Police 'No sleeping' sign in the porch

Last night at 10.00pm Declan and I were woken in the porch we sleep in by three workers from Broadway, the homeless organisation that Superintendent Lorraine Cussen of Snow Hill police station, in her email to Declan of 10 June (see blog of 11 June “Letter to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis”), recommended we engage with. “If we could have a chat with you and Declan,” the most senior of them says, “about what we can do for you.” Somehow she already knows about our case in the European Court of Human Rights, so Declan further informs her that he wrote to the Court on 12 May, citing a violation of Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights and requesting that the Court take this matter up with the Government (see blog “Letter to the European Court under Article 34”) – 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.

I add that since 13 June Declan has been assaulted in the porch (see blog of 14 June “Declan is assaulted in the porch”); his main bag, which contained, among other things, all our documentation and money, has been robbed in the Dellow Centre (see blog of 18 June “Declan robbed in the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre”); and he has been assaulted in the Manna Centre (see blog of 19 June “Declan assaulted in the Manna Centre”) – the robbery took place the same day Declan had intended sending by registered post his second request for priority to the European Court, which I posted to the blog that afternoon, with the robbery included; the request can be read here (two days after the robbery, the Dellow Centre presented Declan with a letter from the European Court, which is published here).

This orchestrated campaign of violence against us seems to have only started, I say, adding that that afternoon, in Bow Street police station, Declan is told that the case on the robbery of all our money and documents has been “struck out” because the investigating officer was unable to get any CCTV footage whatsoever from the Dellow Centre (see email to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor below, to which his Personal Secretary, Sr Damian McGrath, replied this morning: “I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your email concerning Providence Row Charity. The Cardinal is out of the country at the present time but he will see your email on his return next week.”); around the same time in the Idea Store Whitechapel library I am told by a member of staff, in the middle of my computer booking, that I have to give the computer up to another card holder or security will be called (see email to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council below); and at 9.10pm, when we arrive back at the porch, we are greeted by the City of London Police 'No sleeping' sign overhead. So, no I don’t think Broadway can do much for us, I finally say.

The Broadway worker means if we would apply for benefits. But Declan explains he would have to withdraw his application to the Court, which neither of us could contemplate. (The Department of Work and Pensions terminated our benefits on 27 September 2006 because Declan didn't sign on two days before he was due to do so on 29 September, see blog of 8 September 2007 “Application to the European Court of Human Rights”.)

       ‘No sleeping’ sign

She fixes her eyes on the City of London Police 'No sleeping' sign. “This was put today?” she asks. Just the latest attempt to move us out of the porch, I reply, adding that on 9 May police told us they were "cleaning" the City of London of rough sleepers and that we either move to beyond city boundaries or be arrested, despite that Declan had been diagnosed in the Royal London Hospital with a sprained ankle only hours before (see blog of 9 May "Letter to the Mayor of London”); police also told us the same thing on 17 May (see blog of 17 May "Letter to the British Prime Minister"). Then the whole approach changed, I informed her: on 2 and 9 June, we have to move out of the porch (to beyond city boundaries) so that the City of London's Cleansing service can wash and disinfect the porch floor with immediate effect; and we can be arrested if we don’t move (see blog of 18 June "Second Request for Priority to the European Court").

We are quite aware that the sign is “not worth the paper it is written on”, Declan says. The May issue of The Pavement (a free magazine for London’s homeless) states that shopkeepers in the big tourist area of the Strand (Westminster area) are abandoning the Whitehall Safer Neighbourhood [police] Team’s 'No sleeping' signs on their shop fronts, claiming that they are no longer effective; apparently, the shopkeepers prefer to call the police if they have any problems or incidents. (We, by the way, have been sleeping in this porch – an office building – for over a year and a half (since 3 November 2006), bed down at 9.00pm, get up at 4.30am, don’t drink or smoke, and never have had a complaint against us; hardly material for the sign.)

“We will come back some other time,” she said, and they all left. So what is going to happen when police tell us we have to move out of the porch because the sign gives them permission to move us on (as they can see the proprietor(s) have not consented)? Well, Declan will pick up his bags and head off, but I am going to stay put: I will submit that there hasn’t been a complaint against us in over a year and a half and that this is no more than a flagrant violation of Article 34. Declan’s recent letter from the Court, dated 16 June, not only acknowledges receipt of his email letter of 12 May pursuant to Article 34 but states that Declan should inform the Court “about any major developments” regarding the case; so if I am arrested Declan will do just that, again by email, and within hours of me being placed in custody. (And if it is a worker who wants us out? Well, more or less the same. I will politely, and very apologetically, ask him to phone the police, having explained that our case is before the European Court of Human Rights.)

In his email, Declan will argue that my arrest violates Article 8 (which includes an individual’s physical and moral integrity), as well as Article 34. Declan will submit that the interference with his rights under Article 8 was not prescribed by law, that it did not pursue any of the legitimate aims in Article 8(2), and that the interference was not necessary in a democratic society. “There is simply no relationship of proportionality between the aim pursued and the interference with the applicant’s rights,” Declan will say.

At least I can take comfort we don’t live under Robert Mugabe – an article in The Independent today titled “'A flagrant violation of democracy': ANC tells Mugabe to delay election” reports that the ANC said it was "deeply dismayed by the actions of the government of Zimbabwe, which is riding roughshod over the hard-won democratic rights of the people of that country”. But I find very uplifting a talk given by 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) – in December 2006, see blog of 12 June “The threat of a good example”.

This is the email to Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor yesterday evening:

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

Thank you for your ("Receipt acknowledged") email of 23 June in respect of my email of 20 June, wherein I drew to your attention as the chief executive of Providence Row Charity (of which the Dellow Centre is a part) the robbery of all my and my wife's money and documents in the canteen of the Dellow Centre on the morning of 18 June (crime reference no. 4215697/08).

In further reference to my email of 20 June, I can confirm that this afternoon I visited Bow Street police station to be updated on the investigation into the robbery. I understand that the investigating officer, PC Van-Gelder (number unknown), has been unable to get any CCTV footage whatsoever from the Dellow Centre, and consequently the case has been "struck out" by him.

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

And for the record, this is Declan’s email letter this afternoon to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council, Councillor Denise Jones:

Subject: Idea Store Whitechapel

Dear Cllr Jones

I refer further to the attached copy of my most recent correspondence with Mr Ian McNicol, Head of Idea Stores, to whom you referred my original complaint of 21 January regarding Idea Store Whitechapel and the repeated loss of computer bookings and internet access on both my wife's card (card no. D000350314) and my card (card no. D000355837) since 14 November 2007.

I also attach copy of my wife's and my computer bookings for 23 and 24 June.

In the continued absence of a response from Mr McNichol in respect of the aforementioned complaint of 21 January, I wish to confirm that (1) on 24 June at approximately 12.30pm, while on computer 24 in Idea Store Whitechapel, my wife was asked by a member of staff to give the computer up to another card holder, despite that thirty minutes earlier a member of staff had confirmed in writing that my wife had booked the computer from 11.30am to 2.30pm (this particular member of staff was aggressive, threatening to call security if she didn't move immediately; only leaving when another member of staff intervened to allow my wife to retain her booking); and (2) on 23 June at approximately 3.30pm, while on computer 23, my 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 my wife from 2.30pm to 5.30pm (this particular member of staff only left when another member of staff intervened to allow my wife to retain her booking).

I also reconfirm that (1) on 28 March, my wife experienced difficulties accessing the internet from 12.30pm to 1.50pm (she was informed by a member of staff that no other person had reported any difficulties whatsoever accessing the internet); (2) on 11 February, a member of staff had to move me from one computer to another because it was not possible for me to access the internet (no other computer user reported any such difficulty); (3) on 10 February, my wife lost her booking to another card holder and had to spend 10 minutes dealing with a member of staff before the computer was re-booked in her name, and (4) on 1 February, I received an email from Mr Sergio Dogliani, Principal Idea Store Manager, advising that the restriction by Idea Store Whitechapel of my wife and I to a 3-hour maximum free computer use per day as from 29 January was irretractable, despite that for several months previous both my wife and I had been given extra hours of free computer use, subject to computer availability.

As I explained in my original letter of complaint of 21 January, since 22 October 2007 my wife and I have been using as much of our computer time in Idea Store Whitechapel as possible to contact distinguished scientists and academics to invite them to sign my petition to the United Nations on therapeutic cloning and the use of stem cells for research and for the treatment of disease. To date, this petition has been signed by 519 scientists and academics, including 22 Nobel laureates.

Kindly note that the case of Heavey v. the United Kingdom is currently before the European Court of Human Rights (Application no. 22541/07).

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

cc Mr Erik Fribergh, Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights (by registered post*)
________________________
* Supporting Documents, p 14-16, Second Request for Priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court

US bishops condemn embryonic stem cell research

This morning Declan paid another visit to Brick Lane police station to enquire if PC Van-Gelder (number unknown) has started the investigation into the robbery in the Catholic Dellow Centre of his main bag, which contained all our money and documents (see blog of 18 June “Declan robbed in the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre”) – the robbery took place the same day Declan had intended sending by registered post his second request for priority to the European Court of Human Rights, which I posted to the blog that afternoon; and can be read here. (Two days after the robbery, the Dellow Centre presented Declan with a letter from the European Court, which is published in the previous blog).

No, there is no news at all, and Declan can’t speak with PC Van-Gelder because he is not in the station. Declan will try again tomorrow – the entire canteen area is covered by CCTV; although Declan was informed in Southwark police station the next day that homeless day centres generally don’t provide police with information on clients without a warrant (see blog of 19 June “Declan assaulted in the Manna Centre”).

Bishops' document blasts embryonic stem cell research

On 13 June, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a document titled "On Embryonic Stem Cell Research", the first formal statement issued by the organisation devoted exclusively to the issue. The bishops voted 191-1 to adopt the statement, without debate or discussion. Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, and part of the bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, was hopeful the document "would be taken seriously by all policymakers".

In a BBC article of 10 April Sir Martin Evans, who received the Nobel Prize for medicine last year, urged British MPs voting on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill to "stop listening to the emotive arguments of religiously motivated pressure groups”, adding: “Please look at the evidence. Don't immediately go for the knee-jerk reaction mainly powered by the 'yuck' factor.” The US bishops’ statement finds room for plenty emotive arguments. We read that “harvesting embryonic stem cells involves the deliberate killing of innocent human beings”, that “some researchers, ethicists, and policy makers claim that we may directly kill innocent embryonic human beings as if they were mere objects of research”, and that “the same ethic that justifies taking some lives to help the patient with Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease today can be used to sacrifice that very patient tomorrow”.

Sir Martin is also quoted in the article as saying: “I think the point of debate really is: are the embryos that are being used for research fully-formed humans? To me and to many other scientists - knowing that these are just a small bunch of cells - the answer is no.” Lisa Jardine, the new chair of the British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, is one such scientist. She tells the New Statesman (see blog of 29 May “Stem cells and morality”) when asked about the beginning of life: "I think I need consciousness - I've a little bit of a philosophical temperament - and we're a hell of a way from consciousness at 14 days." She adds: "The moment of fertilisation is not a very helpful moment to begin talking about the sanctity of human life. As a woman who's had a long childbearing life, I know perfectly well that any number of embryos were swept away. Maybe [some] naturally, but some of them weren't. Sometimes I'd jumped up and down in the hope that I wasn't pregnant, you know?"

Also in the same issue of the New Statesman is philosopher Julian Baggini on deciding ethical issues. "When it comes to specific matters of morality, the idea that religious convictions need respect, not interrogation and defence, is absurd," he writes. "The world's major religious texts have nothing to say about stem cells, not least because those words do not appear in any of them. It may be a matter of faith that Christ rose from the dead, but Christians have to defend anything they say about the first stages of life." Clearly the bishops do not believe they have to defend anything they say about the first stages of life: they make their case with appeals like “the human embryo, from conception onward, is as much a living member of the human species as any of us” (and related expressions as “the embryo is a complete and distinct member of the species Homo sapiens” and “human beings at the embryonic stage of development”).

The US bishops’ statement has a problem not just with embryonic stem cell research but with therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer – it is “intrinsically evil,” they say, “because it reduces human procreation to a mere manufacturing process, producing new human beings in the laboratory to predetermined specifications as though they were commodities”. The NSW Minister for Science and Medical Research, Verity Firth, wouldn’t be impressed to hear therapeutic cloning described as “intrinsically evil”: on 19 June she announced at the BIO 2008 convention in San Diego that Sydney IVF and the Australian Stem Cell Centre (ASCC) in Melbourne have launched a project to characterise and compare induced pluripotent stem cells, human embryonic stem cells and stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer. "Both the NSW and Victorian governments are proud to be supporting this ground-breaking work, which we believe will offer new hope to people living with debilitating diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease,” Firth said. "The combination of the international quality talent and significant resources of these two collaborative partners gives this project the potential to provide world-first advancements in these new biological frontiers."

And what about hybrid embryos, which the US bishops are also troubled by because they “disturbingly blur the line between animal and human species”? Well, on 19 May British MPs voted in favour of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which allows for the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos (see blog of 20 May "UK parliament backs human-animal embryo research") – the hybrid approach is a tool for generating disease-specific embryonic stem cells without the need to use donated human eggs; the cells will not be used in patients, but be used to model diseases in the lab, test new therapies and study cloning processes. (In April, Lyle Armstrong of Newcastle University, a signatory of Declan’s petition to the UN on therapeutic cloning, announced that he and his team had created human-animal hybrid embryos for the first time in Britain. The scientists merged human genetic material with cow egg cells that had most of their own genetic material removed, see blog of 5 April “Declan narrowly escapes being assaulted”.)

The bishops write that adult stem cells “have already demonstrated great medical promise” – but in an article that appeared on 11 June in the Minnesota Daily, Rep Phyllis Kahn, who has a PhD in biophysics from Yale, states: “We can't really maximize the potential of adult stem cells without the parallel embryonic stem cell science." The bishops further adduce: “Researchers have even developed new non-destructive methods for producing cells with the properties of embryonic stem cells – for example, by ‘reprogramming’ adult cells.” However, on 30 January the International Society for Stem Cell Research issued a statement on the stem cell initiatives announced in President Bush’s State of the Union Address, which says: “The breakthrough in iPS cell research was made possible by several years of prior embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research must continue if scientists are going to have the most modern and powerful research tools at their disposal”.

Despite these exclusions, the bishops write: “It now seems undeniable that once we cross the fundamental moral line that prevents us from treating any fellow human being as a mere object of research, there is no stopping point. The only moral stance that affirms the human dignity of all of us is to reject the first step down this path.” The concept of human dignity has been dealt with by Steven Pinker – world-renowned thinker and Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University (and an honorary associate of NAC and early signatory of Declan’s petition) – in an article for The New Republic entitled “The Stupidity of Dignity” (see blog of 23 May “The Stupidity of Dignity”). Denouncing dignity, for one thing, as a “squishy” concept (ambiguous, slippery, and vague), Pinker writes:

The concept of dignity is natural ground on which to build an obstructionist bioethics. An alleged breach of dignity provides a way for third parties to pass judgment on actions that are knowingly and willingly chosen by the affected individuals. It thus offers a moralistic justification for expanded government regulation of science, medicine, and private life. And the Church's franchise to guide people in the most profound events of their lives--birth, death, and reproduction--is in danger of being undermined when biomedicine scrambles the rules. It's not surprising, then, that "dignity" is a recurring theme in Catholic doctrine: The word appears more than 100 times in the 1997 edition of the Catechism and is a leitmotif in the Vatican's recent pronouncements on biomedicine.

So, despite the best efforts of the US bishops, I can’t help but think about an article by professor of philosophy AC Grayling – and one of Britain’s foremost public intellectuals – published in The Guardian on 3 May 2006, which states that “it is the business of all religious doctrines to keep their votaries in a state of intellectual infancy (how else do they keep absurdities seeming credible?)”. Oh well, granted: I am not the most impartial person in the world.

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

Declan assaulted in the Manna Centre

After being robbed of all our money and documents yesterday morning in the Catholic Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre, the same day Declan had intended submitting his second Request for Priority to the European Court of Human Rights by registered post, we made sure the document in question was uploaded to this blog before going back to the porch - where the City of London Police have been waking us of late to tell us to move beyond city boundaries or be arrested.

It was good we did so, because this afternoon Declan walked the two-hour round trip for lunch in the Manna Centre (whose building is provided rent-free by the Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark) only to be seriously harassed in the queue for food – this guy clipped Declan’s heels four to six times, while brushing up hard against him as the queue moved. Given that Declan already had a crime reference number on this guy for “racially aggravated harassment” in the Dellow Centre (see blog of 16 May “More racially aggravated harassment in the Dellow Centre”), the Metropotian Police wrote him up this time for “common assault”, and gave Declan a second crime reference number for the guy (3021917/08). I’m afraid this guy also likes to harass middle-aged women: on 11 April he indirectly informed me in the Manna that I would be found one morning with a knife in my back.

The police officer Declan dealt with at Southwark police station had a look at the computer and informed Declan that Brick Lane police officers had contacted the Dellow weeks ago for information on the guy but were refused. “They would need a warrant to get the information,” he said. “This is the way it is with homeless day centres.” In fact, he knows the Manna is particularly protective of its clients. Only in case of grievous bodily harm (GBH) would police be likely to get any cooperation, he said. “And in hostels?” Declan asked. The same, the officer replied.

The officer told Declan that he didn’t understand how day centres were getting away with it. So when Declan explained that we were barred last June from the Methodist Church Whitechapel Mission by the minister’s wife after I was assaulted in an unprovoked attack by a homeless woman, it was his opinion that it is outrageous that those working with the homeless are protecting the perpetrators of crime, and not their victims.

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
 

Declan robbed in the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre

This morning at 8.45am Declan’s number one bag was robbed in the Catholic Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre – while he was at the counter being served breakfast by kitchen staff. All our personal documentation (passports, birth and marriage certificates, degrees, diploma, educational certificates, references, driving licence, etc.), original documentation relating to Declan’s case in the European Court of Human Rights, stationary, non-prescription medication, our money (about £20), four £5 phonecards (see blog of 26 March “We are seeking to raise £4,000”), personal photographs, Declan’s only shirt for the summer … all robbed. (Fortunately, we retain copies of all European Court-related documentation, passports, and other documentation on memory sticks and DVDs.)

The Dellow opens its gates at 8.30am, and until 9.30am is only available to those who are verified rough sleepers, so most are regulars, really. The place is pretty quiet for the first 20 minutes or so and there are always nuns, staff and volunteers around about the place – in fact, in over a year and a half we are not aware of any robbery having taken place in the canteen of the premises. Declan reported the robbery at reception, where he was told to write it up. So we went straight to Brick Lane police station.



Does Declan know who did it? Most certainly. In fact, in the police station he gave a description of not only what was robbed but the only way it could have been robbed and by whom. The matter will be investigated, a police officer informed us, and gave us a crime reference number (4215697/08), but not a copy of the statement.

With certainty, Declan was robbed in the few seconds a day when our bags are out of the line of sight - when he has to deal with the kitchen staff of the Dellow. I was in the washroom. All the rest of the rough sleepers, about six or seven, had also left their bags at their usual tables and most were queuing with Declan (no-one queues for food with bags); yet, Declan’s main bag was the only bag taken - and from a place in plain view and covered by CCTV. Unfortunately, when Declan got back to the table it took him a couple of minutes to realise that one of our six bags was gone and, indeed, had been spirited out of the canteen.

So from tomorrow I am back begging in Liverpool Street station. We don’t even have the money to buy a couple of Big Issues (a magazine sold by homeless people throughout the UK on registered street pitches), and Declan will have to wait now to send his second Request for Priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court to the European Court of Human Rights by registered post (£5), which he had intended doing this morning - Declan has yet to receive notification from the Court as to whether his application of 8 September 2007 has been declared inadmissible or the case communicated to the Government: his most recent letter from the Court, dated 22 November 2007, states that it was unnecessary to consider his original request for priority because the Court would be examining his application “shortly, possibly by the end of January 2008”.

Undoubtedly Declan is having a bad run of luck: last Saturday he was assaulted in the porch we have been sleeping in since 3 November 2006, the first time he has been assaulted there. His second request for priority, which I will upload later this afternoon, will be further updated with the robbery this morning and the fact that I have been forced into begging. It already includes, among other things, the attempts over the last few weeks by the City of London Police to move us out of the porch to beyond City boundaries, as well as several incidences of harassment and intimidation in the Dellow Centre of late.

This second request for priority includes as suppoting documents letters of complaint about the Dellow Centre that Declan has written to the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who is also Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster, to which the Dellow Centre belongs, arising from our concern that we may be barred from the premises through no fault of our own. We were, after all, barred from the Methodist Church Whitechapel Mission on 18 June 2007 due to concerns about their safety following an unprovoked assault on me by a homeless woman in the canteen of that premises (crime reference no. 4217341/07).

Declan is assaulted in the porch

It seemed too good to be true that for the past few days we haven’t been disturbed by the police in the porch we sleep in at night – on Wednesday Declan wrote to Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Sir Ian Blair (see blog here) after we were threatened with arrest on 2 June (2.35am) and 9 June (3.00am) pursuant to “Operation Poncho II” if we didn’t leave the porch (to beyond City boundaries) so that the City of London's Cleansing service could wash and disinfect the porch floor with immediate effect. In fact, it was. This morning, two minutes before 6.30am, the time our alarm clock gets us up on Saturdays and Sundays, Declan was the victim of a “common assault”.

This guy jumped on Declan’s feet – I am not sure if he jumped over me, landing on Declan’s feet, or if he walked through the gap between our groundsheet and a side wall and then jumped;
Declan is convinced he half-heard him jump in over me – before sitting himself down opposite Declan, overplaying dumb and drunk. (If it wasn’t because Declan sleeps with his runners on inside his sleeping bag, and this guy came down on him right, he might be walking with a limp.)

While Declan was phoning 999 this guy looked cool as a cucumber, even when the police arrived. Declan wanted to press charges but PC 416C wasn’t keen at all: there is no injury, no reddening of the feet, no proof of contact, and my favourite “he didn’t do it on purpose”. Declan insisted and reluctantly PC 416C and PC 424C arrested “Declan Brown” for common assault, informing Declan he had thirty minutes to get to Bishopsgate station to make a statement or Brown would be released without charge. I know this much: if the police arrest me pursuant to Operation Poncho II, I hope it is going to be as amenable as Declan Brown’s arrest and that before I am read my rights I too will be informed there will be coffee and food for me back at the station.

Declan gave his witness statement to PC 383C, and was given a crime reference number (CR/4359/08), but not a copy of the statement. Declan had informed PC 383C that he wanted a copy of the statement for another request for priority to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg – get a solicitor to apply for it, he was told. (We are still waiting for notification from the Court as to whether Declan’s application of 8 September 2007 has been declared inadmissible or the case communicated to the Government. Declan’s most recent letter from the Court is a letter of 22 November stating that it was unnecessary to consider his request for priority because the Court would be examining his application “shortly, possibly by the end of January 2008”.)

This second request for priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court will include his letter on Wednesday to Commissioner Blair (if not an update letter to him), in which he refers to a submission he made on 12 May to the Court citing a violation of Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights (see blog of 13 May "Letter to the European Court under Article 34") - 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.

I should perhaps say here that this is the first time Declan has been assaulted in the porch, which we have been sleeping in for over a year and a half (since 3 November 2006). I sleep on the outside and have been graced with a few: within two weeks of sleeping in the porch somebody sat on the right hand side of my face; on 5 May 2007 some guy dragged me out of the two-step porch by the ankles while I was in my sleeping bag, then a few hours later I was kicked in the back; and on 22 September a guy repeatedly kicked me in the chest and shoulders as his mates stood by. It was a bit of luck that the police officer who took my statement in Bishopsgate station on 22 September wasn't PC 383C or I wouldn't have gotten a copy of it.

The threat of a good example

On 19 December 2006, the award-winning news program Democracy Now! ran a piece on Noam Chomsky entitled “From Bolivia to Baghdad: Noam Chomsky on Creating Another World in a Time of War, Empire and Devastation”. (Noam Chomsky is an Emeritus Professor of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and one of the foremost critics of US foreign policy. The New York Times has described Chomsky as “arguably the most important intellectual alive”, and in 2006 he was voted the world’s number one intellectual in a poll by Prospect and Foreign Policy magazines. Chomsky is also an early signatory of Declan’s petition to the UN on therapeutic cloning, and we are, well, big fans of him.)

Chomsky at the World Social Forum (Porto Alegre) in 2003

The piece mainly comprises of an excerpt of a talk Chomsky gave at an event sponsored by Massachusetts Global Action the weekend previous. He spoke about recent elections in Latin America which brought leftist governments to power that are challenging US foreign policy. Chomsky said: “This is the first time since the Spanish conquests, 500 years, that there has been real moves towards integration in South America. The countries have been very separated from one another. And integration is going to be a prerequisite for authentic independence. I mean, there have been - I’m sure you know - attempts at independence, but they’ve been crushed, often very violently, partly because of lack of regional support, because there was very little regional cooperation, so you can pick them off one by one.”

From our point of view in terms of the international campaign we are planning to run in support of Declan’s petition to the UN, we find something else Chomsky said on Latin America particularly revealing: “[A] move towards integration, independence and authentic democracy with mass popular movements and participation and so on, all extremely important, but also along with it goes a decline in the methods of domination and control. I mean, the US has dominated the region for a long time with two major methods: one of them, violence, and the other, economic strangulation, economic controls. And both of those methods are declining in efficacy.”

In one of his books, What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Chomsky writes that no country is exempt from US intervention, no matter how unimportant. In fact, it’s the weakest, poorest countries that often arouse the greatest hysteria. There is a reason for that, he says. “The weaker and poorer a country is, the more dangerous it is as an example.” On the politics of Noam Chomsky, Wikipedia says:

His conclusion is that a consistent part of the United States' foreign policy is based on stemming the "threat of a good example." This 'threat' refers to the possibility that a country could successfully develop outside the US managed global system, thus presenting a model for other countries, including countries in which the United States does have strong economic interests. This, Chomsky says, has prompted the United States to repeatedly intervene to quell "independent development, regardless of ideology" in regions of the world where it has little economic or safety interests. In one of his works, What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Chomsky argues that this particular explanation accounts in part for the United States' interventions in Guatemala, Laos, Nicaragua, and Grenada, countries that pose little or no military threat to the US and have few economic resources that could be exploited by US business interests.

The similarities in the campaign against Declan and I are striking. Take violence: what can beat an ongoing attempt to move us out of the porch we sleep in at night when we have been sleeping there for over a year and a half (see previous blog for Declan’s letter to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis)? On economic strangulation, I would need a weekend to enumerate all the examples. But just a few. I have been wearing the same clothes for ages because every time I ask for something in the Catholic Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre I seldom get it; last Sunday, in the Manna Centre (whose building is provided rent-free by the Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark), I was told the clothes room was closed: I am only given a couple of minutes, every two Sundays, to find a maximum of three items from a jumble of second-hand clothes. From 10 January to Easter (when a guy gave me £10) I had no choice but to go into the local train station and ask people for some change because of all the problems we were having - and still have - trying to sell The Big issue, a magazine sold by homeless people on registered street pitches. My daily food is two Weetabix and two grated-cheese sandwiches, one is Declan’s, which I get at the Dellow. I also cut my own hair so at least I can hide it underneath a cap – the nuns of the Dellow haven’t brought in a hairdresser since December.

