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.