Second Request for Priority to the European Court on stand-by
OK, below is Declan's second Request for Priority to the European Court of Human Rights under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. This morning we were, well, robbed in the Dellow Centre of all our money and documents (see previous blog). This request, the original of which Declan had intended posting this morning, has been updated with the robbery and the fact that, as a consequence, I have been forced into begging. It will be posted as soon as I have begged my way to £5 in the local train station.
This is the cover letter to the Registrar of the ECHR on stand-by:
Application no. 22541/07
Heavey v. the United Kingdom
RULE 41-URGENT
Dear Mr Fribergh
With reference to my request for priority of 8 September 2007 under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the Court's recent letter to me of 22 November 2007, ref ECHR-LE0.1R CO/PHA/gz, signed for the Registrar by Legal Secretary C Ovey, states as follows:
With reference to your request for priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, I can inform you that the Court will examine your application shortly, possibly by the end of January 2008. It would therefore appear unnecessary to consider your request.
In the absence of hearing further from the Court, please find enclosed (i) a second Request for Priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, and (ii) Supporting Documents.
Please would you acknowledge receipt.
Yours faithfully
Declan Heavey
And this is the request for priority on stand-by:
SECOND REQUEST FOR PRIORITY UNDER
RULE 41 OF THE RULES OF COURT
1. The applicant respectfully requests that the Court consider this second request for priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
2. The request is made by the applicant in person. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) entered into force for the Government of the United Kingdom on 3 September 1953 and has been in force since that time with no reservations, declarations or understandings relevant to this present applicant.
BACKGROUND OF REQUEST
As the applicant submitted in his application of 8 September 2007 (para. 22), he and his wife have been sleeping rough in the porch of an office building in the City of London since 3 November 2006, the Department for Work and Pensions having terminated the applicant's joint claim for Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) on 27 September 2006 because the applicant did not "sign on" two days before he was due to do so on 29 September. At paragraph 22, the applicant submits that on 22 November 2006 the Dellow Centre of the Catholic Sisters of Mercy Providence Row Charity recorded on the applicant's wife's registration form that St Mungo's, London's largest homelessness organisation, had informed the centre that neither the applicant nor his wife could be referred to a hostel "due to not being on any benefits". For the avoidance of doubt, the applicant maintains each and every aspect of his application: this second request for priority is in addition to the application.
Since 10 April 2008, the applicant has been washing in the streets as a result of harassment and intimidation in the Dellow Centre, and due to his concern that he and his wife may be barred from the centre through no fault of their own: as submitted in his application (para 25), the applicant and his wife were barred from the Methodist Church Whitechapel Mission on 18 June 2007 due to concerns about their safety following an unprovoked assault on the applicant's wife by a homeless woman in the canteen of the premises (crime reference no. 4217341/07).
On 21 April 2008, arising from his concern that he and his wife may be barred from the Dellow Centre, the applicant wrote to the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, in his capacity as Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster, to which the Dellow Centre belongs (see copy of the email letter in Supporting Documents, p 9). The applicant has subsequently written twice more to Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor: on 28 April, having submitted a written complaint to the Chief Executive of the Providence Row Charity, Ms Jo Ansell, against a homeless man for verbal abuse of the applicant in the canteen of the Dellow Centre; and on 16 May, having reported a homeless man to the Metropolitan Police for racially aggravated harassment (crime reference no. 4212667/08) of the applicant in the centre's men's washroom (see copy of these email letters of 28 April and 16 May in Supporting Documents, p 12 and p 11 respectively).
Since 9 May 2008, the applicant and his wife have been visited on a number of occasions by the City of London Police in the middle of the night to be ordered to immediately move out of the porch they have been sleeping in since 3 November 2006 to beyond city boundaries or be arrested: on 9 and 17 May, they were told by police officers that the City of London was being "cleaned" of rough sleepers (see copy of letter and enclosures to Prime Minister Gordon Brown of 19 May in Supporting Documents, pp 5-10); and on 2 and 9 June they were told by police officers that, pursuant to their "Operation Poncho II", the City of London's Cleansing service had to wash and disinfect the porch floor with immediate effect (see copy of email letter and attachments to Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Sir Ian Blair of 11 June in Supporting Documents, pp 1-4). On 10 June, the applicant received an email from Superintendent Lorraine Cussen of Snow Hill police station, wherein the applicant is advised to find accommodation with the help of Broadway, a homeless charity, and in which it states that "the cleansing will continue for the foreseeable future" (see copy of this email of 10 June in Supporting Documents, p 3).
