JOHN O’SULLIVAN SCANDAL IN LEYLAND: ABUSE, SURVEILLANCE, AND POLITICAL COVER-UP

In a disturbing case that has sent shockwaves through Leyland and the surrounding areas, John O’Sullivan, a taxi driver with a troubling history, has been at the center of a scandal involving child abuse, misconduct, and questionable conduct by local authorities. The saga began with O’Sullivan’s conviction in 2013 for assaulting a 13-year-old autistic boy, known publicly as Boy B. The assault was brutal; O’Sullivan reportedly used bungee cords to restrain the young boy while transporting him to a special school. The trauma inflicted was severe enough that Boy B was unable to speak for five months following the incident.

Despite his conviction on two counts of assault, which resulted in a fine and a compensation order, O’Sullivan was permitted to continue working as a taxi driver in Leyland. This decision was made by South Ribble Borough Council in Lancashire, which renewed his taxi license not once but twice over the subsequent years. The revelation that a convicted child abuser was still allowed to operate a taxi service in the area has raised serious questions about the oversight and integrity of local licensing authorities.

Further investigations uncovered a disturbing pattern of misconduct within the council. It emerged that the authorities had engaged in a surveillance operation targeting the father of Boy B, who had protested against the handling of his son’s case. The council employed the law firm Weightmans to threaten legal action against the father, accusing him of harassment after he voiced his concerns through letters to councillors. This surveillance effort, which spanned most of the previous autumn and into the current year, involved monitoring the father’s social media activity and public statements. Documents obtained through a Data Protection Act request revealed that senior officials and councillors were actively discussing legal measures to silence him.

Alarmingly, on November 23, a government agency issued a warning that such surveillance might be unlawful under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the Human Rights Act. Despite this, the council continued its monitoring, with some officials, including Labour councillor Keith Martin, admitting to tracking social media over the holidays. The extent of the surveillance was described as almost obsessive, involving high-level officers.

Adding to the controversy, the council’s internal documents revealed a campaign to discredit and remove whistleblower Ian Parker, a senior officer who had taken the allegations of abuse seriously. In January, Parker was replaced by Caroline Elwood, whose previous employment history included controversial departures from East Cheshire and Sefton, Merseyside. The father of Boy B expressed concern over Elwood’s background, citing media reports of her leaving previous positions amid disputes and legal actions.

Throughout this period, the father faced legal threats from the council’s law firm, which he described as terrifying and unjustified. His legal representative, Richard Scorer of Slater and Gordon, condemned the council’s tactics, stating that such Orwellian surveillance and resource expenditure should be reserved for serious criminals, not a parent reporting abuse.

In response to these revelations, the father has lodged a formal complaint with Peter Mullineaux, the leader of the Tory-controlled council. Mullineaux assured that the council would review the matter, emphasizing that strict procedures govern the use of residents’ data and that staff are expected to uphold high standards of professionalism. The entire case has cast a long shadow over Leyland’s local governance, exposing troubling issues of accountability, child protection, and the abuse of power within the community.