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

Letter to the British Prime Minister

Last night at 1.50am we received our second visit by the police to the porch we sleep in at night (and in which we have been sleeping since being forced to become rough sleepers on 3 November 2006) in respect of this mysterious policy to “clean” the City of London of rough sleepers – and I say “mysterious” because there is no mention of it anywhere, not even on the ticket PC 601B issued each of us before leaving. Initially we were again told we would be arrested if we did not leave, but subsequently we were told we wouldn’t be arrested if we decided not to leave, so we stayed put because … where are we supposed to go at 2.00am carrying all our bags and with barely enough money to get by for the weekend?

The police seem determined to get us out of the porch by hook or crook (for the first visit see blog of 9 May “Letter to the Mayor of London”). Which might explain why PC 601B would also say that the police have received a complaint that we block the porch door: we bed down at 9.00pm and get up at 4.30am, and for over a year and a half have never had a complaint against us of any kind. Well, this “complaint” seems to me to smack of the same good timing as PC 698B ordering us at 2.20am on 9 May to leave the porch or be arrested within hours of Declan being diagnosed with, err, a sprained ankle – his Certificate of Attendance from the Royal London Hospital also states that he was "advised to rest, elevate and ice ankle".

Writing to the Mayor of London and the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights (see blog of 13 May “Letter to the European Court under Article 34”) doesn’t seem to have done much good, so this afternoon Declan wrote to Prime Minister Gordon Brown. After all, Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights establishes a duty on Convention states not to hinder the effective exercise of the right to apply to the European Court of Human Rights.

This is the letter via Email the PM Form, which was confirmed as received:

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

Dear Prime Minister

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.)

I will forward to you by registered post a copy of my email letter of 12 May to the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights, Mr Erik Fribergh, together with attachments: (i) copy of my email letter of 9 May 2008 (and attachment) to the Mayor of London, Mr Boris Johnson, in respect of an order from PC 698B of Bishopsgate Police Station on the night of 8 May instructing my wife and I to either leave the porch we were sleeping in or be arrested due to police "cleaning" the City of London of rough sleepers, and (ii) copy of my Certificate of Attendance of 8 May from the Royal London Hospital stating that I had a sprained ankle and was advised to “rest elevate and ice ankle”.

I can confirm that my most recent letter from the Court is a letter of 22 November 2007, 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."

I can also confirm that, in addition to the order from PC 698B of Bishopsgate Police Station on the night of 8 May that my wife and I leave the porch we were sleeping in or be arrested, last night at 1.50am we were woken by PC 601B of Snowhill Police Station and told to leave the same porch or be arrested – again, due to police “cleaning” the City of London of rough sleepers – although the police officer subsequently informed us that we would not be arrested if we did not leave, so we stayed. PC 601B also informed us a complaint has been made that we block the porch door, which we deny. (We have been sleeping in this porch without any complaint against us for over a year and a half – we were forced to become rough sleepers on 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.)

As stated in my letter to Mayor Johnson of 9 May, there is no mention in any newspaper, homeless organisation website, or in london.gov.uk that there is any kind of police operation – or that one is going to be undertaken or has ever been undertaken – to expel rough sleepers from the City of London. This morning the Manna Centre, a day care centre for homeless people, made no mention of it.

I should also point out that the tickets PC 601B issued my wife and I state that the reason for the encounter was “Welfare” and the outcome “ATP” (Allowed To Proceed). Further, all our contacts are within walking distance of the porch, and we have never found a more suitable place to sleep.

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.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

cc Mr Boris Johnson, Mayor of London (together with attachments herein referred to)
Mr Erik Fribergh, Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights (together with attachments and copy of the two tickets issued by PC 601B herein referred to)

Letter to the European Court under Article 34

Yesterday evening Declan sent an email letter under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights to the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights, Erik Fribergh. Article 34 establishes a duty on Convention states not to hinder the effective exercise of the right to apply to the European Court – complaints of intimidation have frequently been made in cases against Turkey and a number have been upheld. We believe that being ordered by a police officer in the middle of the night to leave the porch we were sleeping in (and in which we had been sleeping – and still are, by the way – since being forced to become rough sleepers on 3 November 2006) or be arrested due to police "cleaning" the City of London of rough sleepers, and within hours of Declan being diagnosed with a sprained ankle, speaks ominously of things to come.

For the record, this is the email letter to the Registrar (the letter to the Mayor of London to which Declan refers can be read in the previous blog, and its attachment, a letter of 21 April to the head of the Catholic Church in Britain, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, regarding the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre, can be read here):

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

Dear Mr Fribergh

I refer to your letter of 22 November 2007, 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."

Please find attached: (i) copy of my email letter of 9 May 2008 (and attachment) to the Mayor of London, Mr Boris Johnson, in respect of an order from PC 698B of Bishopsgate Police Station on the night of 8 May instructing my wife and I to either leave the porch we were sleeping in or be arrested due to police "cleaning" the City of London of rough sleepers, and (ii) copy of my Certificate of Attendance of 8 May from the Royal London Hospital stating that I had a sprained ankle and was "advised to rest, elevate and ice ankle".

With particular reference to the police officer's order on the night of 8 May instructing my wife and I to either leave the City of London or be arrested, within hours of me spraining my ankle, I wish to draw to the Court's attention a violation of Article 34 (formally Article 25) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and request that the Court take this matter up with the respondent Government.

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.