Declan’s examples, well, his two best … He walks a round trip of two hours to the Manna Centre every weekday to be guaranteed a bite to eat for lunch – although he frequently gets more than just food: on Sunday, he got kicked under the table not by one, but two Poles. And he has had so many problems with homeless in the Dellow’s washroom that he shaves in a local park every weekday before 6.00am (see blog of 22 April “Letter to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor”), but that would be an example of violence, I suppose.

Undoubtedly it is hard; but when you live in Siberia, you get used to the weather.

Letter to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

First thing yesterday morning, Declan received an email from the supervisory police officer who is overseeing Operation Poncho II within the City of London Police, Superintendent Lorraine Cussen of Snow Hill Police Station – Declan emailed City of London Police Commissioner Mike Bowron on 9 June (see previous blog) after we were threatened with arrest on 2 June (2.35am) and 9 June (3.00am) if we didn’t leave the porch we sleep in at night (to beyond City boundaries) so that the City of London's Cleansing service could wash and disinfect the porch floor with immediate effect. Having read this email, we are none the wiser except that we can expect to continue being threatened – things are to “continue for the foreseeable future”. Oh, and Cussen is not refuting that the City of London's Cleansing service is being (unlawfully) used by the City of London Police to expel us to beyond City boundaries.

So this evening Declan sent an email letter to Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, Britain’s most senior police officer, who is responsible for the policing of the metropolitan area in the capital city of London, with the exception of the City of London (a "heads up" letter, so to speak: his jurisdiction is "beyond City boundaries", to where the City of London Police are attempting to expel us by unlawful means). Declan continues to look for more compelling evidence of a violation of Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights (see blog of 13 May "Letter to the European Court under Article 34"). 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.

Philip Leach in Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights states:

The Court is not bound by strict rules of evidence, and may rely on all forms of evidence. The standard of proof applied by the Court is that of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’, although this is not interpreted as the same high degree of probability as in criminal trials … The Court has stated that it will allow a degree of flexibility: ‘taking into consideration the nature of the substantive right at stake and any evidentiary difficulties involved. It has resisted suggestions to establish rigid evidentiary rules and has adhered to the principle of free assessment of all evidence’.

This is the email from Superintendent Cussen:

Subject: Heavey v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 22541/07)

Mr. Heavey,

Your e-mail has been forwarded to me, as I am the supervisory police officer who is overseeing Operation Poncho II within the City of London Police.

I note your concerns outlined below. However, the City of London Corporation, together with other partner agencies (the City of London Police being one of the main partners) have been recently criticised by the Communities for London Government Department (CLG) because the City rough sleeper population has significantly increased over the last year. The City of London has in fact the highest density of rough sleepers in the country.

Reducing the number of rough sleepers nationally is a government objective and therefore the City of London Corporation are required to act accordingly.

Rough sleeping is also an issue which is regularly raised by the City Community within the new Neighbourhood Policing Model, which we, the Police, are also tasked to address.

Broadway, a homeless charity, has recently been employed by the CoL Corporation to work with rough sleepers, to provide access to support services. Over the last few weeks we have had some very successful results with some 23 people now re-housed and a large percentage of rough sleepers awaiting access to accommodation. We have also been able to repatriate some Polish rough sleepers, providing them with access to accommodation and training.

Therefore I would fully recommend engaging with Broadway, if you have not already, as they will be able to help you find accommodation.

The City of London Corporation have a duty to cleanse the streets, which does include doorways of private property. Issues around defecation and urination remain a constant problem and the cleansing will continue for the foreseeable future. The City of London Police also have a duty to check on the welfare of individuals, which will also continue for the foreseeable future.

I hope that this helps to clarify our current position.

Lorraine Cussen
Superintendent Snow Hill BCU

And this is the email letter Declan sent to Commissioner Blair (ian.blair@met.police.uk):

Subject: Operation Poncho II

Dear Commissioner Blair

I am writing to you as Britain's most senior police officer, responsible for the policing of the metropolitan area in the capital city of London, with the exception of the City of London. My wife and I have been sleeping in a porch in the City of London since 3 November 2006. I wish to bring to your attention that under the City of London Police’s Operation Poncho II the City of London Police are attempting to move my wife and I beyond City boundaries with the (unlawful) use of the City of London's Cleansing service.

Please find attached a copy of an email I received yesterday from Superintendent Lorraine Cussen, the supervisory police officer who is overseeing Operation Poncho II within the City of London Police, and a copy of my email letter of 9 June to City of London Police Commissioner Michael Bowron, to which Superintendent Cussen refers.

As I stated in the aforementioned letter to Commissioner Bowron, on 2 June (2.35am) and 9 June (3.00am) police officers threatened my wife and I with arrest pursuant to Operation Poncho II if we did not leave the porch we were sleeping in (to beyond City boundaries) so that the City of London's Cleansing service could wash and disinfect the porch floor with immediate effect. Please note that Superintendent Cussen does not refute that the City of London's Cleansing service is being (unlawfully) used by the City of London Police to expel my wife and I to beyond City boundaries. (We have been sleeping in this porch without any complaint against us for over a year and a half (3 November 2006): we bed down at 9.00pm and get up at 4.30am, save Saturday and Sunday when we get up at 6.30am; we do not smoke or drink; and almost every night my wife wipes the porch floor clean. Further, all our contacts are within walking distance of the porch, and we have never found a more suitable place to sleep, neither within the City of London nor beyond its boundaries.)

Superintendent Cussen recommends that my wife and I engage with Broadway, a homeless charity, which has recently been employed by the City of London Corporation to work with rough sleepers, to provide access to support services. In this regard, I beg to point out that on 22 November 2006 the Dellow Day Centre recorded on my wife's registration form that St Mungo's, London's largest homelessness organisation, had informed the centre that neither of us could be referred to a hostel "due to not being on any benefits". Having had to go on state benefits in July 2005, the Department for Work and Pensions ceased our allowance entitlement on 27 September 2006 because I did not “sign on” two days before I was due to do so on 29 September.

