Letter from the European Court of Human Rights
This morning, after he had signed for it, Declan was handed a letter from the European Court of Human Rights at the reception of the Catholic Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre. The letter is dated 16 June, two days after Declan was assaulted in the porch in which we have been sleeping since 3 November 2006 (see blog “Declan is assaulted in the porch”). The day before yesterday Declan's main bag, which contained all our money and documents, was robbed in the Dellow Centre (see blog “Declan robbed in the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre”); and yesterday he was assaulted in the Manna Centre (whose building is provided rent-free by the Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark), despite the usual two-hour round trip to get something to eat for lunch (see previous blog).
So I almost ripped the envelope apart when Declan handed it to me. I was actually convinced that it was the standard Committee Decision Letter to inform Declan that his application of 8 September 2007 is inadmissible. It reads:
Application no. 22541/07
Heavey v. the United Kingdom
Dear Sir,
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 19 May 2008, with enclosures.
The Court will deal with the case as soon as practicable. It will do so on the basis of the information and documents submitted by you. The proceedings are primarily in writing and you will only be required to appear in person if the Court invites you to do so. You will be informed of any decision taken by the Court.
You should inform me of any change in your address. Furthermore, you should, of your own motion, inform the Court about any major developments regarding the above case, and submit any further relevant decisions of the domestic authorities.
Please note that no acknowledgment will be made as to the receipt of subsequent correspondence. No telephone enquiries either please. If you wish to be assured that your letter is actually received by the Court then you should send it by recorded delivery with a prepaid acknowledgment of receipt form.
Yours faithfully,
For the Registrar
Clare Ovey
Legal Secretary
The letter of 19 May 2008 to which the Court refers is an email that Declan sent to the Registrar with his letter to Prime Minister Gordon Brown of 17 May (see blog "Letter to the British Prime Minister"); it also contained a copy of Declan's email letter to the Registrar of 12 May. This email of 19 May was in fact supplementary to his email letter to the Registrar of 12 May (see blog "Letter to the European Court under Article 34"), drawing to the attention of the Court a violation of Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights and requesting that the Court take this matter up with the Government – Article 34 establishes a duty on Convention states not to subject applicants to any improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy.
Any sparks of optimism we may have had at the start of the case were rapidly extinguished on reading the letter – in fact, we seem to be going backwards. In a letter of 22 November 2007, the Court stated that it was unnecessary to consider Declan’s request for priority of 8 September 2007 because it would be examining his application “shortly, possibly by the end of January 2008”. Now, seven months after the Court's first letter, it is “as soon as practicable”, and “no acknowledgment will be made as to the receipt of subsequent correspondence”. And “No telephone enquiries either”. Declan had intended sending his second request for priority to the Court by registered post only two days ago, the very same day all our money and documents were stolen, so it had to be put off (I did, however, post the request to the blog later that afternoon, with the robbery included; it can be read here). Declan will of course adhere to the Court’s advice and will be posting his second request for priority as soon as I have begged my way to £5 (for recorded delivery) in the local train station.
The Prettys lost their legal battle
Terminally-ill motor neurone disease sufferer Diane Pretty didn’t do well in the European Court either, and died on 11 May 2002 after failing to win her long battle to win the right to have her husband help her die – the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales disagreed that she should have a right of choice and was given permission by the Court to submit written comments. In Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights Philip Leach points out that in Pretty v UK “the Court did not exclude that preventing an applicant from exercising her choice to avoid an undignified and distressing end to her life might constitute an interference with the right to respect for private life”, but she lost her case anyway. In another case, Reuters reported on 11 June that Debbie Purdy, who has multiple sclerosis, has won the right to mount a challenge in the High Court to force the UK's top prosecutor to clarify the law on assisted suicide; she is seeking assurances so that she does not have to worry about her husband if he helps her visit a euthanasia facility in Switzerland at some stage in the future.
Diane Pretty lost her final challenge to choose the time and means of her own death; and how can Debbie Purdy get the assurances she is seeking? But church control can be weakened. At least, Noam Chomsky (described by The New York Times as “arguably the most important intellectual alive”, and an early signatory of Declan’s petition to the UN on therapeutic cloning) thinks it can: by coming together (see blog of 12 June “The threat of a good example”).
And while on the subject, this afternoon Declan sent his fourth email to the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor (Abhreception@rcdow.org.uk), in his capacity as Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster, regarding Providence Row Charity, of which the Dellow Centre is a part (the first email is here, and the third here):
Subject: Providence Row Charity
Dear Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor
Previous correspondence refers. Please find below a copy of my email of even date to the Chief Executive of Providence Row Charity, Ms Jo Ansell, regarding the above.
Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey
--------------------------------------------
Subject: Providence Row Charity
Dear Ms Ansell
Further to my conversation yesterday morning with the Operations Manager for Providence Row Charity (of which the Dellow Centre is a part), Ms Stephne Harrison, I can confirm in respect of the robbery of all my and my wife's money and documents in the canteen of the Dellow Centre on 18 June that the crime reference number is 4215697/08.
I understand from my visit to Brick Lane police station this morning that the police constable to whom the case has been allocated, PC Van-Gelder (number unknown), has yet to contact either Providence Row Charity or the Dellow Centre.
As for my emails to you of 6, 10 and 11 June concerning my difficulties with reception staff on the checking of records for mail for me, I understand from Ms Harrison that clients of the Dellow Centre may request "on a daily basis", if they so wish, for records to be checked for mail. If I am mistaken in this regard, please so advise.
In further reference to the aforementioned emails, I can confirm that this morning I signed for a letter from the European Court of Human Rights advising that my case will be dealt with by the Court "as soon as practicable".
Please would you acknowledge receipt.
Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey
Chain no. 69828
cc Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster (by email)
Mr Erik Fribergh, Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights (by registered post*)
________________________
* Supporting Documents, p 13, Second Request for Priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court
