Eighth visit by the police

At 11.15pm last night we were woken by two police officers at the porch we have been sleeping in since 3 November. To put this eighth visit in context, I have to roll back a few days, to Thursday to be precise.

That evening, Declan wasn’t able to sell The Big Issue because the regular London Lite girl had encroached on one side of his pitch and there was a guy harassing passers-by to take a copy of The London Paper on the other side.

We reckoned that the Bishopsgate City of London police had made the decisive move on our only source of income in order to stop Declan from submitting his application against the UK to the European Court of Human Rights (he has already lodged the case with the Court by introductory letter of 18 May), reducing us to illegal beggars in a matter of two or three weeks. And because I have been working like a demon on the application ever since, we were hardly surprised to wake up and find two police officers eyeing us. The spin this time?

The Chief Superintendent of Police for the City of London (there are two – CS Alex Robertson is responsible for anti-terrorism and public order) has come up with the policy that rough sleepers are to be woken every hour to force them to get off the streets. Hmmm.

As one of them is issuing us a ticket – we already had two from November – we are asked the usual questions: how long have we being sleeping in the porch, why don’t we go into a hostel, what about getting a job, etc.

It was good that Declan knew from his reading of an article entitled “Rough Sleepers” in the April issue of the Police Review magazine that people have the right to sleep in the streets if they want to. The police have the power to arrest people for sleeping rough under the Vagrancy Act 1824, but they need to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. They will frequently use the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 to crack down on offensive behaviour and they will enforce the Vagrancy Act 1824.

Anyway, it was clear from Declan’s answers to their questions that we are doing our best to get off the streets – they didn’t bat an eyelid when Declan told them that our unemployment benefit was terminated by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) because he didn’t “sign on” two days before he was due to do so; nor when they were informed that we are working on Declan's application to the European Court of Human Rights, having been denied an effective domestic remedy by the DWP both in the manner we had the benefit initially suspended and eventually terminated.

They didn’t seem too surprised either when Declan told them that he had applied to Chief Superintendent Jerry Savill of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets under the Data Protection Act 1998 for a copy of the statement Detective Constable Alexander Head took on 27 April into the assault on him in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February, when a homeless punched him twice in the face in an unprovoked attack.

As the police officers walked off at 11.40pm, Declan asked them when we could next expect to be woken by the police. He was told that we will not be woken again until next week. Who can doubt it?

And so interminably on.

Court denies access to case file

Last Friday Declan received a letter of reply of 15 May from Lynne Knapman, Head of the Administrative Court Office in London’s High Court.

Despite Declan’s three requests to date, she is neither giving him access to the case file nor copy of this letter from the Department for Work and Pensions which was referred to by Mr Justice Walker in his dismissal of Declan’s application for judicial review on 11 December and, by inference, Lord/Lady Justice Scott Baker in their rejection of his application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal – a letter we have never seen, which allegedly makes out that the termination of our unemployment benefit because Declan did not “sign on” was a mistake, but that there is another good reason (unknown to us) for the termination of payment.

Anyway, this is Knapman’s letter of reply of 15 May signed by Philip Lewis of the Administrative Court Office (Declan’s letter to her of 3 May can be seen here):

Dear Sir

Thank you for your letter date 3rd May 2007.

First of all, can I apologise for the misunderstanding that occurred on receipt of your letter dated 18th April 2007. This was due to an unintentional error on my part and I apologise for any delay that has arisen because of that.

Because this matter has been closed in the Administrative Court Office since 11th December 2006, the court file was ‘broken up’ in order to allow ease of storage due to the sheer volume of cases that we have. Once a file has been broken up, it contains documents key to the claim, such as the claim form, any acknowledgments of service and grounds of defence supplied by the defendants or other parties. Because of this, unfortunately, the court file does not contain a copy of the letter which you are asking for.

May I suggest you contact the Department of Work and Pensions directly to ask for a copy of this letter?

Once again, my apologies of any delay that has arisen.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully

Phillip Lewis
Administrative Court Office, Issue Section

It was going to take something special to match that letter but, by an astonishing coincidence, on the same day that Declan received Knapman's reply, he also received a letter of reply of 15 May from Chief Superintendent Jerry Savill of Bethnal Green Police Station advising him that his second request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for a copy of the statement Detective Constable Alexander Head took on 27 April into the assault on him in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February, fell foul of the Act. According to the Metropolitan Police Service, this Freedom of Information Act “does not confer the right to access your own personal information.”

To obtain a copy of the statement DC Head took on 27 April, he had to re-apply under the Data Protection Act 1998 by completing their form 3019A and paying a fee of £10. Now it just so happens that Declan’s first request to CS Savill of 27 April was under the Data Protection Act 1998, but he never received a reply. Oh, and the whole process may now take up to 40 days!

It’s certainly hard to find the rationale behind the delay in getting a copy of this statement from the Metropolitan Police, if not in the context of Declan’s application of 18 May to the European Court of Human Rights, which cites violation, among others, of Article 3 (the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

For the record, this is Declan’s registered letter to Savill yesterday:

Dear CS Savill

Re:  Request for information (Crime ref: 4204886/07)

I refer to the enclosed copy of your letter of reply to me of 15 May 2007 signed by Mr Saeed Yusuf, Information Manager in connection with my request of 5 May 2007 under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In my letter of 5 May 2007, I requested the following information:

Copy of the statement that was written on my behalf by DC Alexander Head in Bethnal Green Police Station on 27 April 2007 in respect of the assault on me in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February 2007.

As requested, I hereby re-apply for this information by making a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998. Please find enclosed a completed form 3019A together with a) chronology in respect of my efforts to have my statement taken, b) copy of the statement I handed to DC Head on 27 April 2007, some of which he transcribed verbatim, and c) copy of my letter and enclosures of 19 May 2007 to the head of the Methodist church in the UK, Rev Graham Carter regarding harassment and intimidation in the Whitechapel Mission.

I also enclose a £10 postal order made payable to “The Metropolitan Police Authority” together with a) copy of the inside back cover of my passport showing full name and date of birth, b) copy of letter of 24 November 2006 from St Mungo’s confirming that my wife and I have been verified as rough sleepers, and c) copy of my contract of 15 December 2006 for using the Whitechapel Mission as an address for mail.

I confirm that I am currently a rough sleeper.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please contact me on 077 9284 3167 or at the address at the top of this letter.

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

cc  Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (by registered post – with enclosures herein referred to)

Yesterday afternoon my pitch outside Liverpool Street Station – where I sell The Big Issue every week day – was virtually put out of action by a guy, less than three metres away, harassing passers-by to take a copy of the free tabloid The London Paper (a first since I started selling The Big Issue over six months ago). On the other side of me, about 10 metres away, I had a guy handing out the free London Lite (at his usual spot) and in front of him another guy doing the same with The London Paper.

Will The London Paper become a regular feature at both sides of my pitch? Passers-by during evening rush hour may not wish so, but then again the Bishopsgate City of London police may well have other ideas. A clue as to what are their intentions might be provided by the fact that yesterday afternoon the girl who usually hands out the London Lite a few metres away from Declan’s pitch, tried her best to run a number on him too.

You would be forgiven for thinking that as Britain has ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (although it has not yet ratified protocols containing substantive rights: what does that tell us?), the Government would let applicants get on with the job of presenting their case to the European Court in Strasbourg – apparently not.

Introductory letter to the European Court of Human Rights

Yet another example of police intimidation and harassment, this time involving London Lite and The London Paper (two free London tabloid papers handed out to people in the evening Monday to Friday): Thursday evening Declan didn’t even bother stepping into his pitch outside Liverpool Street Station – where he sells The Big Issue during the week – after he found a bicycle tied up at his pitch and facing it a girl flogging the London Lite on one side and a guy harassing passers-by to take The London Paper on the other.