On 14 June, the applicant was assaulted by a man in the porch he has been sleeping with his wife, the first time the applicant has been assaulted in the porch (the applicant sleeps on the inside with his and his wife's bags; his wife on the outside). The suspect jumped on the applicant's feet while the applicant was asleep in his sleeping bag, and could have caused serious injury had the applicant not been wearing runners. The suspect was subsequently arrested in the porch for "common assault" (crime reference no. CR/4359/08).
On 18 June, the applicant was robbed in the Dellow Centre of his main bag, containing, among other things, all his and his wife's money and documents, including, inter alia, passports, birth and marriage certificates, driving licence, and court related and educational qualification documentation (crime reference no. 4215697/08).
The Big Issue is a magazine sold by homeless people throughout the UK on registered street pitches. Having been robbed of all their money and documents, the applicant and his wife have no money to buy Big Issues, and consequently the applicant's wife has been forced into begging, a criminal offence in England. In this regard, the Court is referred to paragraph 28 of the application, wherein the applicant submits that numerous written complaints have been lodged by him with The Big Issue Head Office in respect of his wife and himself being walked off their respective pitch on Liverpool Street by other street traders, including, inter alia, Big Issue vendors. The applicant's written complaints to head office have continued unabated: most recently, on 10 June, the applicant complained in writing that he was walked off his pitch by a street distributor for an estate agent who insisted on passing fliers within one foot of the applicant; in fact, seldom has a week gone by when the applicant and/or his wife has not been forced to walk off their respective pitch in order to avoid confrontation (for which they can be debadged) with other street traders, including Big Issue vendors.
The subject matter of the applicant and his wife being visited by the City of London Police at night to be ordered to immediately move out of the porch they sleep in to beyond city boundaries or be arrested is of considerable concern and may in itself be a ground for acceding to this application.
VIOLATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION
Under Articles 1 and 8 of the ECHR the United Kingdom has a positive obligation to ensure respect for an individual's private and family life. The Court has previously held that private life includes an individual's physical and moral integrity (X and Y v Netherlands, No. 8978/80, Series A, No. 91, 26.3.85, (1986) 8 EHRR 235, para. 22).
The recent assault and robbery of the applicant and his wife having been forced into begging has very serious and damaging consequences for him and amounts to a very severe intrusion into his private sphere and his right to physical and moral integrity. These rights have been violated by the Government of the United Kingdom as a result of the ceasing the applicant and his wife's entitlement to JSA in breach of regulation 27(1) of the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996, which provides that such entitlement 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. (As submitted above, the Department for Work and Pensions terminated the applicant's joint claim JSA on 27 September 2006 because the applicant did not "sign on" two days before he was due to do so on 29 September.)
In the case of Sidabras and Dziautas v Lithuania (Nos 55480/00 and 59330/00, para. 49, ECHR 2004-VII), the Court noted the applicants' argument that, as result of the publicity caused by the adoption of the KGB Act and its application to them, they had suffered constant embarrassment as a result of their past activities. The Court accepted that the applicants continued to be burdened with the status of "former KGB officers" affecting the enjoyment of their "private life". The Court stated that "they are marked in the eyes of society on account of their past association with an oppressive regime." Like the position of the applicants in Sidabras and Dziautas v Lithuania, the applicant and his wife will suffer constant embarrassment as result of the criminal record that may follow from her begging. They will be burdened with the "criminal" status affecting the enjoyment of their private life. They will be marked in the eyes of society on account of the applicant's wife having a criminal record.
The applicant also submits that there is a severe violation of the right to respect for his "family life" under Article 8. It is well established that this right primarily obliges the state to protect the integrity of the family: to ensure that family relationships develop normally (Marckx v Belgium, (1979) Series A, No. 31, paras 31 and 45) and that members of a family have "the mutual enjoyment of each other's company" (Olsson v Sweden, (1988) Series A, No. 130, para. 59). In Lopez Ostra v Spain (1994), Series A, No. 303-C, at para. 51, the Court found that "severe environmental pollution may affect individuals' well-being and prevent them from enjoying their homes in such a way as to affect their private and family life adversely …". In the present case, the applicant submits that there has been a similar interference with the applicant's family life. Following the recent assault of the applicant in the porch he shares with his wife, the robbery of all their money and documents, and arising from his concern that his wife has been forced into begging, there has been a profoundly distressing effect on both the applicant and his wife, thereby seriously affecting their relationship in violation of the positive duty on the state to respect his family life.
It is therefore submitted in respect of the applicant that the recent assault on him, the robbery of all his and his wife's money and documents and his concern that his wife has been forced into begging is in fact a violation of his rights under Article 8 of the ECHR.
