Second Request for Priority to the European Court
On 30 June, Declan emailed 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 Sister of Mercy Dellow Centre belongs (see previous blog). Nonetheless, the orchestrated campaign of violence and economic strangulation against us continues (see, for example, blog of 25 June “Police ‘No sleeping’ sign in the porch”), so this afternoon Declan sent his second request for priority, with supporting documents, to the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights by registered post.
Actually, this request is much better than the one Declan had intended posting on 18 June – which he had to postpone (although I uploaded it that afternoon; it can be read here) because of the robbery of all our money and documents that very morning in the Dellow Day Centre (see blog of 18 June “Declan robbed in the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre”). It so happens that the robbery also occured two days before Declan received from the staff of the Dellow a letter to him from the European Court dated 16 June, wherein it states: “The Court will deal with the case as soon as practicable”, published here.
So here it is:
Application no. 22541/07
Heavey v. the United Kingdom
RULE 41-URGENT
Dear Mr Fribergh
With reference to my application of 8 September 2007 under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court's recent letter to me of 16 June 2008, ref ECHR-LE1.1R CO/CO/ysp, signed for the Registrar by Legal Secretary Clare Ovey, states as follows:
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.
Please find enclosed (i) a second Request for Priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, and (ii) Supporting Documents.
Yours faithfully
Declan Heavey
This is the request:
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 this email letter of 21 April in Supporting Documents, p 14). The applicant has subsequently written on several occasions to Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, including, inter alia, on 28 April, having submitted a written complaint to the Chief Executive of Providence Row Charity, Ms Jo Ansell, against a homeless man for verbal abuse of the applicant in the canteen of the Dellow Centre; on 16 May, having reported a homeless man to the Metropolitan Police for racially aggravated harassment of the applicant in the centre's men's washroom (crime reference no. 4212667/08); and on 30 June, having submitted a written complaint to Ms Ansell against a homeless woman for verbal abuse of the applicant and his wife in the centre's canteen (see copy of these email letters of 28 April, 16 May and 30 June in Supporting Documents, p 17, p 16 and p 1 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 10-15); and on 2 and 9 June they were told by police officers that, pursuant to the City of London Police's "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 7-9). 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 8).
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). On 24 June, the applicant visited Bow Street police station to be updated on the investigation into the robbery. He was informed that the investigating officer, PC Van-Gelder (number unknown), was unable to obtain any CCTV footage whatsoever from the Dellow Centre, and consequently the case had been "struck out" (see email to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of 24 June, p 5).
Having been robbed of all their money and documents, the applicant is especially concerned that his wife may be reduced to begging, a criminal offence in England. In this regard, the Court is referred to paragraph 28 of the application, wherein the applicant submits that he and his wife survive on the streets of London by selling The Big Issue, a magazine sold by homeless people throughout the UK on registered street pitches, and that numerous written complaints have been lodged by the applicant 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 does a week go by when the applicant and/or his wife is not 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.
On 19 June, the applicant was assaulted in the Catholic Manna Centre while queuing for food. (The applicant walks a two-hour round trip every weekday to the Manna Centre to get a free lunch; his wife’s only food after 9.00am are two grated-cheese sandwiches, one of which is the applicant’s, which the nuns in the Dellow Centre give the homeless with their cereal breakfast "for later".) A homeless man, whom the applicant had reported to the Metropolitan Police on 16 May for racially aggravated harassment in the Dellow Centre (crime reference no. 4212667/08), clipped the applicant's heels four to six times, while brushing up against him as the queue moved. Presented with this homeless man's history of racially aggravated harassment of the applicant in the Dellow Centre, the police recorded the incident as "common assault" (crime reference no. 3021917/08).
On 23 June at approximately 3.30pm, while on computer 23 in the Tower Hamlets Council Idea Store Whitechapel, the applicant's wife was asked by a member of staff to give the computer up to another card holder, despite that a member of staff had confirmed in writing that she had booked the computer for the applicant's wife from 2.30pm to 5.30pm (notwithstanding that since 1 February the applicant and his wife have each been restricted by the Council to a 3-hour maximum computer use per day, despite that for several months previous we were given "additional time" subject to computer availability and in accordance with the council's then and current "Idea Stores PC Usage Policy"). On 24 June at approximately 12.30pm, while on computer 24 in Idea Store Whitechapel, the applicant's wife was aggressively told by a male member of staff to give the computer up to another card holder and, despite that 30 minutes earlier a member of staff had confirmed in writing that the applicant's wife had booked the computer from 11.30am to 2.30pm, threatened her with security if she did not do so immediately. (For a brief history of the applicant and his wife's recent loss of computer bookings and internet access in Idea Store Whitechapel, see copy of email letter and attachments of 25 June to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council, Cllr Denise Jones, in Supporting Documents, pp 2-4).
On 24 June, the applicant and his wife arrived back at the porch they sleep in to find for the first time a City of London Police "No sleeping" sign on the back wall. The May 2008 issue of The Pavement, a free magazine for London's homeless, reports that some shopkeepers in the Strand, a large tourist area in the City of London, had posted "No sleeping" signs on their shop fronts, which give police "permission to move on anyone found sleeping in a doorway". That night, the applicant and his wife were visited at 10.00pm by three workers from Broadway, the homeless charity mentioned by Superintendent Cussen in her email to the applicant on 10 June, to be asked if they would go on benefits. The applicant declined, stating that he would have to withdraw his application to the Court.
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 concern that his wife may be reduced to 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 may be reduced to 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 may be reduced to begging is in fact a violation of his rights under Article 8 of the ECHR.
The applicant further submits that the numerous visits by the City of London Police in the middle of the night to order the applicant and his wife 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.
The applicant believes that the "No sleeping" sign on the back wall of the porch they sleep in at night was introduced on 24 June as no more than an alternative means for the City of London Police to move the applicant and his wife on, and as such is a fabrication: there has never been a complaint against the applicant or his wife since they started to sleep in this porch over a year and a half ago (3 November 2006); they bed down at 9.00pm, and get up every weekday at 4.30am (on Saturdays and Sundays at 6.30am); neither the applicant nor his wife drink or smoke; and the office building in question has its front entrance around the corner. The applicant wishes to emphasise that he has informed the City of London Police on numerous occasions that he and his wife have never found a more suitable place to sleep, neither within the City of London nor beyond its boundaries, and that all their contacts are within walking distance of the porch.
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, culminating in the current "No sleeping" sign on the back wall of the porch, 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 may be reduced to 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, culminating in the current "No sleeping" sign on the back wall of the porch, 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.
The applicant has for example limited access to computers, exacerbated by difficulties with computer access in his local library, Idea Store Whitechapel, and therefore has had great difficulty preparing and lodging applications prior to this time.
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. The applicant complains that nothing ever came of the investigation by the Metropolitan Police into his statement against a homeless man for racially aggravated harassment in the Dellow Centre (16 May). Moreover, the case of the robbery of all the applicant and his wife's money and documents in the Dellow Centre (18 June) was "struck out" due to the Metropolitan Police being unable to obtain any CCTV footage whatsoever from the centre. The applicant submits that the way the former case was dealt with by the Metropolitan Police may have been a factor in the assault of the applicant by the same homeless man in the Manna Centre (19 June).
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 the City of London Police "No sleeping" sign currently on the back wall of 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)
4 July 2008 LONDON
