Public Review & Support
A safe home. A fair hearing. Justice within reach.
Read the record, contribute a specific observation or add a message of support. Every submission goes privately to the founder for approval before publication.
No account or newsletter subscription is required.
Public authority. Public accountability.
Read the linked evidence and support the requests you want pursued. Each button supports the specific request printed above it.
SUP-COSTS
Paul Mitchell · Leslie Adrian Blohm
Judges identified in the published costs and appeal records
Do you support disclosure of the costs schedules, filing and service records, and reasons underlying Paul Mitchell’s assessment and Leslie Adrian Blohm’s disclosure refusal, so they can receive independent scrutiny?
Read the requests and refusal →Loading support clicks…
SUP-APPEAL
Circuit Judge · Western Circuit · Exeter Law Courts
Do you support independent appellate examination of Timothy Edmund Walsh’s judgment against the filed grounds, photographic evidence, hearing record and safety concerns identified in the published challenge?
Read the direct challenges →Loading support clicks…
SUP-ORIGINALS
Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell · Seldons LLP
Solicitor and partner · individual SRA 664668 · Bideford
Do you support production of the original correspondence and document-version history held by Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell and Seldons LLP, with an independent comparison against the material used in court?
Read the document questions →Loading support clicks…
SUP-POLICE
Bradley Ithildîn · Donna Gutteridge
Devon and Cornwall Police · PC 18754 and PS 18490 in the reviewed records
Do you support an impartial review of the incident logs, evidence checks and supervisory decisions involving Bradley Ithildîn and Donna Gutteridge, including how Miss E’s and Mr J’s accounts were sought and assessed?
Read the police evidence questions →Loading support clicks…
SUP-NOTICE
Community Safety & Public Health Lead Officer · Torridge District Council · role in the June 2026 correspondence
Do you support disclosure of the footage, individual-conduct assessment and recorded reasons behind the five-year notice authorised by Ian McIver, so its evidential basis and duration can be independently reviewed?
Read the Council’s recorded response →Loading support clicks…
SUP-REGULATOR
SRA Investigation Officer who signed the 30 October 2025 decision
Do you support an independent review of the SRA decision signed by Laurence Price, identifying which exhibits and allegations were assessed and what authenticity checks informed the decision?
Read the submission and decision record →Loading support clicks…
Loading support clicks…
This concerns every one of us
The judiciary serves the public. It does not exist to protect itself from scrutiny.
Put yourself in the position of a pensioner trying to protect her home: studying court rules, preparing evidence, answering lawyers and finding the strength to challenge decisions—without the means to fund representation at every stage. The consequences are not confined to a courtroom. They reach into a person’s safety, savings, health and daily life.
Miss E and Mr J say this is the burden they have faced. They allege that serious concerns were discredited and material questions left unanswered, and they challenge the decisions through the published appeal record. We stand beside them in demanding that the documents, reasoning and exercise of power be examined.
A right that becomes unaffordable to defend risks becoming a privilege of wealth. A person should not have to exhaust a lifetime’s savings to obtain a reasoned answer about a liability imposed on them or a risk to their home.
Judicial independence protects fair decision-making. It must be accompanied by integrity, intelligible reasons and meaningful accountability. When those safeguards fail, everyone’s protection is weakened. Law on paper is no substitute for justice people can actually reach.
That is why this record concerns you. Supporting Miss E’s call for answers means standing for a standard you may one day need yourself.
In R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, the Supreme Court explained why effective access to courts matters to the rule of law and society as a whole. The judiciary’s own account of accountability includes open justice, published decisions and public scrutiny.
Begin with the documents
Court costs · COSTS-A01 / A02
Compare Miss E’s requests for the underlying costs record with the later disclosure refusal. Identify the document or passage your observation concerns.
Read the letters and refusal →Comment on the costs record →BH68 · BH68-A01 / A03
Examine the agreement, the plan, the disputed email copies and the recorded explanations. Tell us exactly what you think requires an answer.
Read the BH68 investigation →Comment on the BH68 record →Your contribution
Point to a document, ask a question, explain a legal point, offer a correction—or stand beside Miss E in asking for answers.
Comments are editorially selected, not a public verdict. Well-supported disagreement and corrections are welcome under the same rules as supportive comments.
Private evidence or a formal response? Contact the editorial desk. Do not include private evidence or contact details in a public comment.
The reader record
Published messages of support are expressions of solidarity with the call for answers.
Loading approved contributions…
Relevant observations, questions, corrections, evidence-based disagreement and messages of support. Cite a source for legal claims and new factual assertions. No threats, harassment, private contact information, impersonation, spam, reporting-restricted material or unsupported new accusations. Please use Mr J and Miss E for the family’s public identities. The founder reviews each submission; no submission publishes automatically. Material edits require the contributor’s agreement, and corrections may be added with a dated note.
This first release has no reader-to-reader messaging, public uploads, guilt votes or punishment votes. Responses from people discussed in the reporting can be sent to the editorial desk and clearly identified as responses.
Support buttons record one active choice per question for each remembered browser. Clicking sets a secure, website-only cookie lasting up to one year so you can see or remove that choice. Counts are recorded support clicks, not a count of individual people: using another browser or clearing cookies can create another response. No email is collected for these buttons. A pseudonymous browser key is stored with each active choice; removing support deletes that choice.
The Unanswered Record collects your chosen display name, email, issue, contribution and optional source reference to review submissions, contact you if clarification is needed, manage abuse and publish approved contributions. Your email is not displayed publicly or added to the newsletter. Consent covers publication; editorial administration and abuse prevention are undertaken for the publication’s legitimate interests.
Submissions are stored in the website’s hosted database, accessible through the founder’s restricted moderation account. During each submission or moderation session, the service removes unpublished submissions older than 90 days and clears contact details from older approved contributions. Approved contribution text remains part of the public record unless withdrawn. Temporary pseudonymous abuse-prevention records are cleared after seven days when the service is used. Moderation decision logs, without contribution text or email addresses, are retained for up to one year of active service. Hosting providers may separately keep ordinary service logs. No ID document or sensitive personal information is requested.
To ask for access, correction, withdrawal or deletion, contact theunansweredrecord@gmail.com and identify your submission. You may complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office. Do not submit confidential evidence through this public-comment form.