Labour’s Worcester MP candidate Mandy Richards breaks silence over newspaper reports

Mandy Richards, who has been described as ‘a fantasist’ after making claims against MI5 among others, has posted a response on her Facebook page this evening.

Her statement: In response to articles and comments posted over the weekend I would like to initially state that if being a victim of domestic harassment and standing up for my rights makes me a fantasist then shame on those levelling such taunts, as it is clear they would rather have women and black people suffer in silence than seek advocacy and resolution.

By way of clarification of the matters raised, between 2015 - 2017 there were a number of unexplained incidents in and around my home including home invasion, theft, a car break-in, computer hacking, bike tampering, mail tampering, a fridge fire and electrical surges rendering my computers and mobile phones unusable. This all coincided with a series of serious unexplained health conditions.

For over 18 months I liaised individually and separately with each of the agencies that were ultimately named in the court proceedings of March 2017, following up on repeated requests for assistance and investigation and following all their protocols in place for dealing with claims and complaints. Through this protracted process I was having to endure life threatening levels of loss of blood, unexplained levels of heavy metals in my system and incidents within my home including environmental pollutants, that could potentially have caused loss of life.

I impressed upon each of the agencies successively the urgent need for support to investigate the causes of the issues complained of. Having exhausted internal complaints processes and following liaison with Ombudsmen support and assistance was still not forthcoming, with each agency in turn suggesting they were not obliged to assist or intervene. As the situation grew more harmful I was left with no alternative but to seek legal action to prompt the agencies into fulfilling their duty of care to me as a customer and private citizen.

I pursued my own investigation privately as a litigant in person. Given that there was no way of knowing if I had in fact been subject to malicious harassment I had to explore every potential avenue of possibility. Having been active in journalism, politics and trade unionism one of the lines of inquiry led me to approach the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) and Undercover Police Inquiry (UCPI) to see if I had been targeted in the same way as Diane Abbott and Ken Livingstone, whom I had worked with closely and both of whom had been confirmed as Core Participants in the UCPI. Both agencies would neither confirm nor deny that there had been any targeting of me as an activist. This then led onto direct enquiries made to MI5 & MI6 with the same outcome. They would neither confirm nor deny, but stated that if any surveillance activity had taken place it would have been proportionate and within the realms of the law.

Unsatisfied with this response and with no funds to secure formal representation I set about bringing my case. As a litigant in person procedural errors in my initial applications led to my claim having to be resubmitted. There were not multiple cases brought, merely one case with revised pleas. The court also advised that where there were separate defendants in the case, that where appropriate, all matters could be dealt with simultaneously rather than separately. Being of limited means I chose that option and submitted an initial sample file of evidence for the preliminary hearing.

Without formal legal representation, I stood little chance of a favourable outcome against a raft of corporate lawyers, however the need to defend my right to safety and protection and to address key human rights infringements was paramount.

I followed through the litigation process and acted according to the Court’s office guidance & support on the rights of access any citizen would be afforded under the circumstances. Whilst most of the claims were set aside, the claim brought against Whittington Hospital has been allowed to proceed to trial and is currently on-going. Extended Civil restraint Orders (ECROs) were issued against me in this same case, with multiple respondents, solely to deter me from amending claims further and resubmitting them independently as had happened once already. With ECROs in place any claimant must first liaise with the Judge prior to submitting a claim. It does not bar me or anyone from seeking further legal action. I have no regrets in taking the course of action I did where all other avenues of recourse had been exhausted.

In the Election petition case I raised in June 2016 the circumstances of this are well documented. Having identified statistical discrepancies in the Greater London Assembly vote count for West Central I triggered a procedural investigation. Election petitions are not uncommon and can be raised by anyone who has evidence that the election has not been properly conducted. In the preliminary hearings held in the High Court it was deemed that there was a case to answer. The trial that ensued did indeed highlight significant discrepancies in final vote count figures and errors made in election process security, but did not find that the respondents were directly responsible. However, I did feel vindicated by the evidence uncovered and by the Judge’s recommendations that the processes in question should be reviewed given that they could well have been open to abuse.

As both of the above cases named ‘Progress’, a campaign group associated with the Labour Party, and Hackney Council as respondents, I discussed the matters at length with executive officers from the Party prior to the Worcester selection process commencing. Documents related to both cases have also been in the public domain for some time. I apologise to Labour Party members for any consternation or upset the articles published this weekend may have caused, but I can assure you categorically the cases brought were all above board.