While such intimidation and harassment does little for the state of our finances, at least on this occasion there was a silver lining. The next morning, Declan lodged our case with the European Court of Human Rights by introductory letter. This is the letter he sent by fax and registered post:

Dear Sir/Madam

Re:   HEAVEY v UK

I am writing to introduce an application under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

On 11 August 2006 I attended an advisory interview to review my Jobseeker’s Agreement (JSAg) with an employment officer in Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus of the Department for Work and Pensions in respect of my claim for Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA). As with my first JSAg, my pursuance of a “temporary job” that would enable me retrain to start my own business was accepted as part of the new JSAg that I signed.

On 14 August 2006 my wife attended an advisory interview in Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus to review her JSAg in respect of her JSA on my claim. Contrary to the provisions of her first two JSAg’s however, she was threatened with the suspension of her JSA unless she agreed to sign a new JSAg without the restriction that she is looking for a temporary job that would enable her retrain for a new career. She was not provided with any reason as to why this restriction was no longer acceptable, and was furthermore denied her right pursuant to section 9(6)(a) of the Jobseekers Act 1995, to have her proposed JSAg referred to an adjudicator for him to determine whether she would satisfy the conditions that she was available for employment and was actively seeking employment.

On 18 August 2006 my wife and I were to attend another advisory interview in Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus, this time with the adviser manager. After my wife had been informed by this adviser manager that he would neither accept her proposed JSAg nor refer same to an adjudicator, she refused to attend the interview. I likewise refused to attend any such interview until such time as I was advised that the Jobcentre would either accept my wife’s proposed JSAg or refer same to an adjudicator in accordance with section 9(6)(a) of the Jobseekers Act 1995.

In a letter dated 18 August 2006, Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus advised my wife and I that my joint claim JSA would be suspended from 19 August 2006 on the basis that there was a doubt as to our availability for work.

Having been denied the only remedy that was capable of providing redress in respect of my wife’s complaint, on 24 August 2006 I lodged an urgent application in person for permission to apply for judicial review against Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions with the High Court in London, claiming that the suspension of my joint claim JSA was irrational.

In a letter dated 13 September 2006, an adjudicator advised my wife and I that the doubt as to our availability for work had been removed and that any arrears of JSA due to us would be paid. On 14 September 2006 summary grounds for contesting my claim by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was lodged with the High Court, claiming that the decision to suspend benefit was lawful. Further it was submitted that my application for judicial review was premature and/or disproportionate.

On 15 September 2006 I wrote to the manager of Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus advising that neither my wife nor I would attend another advisory interview until such time as I was advised that the Jobcentre would either accept my wife’s proposed JSAg or refer same to an adjudicator. This resulted in the suspension of my joint claim JSA on 19 September 2006 due to the non-attendance of my wife and I at our respective advisory interviews earlier that same day. In a letter dated 25 September 2006, Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus advised me that my joint claim JSA had been looked at again and reinstated from 21 September 2006.

On 29 September 2006 my wife and I attended Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus to sign our respective declaration (that we were available for employment and actively seeking employment) as we were meant to, but were prevented from doing so without explanation. On 30 September 2006 I received a letter dated 27 September 2006 from the Jobcentre advising that the entitlement of my wife and me to JSA was ceased as from 19 September 2006 because I did not attend to sign my declaration. On 30 September 2006 I wrote to the manager of Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus advising of the Jobcentre’s mistake, and sent a copy of this letter to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Subject to regulation 27(1) of the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996, entitlement to a jobseeker’s allowance shall not cease if the claimant shows, before the end of the fifth working day after the day on which he failed to provide a signed declaration, that he had a good cause for the failure. Nonetheless, the Department for Work and Pensions neither changed the decision of 27 September 2006 to cease our entitlement JSA nor gave me an explanation, the latter of which I required within one month of the date of the decision letter to have a right to appeal to an Appeal Tribunal. (All I received from the Department was a letter from Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus dated 5 October 2006 acknowledging receipt of my letter dated 30 September 2006.)

In a letter dated 31 October 2006, the High Court in London advised me that my permission application had been listed for oral hearing on 11 December 2006. With no income, our savings depleted, and not entitled to JSA hardship provision (JSA at a reduced rate) or a Social Fund loan (unable to repay), my wife and I were faced with the choice of going homeless in London or in Birmingham. We chose London because the pursuance of our claim through the national courts was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of my complaint and offered reasonable prospects of success. We would have been more vulnerable and insecure had we stayed in Birmingham, particularly as I had been deprived of my right of appeal against the decision to cease our entitlement to JSA.

My wife and I have been rough sleepers in London since 3 November 2006 save a brief period in rolling shelters. On 22 November 2006 the Dellow Day Centre recorded in my wife’s registration form that St Mungo’s, London’s largest organisation working with the homeless, had informed the Centre that neither my wife nor I could be referred into night shelters "due to not being on any benefits". My application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused by the High Court on 11 December 2006. According to the Court, my application for permission was premature. The Court’s decision also stated that I should have had my complaint about the letter of 27 September 2006 determined by an Appeal Tribunal.

On 18 December 2006 I was admitted to Chelsea and Westminster Hospital for pneumonia. In the discharge summary report dated 20 December 2006, my doctor recorded that I was admitted with chest pain worse on breathing, worse on inspiration, and that I had not been eating due to lack of finance. Furthermore, the doctor also noted that I did have an episode of loss of consciousness, witnessed by my wife. On 17 February I was punched twice in the face in the Whitechapel Mission Day Centre in an unprovoked attack by a homeless man (crime reference number: 4204886/07).

My application for permission to appeal was refused by the Court of Appeal on the papers on 22 March 2007 as being totally without merit for the reasons cited by the Court on 11 December 2006, and an order was made that I may not request the decision to be reconsidered at a hearing. No further avenues of redress are available to me. My wife and I are currently surviving on the streets of London by selling The Big Issue, a magazine that is sold on the streets by homeless people in the UK.

I submit that in the circumstances of this case there has been a violation of Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) arising from the two suspensions of my joint claim JSA and the subsequent ceasing of the entitlement of my wife and me to JSA and that we were deprived of an effective remedy in violation of Article 13 of the Convention. I also complain that we have been the victims of discrimination because my wife wanted to continue to have her interests protected (in violation of Article 14 taken together with Articles 8 and 13).

I further submit that the abandonment of our flat and possessions and our current status as homeless has caused us suffering of sufficient severity for the acts of the Department for Work and Pensions to be categorised as inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 (the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment). I also complain that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 (protection of property) arising from the abandonment of our home and possessions.

In addition, I submit that the true purpose of the two suspensions of my joint claim JSA was to intimidate my wife into signing a new JSAg on unfavourable terms in violation of Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8. I also complain that the ceasing of the entitlement of my wife and me to JSA was a measure introduced with a view to influencing the judicial determination of the dispute, in violation of the right to fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention.

I seek a declaration from the Court that Articles 3, 6, 8, 13, 14, 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol 1 have been violated, together with just satisfaction under Article 41 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, plus legal costs and expenses).

This letter has been introduced within six months of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, in accordance with Article 35(1) of the European Convention.

A completed application form, together with a file of relevant copy documents, will be submitted shortly.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours faithfully

Declan Heavey

And these are some of the highlights of the week: we are treated to employees leaving the building by the porch we sleep in – they do have a very nice front entrance – either at the moment we arrive or when we are getting into our sleeping bags (Monday to Thursday between 8.15pm and 8.45pm); homeless try to get Declan to let them use his sink, and the fact that he is at it with half a foot of soapy water, for one character it was “So what?” (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday between 6.15am and 6.30am in the Whitechapel Mission washroom); a homeless first kicks the table Declan is sitting at, spilling coffee that narrowly misses his papers, and then kicks Declan in the shin as he is reading (this morning at 10.30am in The Connection at St Martin-in-the-Fields).

On the secular front, on Tuesday I found a very funny short bit in the Independent on Pope Benedict’s visit to Brazil. It reads: “In a speech at the end of his tour of Brazil, Pope Benedict condemned 'authoritarian governments' who are 'wedded to old-fashioned ideologies'. Presumably a sense of irony isn't very useful if you're a Pope, but even so it was a wonder he didn't blush. I thought 'old-fashioned ideologies' - resistant to reason - were part of the point of the Roman Catholic Church.”

Surely the fact that the Catholic church is rich and powerful, regularly earning bonuses of billions of pounds a year in deals with governments, and claiming a monopoly on truth, means that its head shouldn’t have to be constrained by fine-tuned speeches.

Letter on behalf of the trustees of the Methodist Church in Tower Hamlets

Last Thursday Declan received a letter from Superintendent Minister Peter Powers on behalf of the trustees of the Methodist Church in Tower Hamlets regarding the harassment and intimidation Declan is being subjected to in the Whitechapel Mission – some of which I report in this blog almost all the time. This is the letter (my favourite bit is at the end, where he says he is simply saddened by Declan’s “cynicism”):

Dear Mr Heavey

Thank you for your letters of 24th & 28th April and many enclosures. Although you have not actually asked for response to me I have noted the contents of your letters.

I have spoken to Mr. Tony Miller, Director of the Whitechapel Mission and he has assured me that every care possible is taken of all those who work or volunteer at the Mission as well as those who visit the Whitechapel Mission. This is as I would expect.

It is indeed unfortunate that you feel you have been subject to “harassment and intimidation” whilst using the Whitechapel Mission’s services, although I note that your difficulties seem to be with one particular other person who also uses the Mission’s services rather than with any staff or volunteers. Obviously we cannot control the actions of everyone who comes to use the Whitechapel Mission and any incidents of assault should be reported to the police, which it seems you have already done. I cannot comment on the actions or response of the police in this matter that is for them.

The work of the Whitechapel Mission is part of the Methodist Church help offered to the some of those in most need in society. We see it as part of our Christian faith to help those in need if we can. The services provided by the Whitechapel Mission are open to anyone who comes, both those who are homeless, such as yourself, and those who are vulnerably housed in insecure or temporary accommodation. I see that in addition to the showers and breakfast offered you also use the postal address service provided by the Mission.

I note that you run a blog on the internet called ‘Network of those Abused by Church’ (http://network-of-those-abused-by-church.blogspot.com/). What I find interesting is the fact that you appear to run an organisation that calls for the separation of church and state and for public policies that are based on secular principles, not religious doctrine. You seek the “scientific, rational examination of religion to protect future generations from the ignorance so often fostered by religion hiding behind doctrinal smoke screens”. Clearly you have some issues with the Church and yet it is the Christian Church, not the secular state that seems to be offering you support and help. In fact, it is many of the secular institutions that you appear to have problems with and continue to cause difficulties for you. Can I point out that the Whitechapel Mission raises all its own funds for the work it does and receives no state funding whatsoever. It simply saddens me that your cynicism can’t actually see beyond the smoke screen you appear to have made for yourself.

Yours sincerely,

Rev. Peter Powers
On behalf of the trustees of the Methodist Church in Tower Hamlets

Cc. Mr. Tony Miller, Whitechapel Mission
      Rev. R. Graham Carter, President of the Methodist Conference

Rev Powers should perhaps be informed that the director of the Whitechapel Mission, who he refers to as “Mr” Tony Miller, is, er, a minister – how do I know that? I looked him up on the internet. There are other things he also gets wrong, like the showers and the breakfast he says we use in the Whitechapel Mission.

Take showers. Declan has never showered in the mission because men shower communally. There is one shower in the women’s washroom, which I would be using if it wasn’t for the fact that there has been no hot water since 22 April (a first), at least not from 6.00am to 6.35am.

Take breakfast. After narrowly escaping being assaulted for the second time on 16 April – he brought it on himself for not talking to the homeless that visit the premises, was the view taken by the kitchen worker who intervened – he left the table with our bags to a chorus of derisive shouts and laughter from homeless about the canteen. Since that most pleasant experience, we don’t sit at a table anymore. We wash (bringing our bags with us to our respective washrooms); have a coffee standing up; and by 6.50am we are out – breakfast doesn’t kick off until 8.00am, seven days a week.