My case in respect of the ceasing of entitlement to allowances is currently before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and I am awaiting notification (c/o Dellow Centre) from the Court as to whether my application of 8 September 2007 has been declared inadmissible or the case communicated to the Government. My most recent letter from the Court is a letter of 22 November, reference ECHR-LEO.1R CO/PHA/gz, signed for the Registrar by Legal Secretary C Ovey, stating: "I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 22 September 2007 and enclosures. 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." You will note that on 12 May I made a submission to the European Court of Human Rights, citing a violation of Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights - 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.

In relation to our ongoing efforts to get ourselves off the street, my wife and I are in the process of trying to raise £4,000 to run a campaign in support of my petition to the United Nations on therapeutic cloning and the use of stem cells for research and for the treatment of disease, which since 22 October 2007 has been signed by 519 scientists and academics, including 22 Nobel laureates.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

cc City of London Police Commissioner Michael Bowron

Letter to the City of London Police Commissioner

Last night at 2.40am we were woken in the porch we sleep in by a police officer, this time PC 336B of Snow Hill Police Station – in the past eleven days police have visited us a total of five times. As on 2 June, when PC 365B of Snow Hill Police Station woke us at 2.10am (we get up at 4.30am), the reason for the encounter is Operation Poncho II, but he begs to differ about the aim of Poncho II: he says it is not to “clean” the City of London but to "clean" the City of London of rough sleepers. There are two things they both agree on though: we have to leave the porch so that the City of London's Cleansing service can wash and disinfect the porch floor with immediate effect; and we can be arrested if we don’t leave. When told by Declan that an email he received on 5 June on behalf of the Mayor of London states that the Mayor doesn’t know anything about this “cleaning” business, PC 336B replies that the Mayor “has too many things on his plate”. And the police are under no obligation to inform him, he adds.

Like PC 365B, PC 336B refuses to write on our tickets that he wants us to leave the porch, that cleaners are on hand to wash and disinfect it, or that we have been informed that we can be arrested if we don’t leave. In the end we weren’t arrested and two cleaners washed around our groundsheet, water pouring onto the pavement. It was almost 3.30am.

Declan has yet to receive notification from the European Court of Human Rights as to whether his application has been declared inadmissible or the case communicated to the Government. Philip Leach in Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights states:

If there are no clear reasons for declaring an application inadmissible, the chamber will communicate the case to the respondent Government … When a case is communicated to the respondent Government, the Government will be provided with the Court’s statement of facts and will be asked to reply to specific questions within a stipulated time … At the same time, copies of the statement of facts and the list of questions are sent to the applicant who is notified that the case has been communicated and is informed of the time given to the Government to reply.

Since Declan received a letter from the Court in December stating that it was unnecessary for the Court to consider his request for priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court because the Court would be examining his application “shortly, possibly by the end of January 2008”, he would be forgiven for asking at the reception of our c/o address, the Catholic Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre, if there is correspondence for him. Last week one if not two staff seemed to be put out by his request to check the records for mail to be signed for by him. So last Friday Declan sent a formal request for this information by registered post to the Chief Executive of Providence Row Charity (of which the Dellow Centre is a part), Ms Jo Ansell. He still has to receive a reply.

For the record, Declan sent the following email letter to the Commissioner of the City of London Police, Mike Bowron, and a copy of same to his PA, Sara Coker, who Declan talked to on the telephone this morning (mike.bowron@city-of-london.pnn.police.uk, sara.coker@city-of-london.police.uk):

Subject: Heavey v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 22541/07)

Dear Commissioner Bowron

I am writing to bring to your attention a submission I made to the European Court of Human Rights on 12 May 2008 in the above case, citing a violation of Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights. (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.) My wife and I are of no fixed abode, and have been sleeping in a porch in the City of London since 3 November 2006.

Please find attached a copy of my registered letter of 17 May to Prime Minister Gordon Brown together with the aforementioned submission therein referred to. I also attach copy of the police tickets issued to my wife and I on 2 and 9 June under Operation Poncho II.

Please be advised that on 2 June (2.35am) and 9 June (3.00am) police officers threatened my wife and I with arrest pursuant to Operation Poncho II if we did not leave the porch we were sleeping in so that the City of London's Cleansing service could wash and disinfect the porch floor with immediate effect – on 2 June we were told by PC 365B of Snow Hill Police Station that Operation Poncho II is aimed at "cleaning" the City of London, including private property; last night we were told by PC 336B of Snow Hill Police Station that Operation Poncho II is aimed at "cleaning" the City of London of rough sleepers.

I can confirm that the Autumn/Winter 2007 issue of Talkback, the community news magazine from the City of London Police, states that Operation Poncho II is aimed "to engage with people who are sleeping on the street, checking their welfare and offering access to support services such as accommodation and drugs and alcohol rehabilitation … a positive step towards ensuring that rough sleepers have access to housing and services before the colder winter months arrive".

Further, I am in receipt of an email on behalf of the Mayor of London, Mr Boris Johnson of 5 June signed by Mr Nathan Winch, Policy and Projects Officer, Community Safety Team, stating:

The Mayor is unable to intervene in individual homelessness cases such as yours, but is concerned that rough sleeping persists in London. During his election campaign he backed the target of the organisation Homeless Link to end rough sleeping in London by 2012, through the provision of appropriate support, accommodation and prevention services. Using the Police to 'clean' the streets of rough sleepers is not part of this policy.

