 . Freedom of assembly and association
The family’s right to demonstrate has been violated
 
Article 13 . Right to an effective remedy
The family has been persecuted and punished for seeking an effective remedy
 
Article 14 . Prohibition of discrimination
The family has been victimised and discriminated against for seeking justice

 

Baby Sunaina died suddenly on 26 October 2000, aged 5 months, in a UK hospital, after UK paediatricians decided it was in "her best interests to die" against the parents wishes and without a High Court Order.  Pathologists found three needle marks on each hand, white food material in the airways and a wound in the arm, yet an Inquest concluded she died of natural causes.  The family expatriated the body to India after UK authorities hid the body for several years and threatened to destroy the body.  There is evidence that all internal organs including eyeballs were removed unlawfully to hide the cause of death.  Police appointed paediatrician took 4 years to admit doctors, pharmacists and nurses gave deliberate drug overdoses over a period of a month preceding death.  The family want the body brought back to the UK for a second Inquest after UK Police refused to make a request to India authorities to investigate.  A needle puncture in the neck has been omitted from all UK investigations.