Anyway, on Thursday and Friday Declan wrote to the head of the Methodist Church in the UK, Rev Graham Carter on the subject of all the harassment and intimidation in the Whitechapel Mission, which is on-going. This is the second letter, sent by registered post (Carter's letter to Declan of 20 April can be seen here):

Dear Rev Carter

Re:  Harassment and intimidation in the Whitechapel Mission

I refer further to the enclosed copy of your letter to me of 20 April and re-enclose copy of letter to me of 8 May from Superintendent Minister Peter Powers on behalf of the trustees of the Methodist Church in Tower Hamlets regarding the above.

I also re-enclose copy of my letter and enclosures of 5 May to Chief Superintendent Jerry Savill of Bethnal Green Police Station requesting in pursuance of section 8(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, a copy of the statement that was written on my behalf by Detective Constable Alexander Head in Bethnal Green Police Station on 27 April in respect of the unprovoked assault on me in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February.

I reconfirm that on 16 April I narrowly escaped being assaulted for the second time in the Whitechapel Mission. On this occasion, as first stated in my letter to you of 17 April, the kitchen worker who intervened took the view that it was my fault for not talking to the homeless that visit the premises. (That this was the view taken, would be evident from CCTV footage.)

Although I was informed by the manager of the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February that I enter the premises at my own risk, I remain adamant that this ought not to be the case. Again, I understand that if a visitor is invited onto the institution’s premises then a common duty of care will be owed by the institution to the visitor. This is to ensure that the visitor will be reasonably safe in the premises for the purposes for which he has been invited or permitted.

On 9 May, I met with DC Head in Bethnal Green Police Station for a crime report update in respect of the assault on me on 17 February. As stated in my letter to you of 10 May, DC Head advised that he had spoken with the Director of the Whitechapel Mission, Minister Tony Miller, who confirmed to him that he was aware of what took place and the name of the suspect, but not that the canteen worker who intervened will be a corroborating witness, nor that there is CCTV footage of the assault.

Yesterday morning, DC Head left a voice message for me (see transcript attached) stating that he has spoken again with Minister Miller, who confirmed to him that there are no corroborating witnesses, but not that there is CCTV footage of the assault.

As first stated in my letter to you of 5 May, Minister Miller advised me on 1 May that in a matter of days I would be in receipt of a letter from the management of the Whitechapel Mission in response to the questions raised herein. I can confirm that I am in receipt of no such letter to date.

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

And this, the transcript attached:

Crime Ref: 4204886/07

Voice message of 10 May (11.03am) from DC Alexander Head of Bethnal Green Police Station
_______________________________________________________________

Good morning, Declan. It’s Alex speaking from Bethnal Green Police Station. Just to let you know – I’ve spoken to Sue and Tony. They have stated to me they have spoken to all their staff members. None of them can remember an incident involving yourself taking place. Whether that is the case – whether they just do not want to come forward and speak to police, that probably sounds like the more reason behind itself. So I’ve updated the crime in regards to that. Obviously we now have no corroborating evidence, unless yourself can get any further regarding writing your letters, and such like. What I’m going to do is – the crime is completely updated with what has taken place and our meetings and everything else. What I will do is, just for the time being – is close the crime, but it can be re-opened if anything else comes to light and we can have corroborating evidence to try and take this to court. Thank you very much. If you want to give me a call back, that’s fine – or if you want to come in, it’s not a problem either. Thank you very much. Bye bye.

So, case closed, more or less. How nice! Anyway, now that it looks like the Whitechapel Mission is not being too cooperative on the prosecution front, a decent interval may have to pass before there is an attempt to assault Declan in the place again. Which can only mean that all eyes are now on the only other place where an assault can take place: the porch. Well, wasn’t I dragged from the porch while sleeping on 5 May, only to be kicked in the back a few hours later?

Finally, these are the highlights of the week: a cleaner leaves the building by the porch a few minutes after we arrive, blowing the porch alarm on her way out (Wednesday, alarm blows 8.15pm – 8.30pm); a guy with a friend wakes us up to ask if Declan’s sleeping bag is his – only leaving after I tell him twice quite aggressively, “Do you mind? I am sleeping” (Thursday at 10.30am); an ill-mannered homeless mutters that he and his friends are going to have us sorted out after Declan wouldn’t give him some of his shaving cream (this morning at 6.10am in the Whitechapel Mission washroom).

I’m assaulted twice while sleeping in the porch

Last night I was twice assaulted while sleeping in the porch (I sleep on the outside) by two different guys, at two different times – some coincidence. (The last time and only time I was assaulted in the porch was almost six months ago on 18 November when a stocky man in his thirties sat on the right hand side of my face.)

The first time, at 11.30pm, I was grabbed hard by both ankles – how he knew where to grab me, when I was in my sleeping bag with my back to the road and my head hidden, is a mystery to me – and with speed I was dragged in an arc down the two marble steps of the porch, carried 2 or 3 metres and then released, having been turned a full 180 degrees. I was quite shocked, but I distinctively remember, like some frozen memory, seeing the guy joining his three friends and looking back at me before turning down the main street.

He carried out this assault in full view of CCTV (we are in a business area after all) and even some passers-by, but this was a man on a mission, not too concerned with such banalities. I don’t remember how I got back to the porch – did I stand up or crawl? But I know now that when I woke Declan to ask for my notepad and pen (I was boiling with anger and wanted to get even), he didn’t understand that I had just been dragged onto the street like a sack of potatoes and he told me to go back to sleep – he was wearing earplugs and thought I had said to him that somebody had just moved my feet.

I couldn’t sleep for some time, in part because there was something that kept bothering me: was I supposed to get a lump on my head and a broken arm or hand instead of the severe bruising I now have on my left thigh and forearm, as well as a sore left wrist and little finger?

Declan doesn’t think so though: the attack was at 11.30pm when sleep quality is not at its best and so, at least in theory, I was more likely to lift my head up in a reflex action; the attacker was in his late 20s and was athletic and strong, meaning he was confident he wouldn’t bang my head; and I was dragged in an arc rather than pulled straight to the street, the latter more likely to have banged my head not once but twice. There was a small element of risk to my head that would explain, Declan says, why the assailant felt compelled to look back. Oh well. Declan has a degree in Physical Education, and I am sure he knows best.

The second attack happened at 3.45am – again I had my back to the street and my head inside the sleeping bag. After the guy twice shouted at us “Ahhhh” (probably to wake us up), he kicked me in the back with the sole of his shoe.

Now it just so happens that yesterday morning Declan telephoned the office of Chief Superintendent Jerry Savill, newly appointed borough commander for Tower Hamlets, and was informed that if he wants to obtain a copy of the statement that Detective Constable Alexander Head took on 27 April – Declan was punched twice in the face in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February – he should do so under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, not the Data Protection Act 1998 (see blog of 28 April).

So, this morning Declan sent the following registered letter to CS Savill (for the statement Declan handed DC Head see here, and for the chronology in respect of Declan's efforts to have his statement taken see here):

Dear CS Savill

Re:  Crime ref: 4204886/07

Further to my telephone call to your office yesterday, I hereby request in pursuance of section 8(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, a copy of the statement that was written by DC Alexander Head on my behalf in Bethnal Green Police Station on 27 April 2007 in relation to the assault on me in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February 2007.

I enclose copy of the statement I handed to DC Head on 27 April 2007, some of which he transcribed verbatim, and copy of chronology in respect of my efforts to have my statement taken.

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

cc Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (by registered post – together with enclosures herein referred to)

Do we take this double assault on me as a warning of something a lot more serious to come? We sure do. I had intended starting the draft of Declan’s application to the European Court of Human Rights today (for his finishing touch). Now Declan has instructed me to finish off the draft of his introductory letter to the registrar of the court instead. Because Monday is a bank holiday, Declan wants this letter ready for posting first thing on Tuesday morning.