In the event of error in transmission, please note that the order of attachments is as follows:

GordonBrown.doc
RegistrarECHR.htm
BorisJohnson.htm
CardinalMurphy-O'Connor.htm
CertificateAttendanceRH.gif
police-tickets2.6.08.jpg
police-tickets9.6.08.jpg

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

More harassment by the police

Last night at 2.10am we were woken in the porch we sleep in by a police officer, this last visit makes four times in four days (see previous blog). It transpires that this is no longer about "cleaning" the City of London of rough sleepers as previously, but about the "cleaning" of the City of London. So could we please pack up and leave so that the cleaners (two cleaners in a van) can get on with the job of disinfecting the porch, says PC 365B of Snow Hill Police Station. What an insult! I may wear shabby clothes – I have great difficulty in getting them replaced: in the Manna Centre (whose building is provided rent-free by the Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark) I only get a couple of minutes, every two Sundays, to find a maximum of three items from a jumble of second-hand clothes stored in a dark women's room; and in the Catholic Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre whatever we need, the last time it was a pair of jeans for Declan and runners for me, the nun in charge seldom has it, and it’s never a question of wait for a few days – but we are both clean, our bags are tied, covered in black bags and well stacked, and I myself clean the porch floor almost every night. I don't know you, he replies, despite we have been sleeping there for over a year and a half.

Can we have two tickets, and could you write that you want us to leave the porch so cleaners can disinfect it, Declan asks (this is one of two questions we prepared a few days ago for more compelling evidence of a violation of Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights (see blog of 13 May "Letter to the European Court under Article 34") - 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). No problem, he says, and writes "Welfare. OP Poncho II."

"Are you in a hostel?" he asks. So Declan explains for the second time in three days that the Department for Work and Pensions unlawfully terminated our benefits over a year and a half ago because he didn't sign on two days before he was due to do so, and that he submitted his application to the European Court on 8 September 2007 with a request for priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court (paragraph 3 of Declan's application has a brief account of the reason for benefits). He also informs PC 365B that the Dellow Centre recorded on my registration form of 22 November 2006 that St Mungo's, London's largest homelessness organisation, had informed the centre that we could not be referred to a hostel "due to not being on any benefits" – the Court didn't consider us sleeping in the street enough to expedite the case, and Declan has yet to be notified by the Court as to whether his application has been dismissed or the Government invited to set out its observations on the merits and admissibility of the case.

Even if we could get into a hostel, we wouldn't entertain the thought of it, Declan adds. The Methodist Church Whitechapel Mission barred us last June due to concerns about our safety, and the risk must have been so great that, even after writing to the minister himself and to the head of the Methodist Church in the UK, Rev Graham Carter, we were never readmitted. Declan is now unstoppable. "I have been assaulted several times by homeless, and my wife once. We have a bunch of crime reference numbers," he says, adding that we have problems with homeless both in the Manna and Dellow. (Declan forgot to mention that such are the problems with homeless that for several weeks now he has been washing and shaving in the street, see blog of 22 April “Letter to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor”.) PC 365B has nothing to say.

Does he intend to arrest us if we don’t leave, I ask him (since on 9 May PC 698B told us he would and on 17 May PC 601B told us she wouldn’t). He replies that he can arrest us. “If we are harassing people, or drunk,” Declan adds. “Or obstructing police,” PC 365B warns. We have nowhere to go at 2.35am with all our stuff and barely the money to buy four Big Issues (a magazine sold buy homeless people on registered street pitches), but if he could write on the tickets he is going to issue us that he is going to arrest us if we don’t move, we will obviously pack up and leave, I amenably say – this is our second question. He doesn’t have to write anything, he informs us, but what about if we step down to the pavement with our bags, let the cleaners do their job, and then bed back down when they are done. I reject this proposal straight away because our sleeping bags would be soaked with water and disinfectant, and I already have a bad cold as result of all the rain and wet socks; Declan has been hospitalised with a viral infection, also because of the rain, and we have no access to healthcare … So if he is not going to arrest us, we are staying put, I insist.

In the end, he tells the cleaners to disinfect the step, no need to do the free space by the porch door – which Declan always leaves clear so we don’t block the door; the last thing we want is to cause any trouble so we also bed down at 9.00pm and get up at 4.30am (the office building also has a front door around the corner). The cleaners haven’t the slightest interest in cleaning at all: the small porch beside ours, which is so dirty not even a drunk homeless would lay in it, is left untouched; and so are the big, dirty stains along the pavement where Pret A Manger normally leave rubbish bags. In fact, with the exception of the porch step, they clean nothing. The outcome of the encounter, which we read when everything is back quiet again, is “Satisfactory”.

Operation Poncho II

So what does Operation Poncho II have to do with cleaners “cleaning” the City of London, including privately owned property? Well, according to Google, nothing. There are only three references in Google UK, one of which is official: the Autumn/Winter 2007 issue of Talkback, a community news magazine from the City of London Police. It appears that Operation Poncho II happened back in May 2007 “aimed to engage with people who are sleeping on the street, checking their welfare and offering access to support services such as accommodation and drugs and alcohol rehabilitation … a positive step towards ensuring that rough sleepers have access to housing and services before the colder winter months arrive”.

So OP Poncho II is about the "welfare" of rough sleepers. Well, that may explain why PC 365B didn’t write that cleaners were going to disinfect the porch, or that he wanted us to pack up and leave, or that an arrest was in the air. Anyway, I may be completely wrong here, but if a police officer was to issue us with a ticket in respect of OP Poncho II citing either “cleaning” or “arrest” – and it sure looks like tonight we may be adding more tickets to our growing collection – we could well be looking at prima facie improper pressure in violation of Article 34.