The applicant further submits that being visited on a number of occasions by the City of London Police in the middle of the night to be ordered to immediately move out of the porch they sleep in to beyond city boundaries or be arrested constitutes a violation of Article 34 (formally Article 25) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court will note that Superintendent Cussen in her email of 10 June does not dispute that on 2 and 9 June the City of London's Cleansing service was used by the City of London Police to move the applicant and his wife to beyond City boundaries, stating that "the cleansing will continue for the foreseeable future".
Article 34 establishes a duty on Convention states not to hinder the effective exercise of the right to apply to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court has frequently emphasised that it is of the utmost importance for the effective operation of the system of individual petition that applicants or potential applicants should be able to communicate freely with the Court. Article 34 states that:
The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.
Under Article 34, applicants must not be subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to modify or withdraw their complaints. "Pressure" includes direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation (of applicants, potential applicants, their families and legal representatives), but also any improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy.
In the case of Kurt v Turkey (No. 24276/94, 25.5.98, (1999) 26 EHRR 373), the Court found there had been improper pressure in violation of former Article 25, after the applicant alleged that she had been pressurised by the authorities to withdraw her application to the Commission.
With reference to Superintendent Cussen’s recommendation in her email of 10 June that the applicant engage with Broadway for help to find accommodation, the applicant wishes to draw to the Court's attention that he and his wife would need to apply for JSA, and as a consequence withdraw his application to the Court. (As submitted above, on 22 November 2006 the Dellow Centre recorded on the applicant's wife's registration form that St Mungo's, London's largest homelessness organisation, had informed the centre that neither the applicant nor his wife could be referred to a hostel "due to not being on any benefits".)
It is therefore submitted in respect of the applicant that the various attempts by the City of London Police to move him and his wife out of the porch they sleep in at night is in fact a violation of his rights under Article 34 of the ECHR.
NECESSITY OF EXPEDITION
An urgent expedition is necessary in this instance because of the violations of the applicant's human rights already existing and are likely to be even greater. The right that has been violated is the right to private and family life as established under Article 8 by the applicant being assaulted in the porch he shares with his wife, having been robbed of all their money and documents, and arising from his concern that his wife has been forced into begging. The attempts by the City of London Police to move the applicant and his wife from the porch they sleep in at night to beyond the City boundaries constitutes a violation of the applicant's effective right of application as established under Article 34. These violations constitute a grave threat of irreparable and serious harm.
IRREPARABLE HARM
Once the applicant is in fact severely assaulted or arrested (due to his refusal to put his wife at risk of more ill-treatment by moving out of the porch they sleep in at night; they have never found a more suitable place to sleep), it will become very difficult if not almost impossible for him to pursue his application to the Court and this applicant has of course become subject to human rights violations as previously described.
In establishing the extent of the risk to the applicant of ill-treatment, the Court will note that the applicant has been washing in the streets since 10 April as a result of harassment and intimidation in the Dellow Centre.
Should the applicant be severely assaulted and/or his wife reduced to begging, the Court may have to strike the case out, for example because the applicant has failed to reply to Court letters over a period of time (see, Peltonen v Finland, No. 27323/95, 28.9.00 and Yakan v Turkey, No. 43362/98, 19.9.00). As the applicant submitted in his first request for priority that accompanied his application of 8 September 2007, his use of a landline phone was withdrawn by the Dellow Centre on 26 July 2007. Further, as sumitted above, the applicant's written complaints to The Big Issue Head Office have continued unabated in respect of his wife and himself being walked off their respective pitch on Liverpool Street by other street traders, including, inter alia, Big Issue vendors.
Much longer a period as a rough sleeper is more than likely to subject the applicant to serious ill-treatment and continued violations of Article 8 and Article 34.
SERIOUS HARM
The very fact that the applicant and his wife are threatened with a criminal record arising from a City of London Police visit to the porch they sleep in at night, and the devastating repercussions of any such record for the applicant and his wife's career and prospects, is sufficient to demonstrate the serious harm that will result from the failure to adopt an expedition of the applicant's case against the Government of the United Kingdom.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons the applicant respectfully requests that the Court indicate the expedition of the applicant's case to the Government of the United Kingdom.
DECLAN HEAVEY
c/o THE DELLOW CENTRE
82 WENTWORTH STREET
LONDON E1 7SA
UNITED KINGDOM
EMAIL: dheavey@gmail.com
TEL: 0779 284 3167 (mobile)
June 2008 LONDON