I will be claiming that the termination of our unemployment benefit on 27 September - because Declan did not "sign on" two days before he was due to do so on 29 September - is in violation, among others, of Article 3 (the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Maybe Article 3 explains not only the Metropolitan Police’s delay in taking Declan’s statement, but their reticence in giving him a copy of this statement.

Third request for access to case file

This morning Declan received a letter from the Administrative Court Office of the High Court in London in reply to his letter of 18 April to the head of the office requesting a copy of this letter from the Department for Work and Pensions which says, according to Judge Walker in his judgment of 11 December, that the termination of our unemployment benefit because Declan did not “sign on” was a mistake, but that there is another good reason for terminating payment.

Declan didn’t receive a copy of the letter requested (which we have never seen), only a copy of a letter he had already provided the court. So, on 22 March Lord/Lady Justice Baker of the Court of Appeal dismiss our claim for judicial review against the Department for Work and Pensions “as being totally without merit” for reasons “clearly explained in the judgment of Walker J”, and such a letter is unavailable to us?

It raises the question: did Judge Walker fabricate the evidence? Even hinting at such a possibility would surely see us through the admissibility phase of our application to the European Court of Human Rights. Anyway, this is the letter Declan received from the Administrative Court Office:

Dear Sir or Madam

Thank you for your correspondence received in this office on the 19th April 2007.

I have enclosed a copy of the letter referred to in your correspondence, copied from the court file which you in fact sent to us with other documents, on the 30th September 2006, under the recorded delivery number DP 8563 8629 5GB.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully

Philip Lewis
Administrative Court Office, Issue Section

And this is Declan’s reply to the Head of the Administrative Office, Lynne Knapman, which he sent by registered post this afternoon:

Dear Ms Knapman

Re:   Access to court documents in the matter of the Queen on the application of Heavey v Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Administrative Court Ref. No. CO/7092/2006)

I refer to the enclosed copy of your letter of reply to me of 25 April 2007 (received today) signed by Mr Philip Lewis, Administrative Court Office together with enclosure therein referred to, viz copy of letter to me of 27 September 2006 from Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus (which I sent to your office with other documents, on 30 September 2006).

I also enclose copy of my letter and enclosure to you of 18 April 2007, to which your letter of reply refers.

Under Article 38(1)(a) of the European Convention on Human Rights (and to precede the lodgement of my case against the UK with the European Court of Human Rights by introductory letter), I again request access to the papers that were before Mr Justice Walker on 11 December 2006.

As stated in my letter to you of 18 April 2007, paragraph 32 of the judgment of Mr Justice Walker states:

... there is a letter from the Department which says that in the letter of 27th September the reference to him having failed to sign on was a mistake. The Department says that there is another good reason for terminating payment ...

Again, I seek sight of this letter from the Department for Work and Pensions which says that in the letter to me of 27 September from Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus the reference to me having failed to sign on is a mistake, and copy of same.

Kindly note that in my letter to you of 18 April 2007, I did not request a copy of the letter to me of 27 September 2006 from Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus, but the letter that Mr Justice Walker referred to which states that the reference to me having failed to sign on is a mistake.

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

Declan has had some more unsavoury dealings with homeless this week in the – surprise, surprise – Methodist-run Whitechapel Mission. On Monday, while shaving in the men’s washroom, a homeless sitting to one side of a sink with both feet in the water, told Declan to get him toilet paper. Declan’s response? Go and get it yourself.

Homeless asking Declan to fetch things doesn’t seem to do the trick, so now he has this homeless ex-prisoner on his case since last Tuesday, both in the Whitechapel Mission and the Sisters of Mercy-run Dellow Centre. Declan has brushed him off so far, but homeless are extremely unpredictable and can blow for nothing really – Declan should know: he has been assaulted twice, and has narrowly escaped being assaulted twice also.

Next time (probably tomorrow morning at 6.00am) this homeless decides to pester Declan, he is going to be told assertively to stop the harassment. Who knows, Declan may be assaulted again – this time in the washroom (the last time it was in the canteen area). Will the police be told there is no CCTV footage of the incident, as they were told the last time?