In assessing the degree of interference, the Court will take account of the vulnerability of the complainant and his or her susceptibility to influence exerted by the authorities, including any legitimate fear of reprisals. In this regard, I beg to point out that my request for priority of 8 September 2007 states:

Since 3 November 2006 the applicant and his wife have been sleeping rough in the porch of an office building in the heart of London's business district. On 22 November, 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" [having had to go on state benefits in July 2005, the Department for Work and Pensions ceased the applicant's and his wife's allowance entitlement on 27 September 2006 because the applicant did not "sign on" two days before he was due to do so on 29 September].

I can confirm that my care of address, the Dellow Centre, has received no correspondence from the Court subsequent to your letter of 22 November.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

Video: MPs debate embryology laws
British MPs voted yesterday to allow controversial plans to update human embryology laws to continue to their next Parliamentary stage, despite deep splits among MPs. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was given its second reading by 340 votes to 78, a majority of 262. The government, faced with the prospect of a rebellion by Roman Roman Catholic ministers, has promised Labour MPs a free vote on the most contentious issues. These include the creation of cytoplasmic hybrid embryos.

On 12 May the Guardian reported under the title “What's in the bill”:

The bill allows the creation of so-called "admixed" cytoplasmic hybrid embryos. Scientists want to inject DNA from the nucleus of adult human cells into a hollowed out cow or rabbit egg. The resulting tiny ball of cells would have 99% human DNA and would not be allowed to develop beyond 14 days in the lab. It could not be implanted into the womb of a human or animal but would be used to create stem cells for research without having to use human eggs. The minority of religious groups who believe human life begins when sperm and egg meet say the research violates the sanctity of human life.

The main battle will come next Monday at Committee Stage, when MPs will have a free vote on the part of the Bill relating to research using cytoplasmic hybrid embryos.

Letter to the Mayor of London

At 2.20am this morning PC 698B of Bishopsgate Police Station woke us in the porch we sleep in at night. Police are "cleaning" the City of London of rough sleepers and we either leave the porch immediately or we will be arrested, he informed us. We can come back to the porch after a month but until then we will be told to move beyond the City's boundaries or be arrested (a judge will then either impose a fine or jail us, we were further informed). We have been sleeping in the porch since being forced to become rough sleepers on 3 November 2006 and there has never been a complaint against us but that didn't cut any ice, neither the citing of entitlements under the Human Rights Act 1998 – his parting words were how nice Spain is (although I became an Irish citizen before we left Dublin in 2003, I am from Madrid).

The timing wasn't the best because earlier in the evening Declan was told in the Royal London Hospital that he had sprained his ankle (having been given two painkilling tablets, he was transferred from the hospital's Walk-in Centre to its Accident & Emergency Department in a wheelchair). The Certificate of Attendance also states that he was "advised to rest, elevate and ice ankle" – but I am afraid PC 698B must not have seen any impediment. So we had no choice but to leave about 3.00am, Declan dragging his left foot with the aid of his umbrella. As I have stated before (see, for example, blog of 26 March "We are seeking to raise £4,000"), we don't know of any other place we can go so we have no choice but to return to the porch tonight and if we are threatened with arrest again, well, we will just have to get up and walk.

In the seventeen months that we have been rough sleepers, we have never heard that the police would arrest somebody just for sleeping in the street, except of course if you are also intoxicated, causing trouble, or harassing people. So Declan has written to Boris Johnson, Mayor of London covering the City of London, with responsibility for police (the email letter is presented below). Incidentally, there is no mention in any newspaper, by any homeless organisation, or in london.gov.uk that there is any kind of police operation – or that one is going to be undertaken or has ever been undertaken – to expel rough sleepers from the City of London. There was no mention either of any such Nazi ideal this morning in the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre (according to their website, the Dellow focuses its efforts on helping anyone who needs them in the City of London and the East End). In fact, things were like any other Friday, opening at 8.30am for those who are verified rough sleepers, and at 9.30pm for everyone else.

Today, the BBC reports in an article titled "'Respect atheists', says cardinal" that the head of the Catholic Church in Britain, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, has urged Christians to treat atheists and agnostics with "deep esteem". I see. Declan and I must be the exceptions then.

This is Declan's email letter to the Mayor of London (johnsonb@parliament.uk):

Subject: The "cleaning" of the City of London of rough sleepers

Dear Mr Johnson

I am writing to you in your capacity as the Mayor of London covering the City of London, with responsibility for police. My wife and I have been sleeping in a porch in the City of London since 3 November 2006. Rough sleepers, as no doubt you are aware, are protected under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Please find attached a copy of my letter of 21 April to the head of the Catholic Church in Britain, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, regarding the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre. This letter explains the circumstances under which my wife and I were forced to become rough sleepers (our case is currently before the European Court of Human Rights) and our on-going efforts to get ourselves off the street (in short, by raising £4,000 to run a campaign in support of my petition to the United Nations on therapeutic cloning, which since 22 October has been signed by 518 scientists and academics, including 22 Nobel laureates).

I wish to draw to your attention that last night at 2.20am my wife and I were woken by PC 698B of Bishopsgate Police Station and ordered to leave the porch immediately or be arrested – due to police “cleaning” the City of London of rough sleepers, and despite that earlier in the evening I attended the Royal London Hospital with a sprained ankle. We were further informed by PC 698B that we can come back to the porch after a month but until then we will be told to move beyond the City's boundaries or be arrested.

I beg to point out that there is no mention in any newspaper, by any homeless organisation, or in london.gov.uk that there is any kind of police operation – or that one is going to be undertaken or has ever been undertaken – to expel rough sleepers from the City of London. And there was no mention of it this morning in the Dellow Centre, which focuses its efforts on helping the homeless in the City of London and the East End.

I should point out that all our contacts are within walking distance of the porch, and we have never found a more suitable place to sleep.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey