This is a Release of Home Office Correspondence from Ian Clayton:

On 18 November 2025, Ian Clayton and Mark Sexton issued constitutional correspondence to five senior office-holders:

The Lady Chief Justice of England & Wales

The Secretary of State for Justice

The Attorney General

The Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service

This correspondence raised matters of serious constitutional significance, including:

national command interference,

unlawful suppression of criminal investigations,

contradictions involving Operation Talla,

breaches of statutory investigative duties, and

concerns relating to the handling of Crime Reference Number 6029679/21.

No response whatsoever has been received from any of the five addressees.

However, on 3 December 2025, Ethical Approach UK received a letter from the Home Office Direct Communications Unit – a department that was not addressed, copied in, or involved in the 18 November correspondence.

This response was unexpected and did not address the constitutional matters raised.

Instead, it suggested routes such as the IOPC and Citizens Advice, despite the obvious fact that these bodies have no jurisdiction over state-level constitutional issues or the national policing matters in question.

Given the absence of responses from the five actual addressees, and in the interests of full transparency, we are today releasing:

1. The Home Office letter dated 3 December 2025, and

2. Our formal reply sent today, seeking clarification for the unusual decision by the Home Office to respond to correspondence not addressed to it.

This correspondence may be accessed in full at:

https://ethicalapproach.co.uk/correspondence_home_office…

This release enables the public to view the correspondence directly and to see how constitutional matters of significant public importance have been handled by the relevant institutions.

Ethical Approach UK will continue to act with transparency and integrity as the investigation progresses.

A further update will follow in due course. See below for response.

This tweet has a lot of the background

– Mark Sexton identifies himself as a retired police constable from Birmingham in a statement dated December 1, 2025.

– The statement releases Phase 1 evidence supporting a Constitutional Correspondence sent on November 18, 2025, to senior executives in the judiciary, police,… pic.twitter.com/kiDuzvUn1z

— Durwin Lloyd, ND (ret) (@LloydDurwin) December 2, 2025

Operation Talla explained here https://rumble.com/v6ysu3m-operation-talla-two-realities.html

Here is the Ethical Approach UK response on December 4th: https://ethicalapproach.co.uk/correspondence_home_office_EAUK_03_and_04122025.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawOelixleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeZE1y6maXMoeCHgVwj1o0zxpJtWmQkM1k3hnVLjGOxIwLtr0a4yuxs7joi80_aem_sl7V5Bi2kG7A-YlHkXFdzQ

From Ian Clayton:

Notice Placed Before the Administrative Court

Today, I have formally placed before the Administrative Court a Notice of Material Constitutional Developments relating to CRN 6029679/21 and the Judicial Review determined by Poole J in November 2023.

This was not an application, not a request for relief and not made on behalf of any party.

It was submitted solely in the public interest.

Since that Judicial Review concluded, sworn evidence has entered the public domain through the UK Covid-19 Inquiry which was not available to the Court at the time. That evidence confirms that during Covid:

• Operation Talla functioned as a national, multi-agency legal and operational framework
• Senior Crown Prosecution Service legal leadership was embedded within it
• Legal meaning and enforcement expectations were coordinated outside adversarial court processes
• Courts were not part of the contemporaneous governance loop

Those facts go to the constitutional context in which the impugned policing decisions were taken – not merely how they were later explained to the Court.

The Notice makes no criticism of the judiciary, advances no allegation of bad faith and seeks no procedural step. Its sole purpose is to ensure the Court is aware of material constitutional facts which could not reasonably have been known when its supervisory jurisdiction was exercised.

Whether any further reflection is required is entirely a matter for the Court.

Transparency sometimes requires nothing more than ensuring the record is complete.

Ian Clayton
29 December 2025