British-Irish Whistleblower in Geneva: Questioning the Role and Responsibility of the UK

In a case that has spanned multiple jurisdictions and involved intricate legal, diplomatic, and human rights issues, a British -Irish whistleblower, based in Geneva, Switzerland, is seeking justice for alleged crimes committed against her and her family. Her efforts have uncovered a complicated web of political, judicial, and corporate influence, prompting questions about the UK's role and responsibility in protecting its citizens abroad.

At the heart of this story is the whistleblower’s persistent battle to obtain transparency, accountability, and justice. Allegedly targeted for exposing failures in duty of care and mismanagement at an institution in Geneva, her case has now expanded to include claims of blacklisting, criminal retribution, stalker-harassment, systemic corruption, data breaches, and possible third-party interference. Despite the gravity of the allegations and the involvement of well-connected figures, justice remains elusive.

One particularly alarming revelation is that Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) is holding records related to this whistleblower and her family. These records, which remain undisclosed, raise serious questions about how the UK government has responded to her complaints. If no formal criminal proceedings have been initiated in the UK, why does HMPPS hold records of her case? What do these records contain, and why has there been so little transparency?

The Whistleblower’s Allegations

The whistleblower first came forward in 2013, reporting severe misconduct at the Geneva institution, whilst well-connected British citizens and Geneva state officials were amongst those at its helm. Her complaints have included failures in duty of care, child protection issues, mistreatment of staff, whistleblower retribution, systemic cover-ups and deep-rooted management and governance failures. Despite her efforts, the school’s leadership have allegedly retaliated, leading to her dismissal, and according to her, a smear campaign designed to discredit her professionally and personally. This includes allegations of an allegedly sham malicious prosecution since 20121 with the sole intention of silencing her.

Over time, her case expanded beyond the school, to include investigations in Switzerland and other jurisdictions.

The situation intensified when she discovered that the FCDO (Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office) had seemingly failed to adjust vulnerability assessments for her protection abroad. Instead, the whistleblower suspects that British officials may have colluded with powerful individuals to shield them from accountability, rather than ensuring justice for a victim of crime abroad.

HMPPS Records and Their Significance

In the course of her fight for justice, the whistleblower uncovered that HMPPS holds records on her case. These records have not been fully disclosed, despite multiple Subject Access Requests (SARs) and FOI (Freedom of Information) requests, four of which have yet to be concluded in the courts. The existence of these records raises serious concerns about the UK's handling of her case.

• Why is HMPPS holding records about the whistleblower and her family?
• Does the UK government view her allegations as criminal or civil matters, and why haven’t these records been shared with her?
• Is this indicative of a larger pattern of withholding critical information from victims of crime abroad?

If HMPPS is holding records that pertain to potential criminality or state involvement, then transparency is essential to understand the full scope of what has taken place. Furthermore, it raises broader questions about how whistleblowers, particularly those with transnational cases, are treated by UK authorities.

The Role and Responsibility of the UK

The UK’s responsibility to protect its citizens abroad is a fundamental part of its foreign policy, yet this whistleblower’s experience suggests that the UK may not have lived up to its obligations. International whistleblower cases can be fraught with complexity, but the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has a duty to provide assistance and advocate for the rights of British nationals subjected to crime and persecution abroad.

Key questions emerge about the role of the FCDO and the UK government in this case:

1. Has the UK failed in its duty to assist and protect its citizens abroad? As a whistleblower reporting severe misconduct, the victim should have been afforded better consular support, particularly when her allegations involve British citizens and organizations with UK connections.
2. Why hasn’t the UK pushed for investigations or prosecutions of British citizens implicated in the whistleblower’s claims? Given that some of the alleged perpetrators are British nationals, the UK has a clear interest in ensuring that justice is served.
3. What role did the UK play in facilitating or impeding justice? The whistleblower has raised concerns that British officials may have sided with well-connected individuals at the expense of her own legal and human rights. If true, this would represent a serious breach of trust and responsibility by the UK government.
4. Does the existence of HMPPS records point to a broader pattern of surveillance or monitoring of whistleblowers? The whistleblower’s concern is that her case may have been deliberately obstructed at various levels in Switzerland, the UK and Ireland. Evidence of records held in all three jurisdictions exists. Understanding why these records exist and how they have been used could shed light on potential state interference in her pursuit of justice.

The Need for Transparency

Whistleblowing is a crucial mechanism for holding powerful institutions to account. However, the experience of this British whistleblower suggests that those who speak out may be met with obstruction, not support, even from their own government. The existence of undisclosed HMPPS records adds a new layer of complexity to the case and raises the urgent need for transparency.

Without full disclosure of the HMPPS records, the whistleblower’s fight for justice will remain hampered, and important questions about the UK’s role in her case will continue to go unanswered. The UK government must clarify its position, explain why records are being held, and ensure that its responsibilities to victims of crime abroad are upheld.

The whistleblower remains determined to achieve justice, but the lack of response from both the UK, Swiss and Irish authorities has prolonged her ordeal. The question now is whether the UK government will act to rectify its failures—or continue to protect the interests of the powerful at the expense of a victim's rights.