Second request for access to case file

Last night, I think, the Bishopsgate City of London police wanted to move on us under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. They have the power to arrest under the Vagrancy Act 1824, but they need to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998.

In an article in the April edition of the Police Review magazine, titled “Rough sleepers”, journalist Sarah Bebbington reports that people have the right to sleep outside if they want to, but the police use the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 to crack down on offensive behaviour and they will enforce the Vagrancy Act 1824.

In a nutshell, three workmen did their best to provoke us in the porch we sleep in at night. The objective: no doubt to render us porchless, and perhaps even arrested for offensive behaviour. It wouldn’t have taken much to offend them.

This move on us was unprecedented: we have been sleeping in the porch (save a brief period in rolling shelters) since 3 November. OK, this is the account. No sooner have we spread our things along our cardboard (9.35pm), when two workers come out of the building and, as if we are not there, start smoking and chatting while standing on the cardboard, forcing us to dump all our stuff unceremoniously to one side.

One of them then picks up one of Declan’s runners and asks if he can use it as a doorstop. No, Declan tells him, so this guy takes off one of his own runners and uses it for the purpose. After a few minutes, a third worker arrives by van and he and his loose dog join in the fun – the dog takes particular interest in us and sniffs about, until his owner eventually decides to put him back in the van.

Ten minutes having past, all three head inside, only to leave again at 10.00pm. They return at 10.20pm and leave for good at 11.25pm, blowing the alarm of the porch on their way out. Were they upset at being so careless? Not if their body language and laughs mean anything. If you ask me, they were having a ball: the best end to their day.

The alarm wasn’t switched off until 11.40pm, but we don’t know by whom because whoever it was never left by the porch – yes, there is a very fine front to the building. And after that? The alarm box flashed a blue light all night, still going strong when we got up as usual at 5.00am.

So much for Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which says that applicants to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg must not be subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to modify or withdraw their complaints, either by direct coercion or flagrant acts of intimidation (see previous blog).

Article 38 of the Convention is one we are particularly keen on for our introductory letter to lodge our case against the UK with the European Court of Human Rights. This Article requires that the respondent state should provide “all necessary facilities” for any investigation (in whatever form it takes) carried out by the Court in order to establish the facts. Enter the Royal Courts of Justice.

On 2 April, Declan wrote to the Deputy Master of Civil Appeals requesting access to the case file for sight and copy of this letter from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) which states, according to Judge Walker in paragraph 32 of his judgment of 11 December, that the termination of our unemployment benefit on 27 September because Declan failed to sign on was a “mistake”, but that there is another good reason (unspecified by Judge Walker in his refusal of permission to allow Declan apply for judicial review against the DWP) for terminating payment.

There is nothing the Deputy Master of Civil Appeals can do, Declan was informed in writing yesterday, as this letter must have been within papers that were before Judge Walker in the High Court on 11 December. He was directed to contact the Administrative Court with his request.

Never one to miss a catch (and in this instance a catch of monumental proportions, given that the Court of Appeal refused without a hearing permission to appeal for the reasons cited in Judge Walker’s judgment), Declan did just that. This is the letter he sent by registered post yesterday afternoon to the Head of the Administrative Court Office, Lynne Knapman:

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)

As directed by the Civil Appeals Office, I am writing to you on the above matter.

I enclose copy of the order made by Lord/Lady Justice Scott Baker on 22 March 2007, which states in respect of my application for permission to appeal that the reasons for refusing permission “are clearly explained in the judgment of Walker J”.

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 hereby request access to the papers that were before Mr Justice Walker on 11 December 2006.

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 ...

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.

I can confirm that I have had no sight of any such letter from the DWP, nor have I been provided with any reason by the DWP or the Court for the termination of payment other than that provided in the letter of 27 September 2006, namely that I did not sign on (two days before I was due to do so on 29 September 2006).

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey