Police threaten to physically remove us from where we sleep

It looks like things are going to get violent tonight at our sleeping pitch – a porch of the Salters’ Hall located on a derelict highwalk (see blog of 5 June “Salters back in the spotlight” for two Google map photos of the pitch). A short briefing: on Thursday night we found three notices stating that the Salters’ Company would report to “the authorities” anyone found sleeping in the porch (see here); and on Friday night we found two additional notices from the City of London Police (see previous blog here).

As I have written previously, we have been sleeping in this porch since January. For some months prior to this, we slept about twenty paces from the front entrance of the same building, down some twelve steps. Prior to that, we slept for almost two years in a porch at street level until a trellis gate was installed … on Declan’s birthday! In the previous blog, I also gave a short description of the occasions I have been assaulted while sleeping on a street level.

Anyway, at about 10.30pm we were woken up by the Beadle to the Salters’ Company, Michel Goeller - the Salters’ Company, one of the Twelve Great City Livery Companies, grew up in the early Middle Ages, and plays an important part in the system of local government in the City of London, reflecting its historical roots. (In Friday’s blog I actually publish a picture of the former Law Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who is the Master of the Salters’ Company.) “I have to ask you to move,” he says. When I tell him he needs a court order to get us to move, I thought he was going to burst out laughing. Instead, he returns with two City of London police officers.

One of the officers gets my attention with his foot and I know immediately that we are onto another level. According to the two of them, they don’t need a court order to remove us from the porch, and neither do they need to arrest me if I refuse to move. Under the law, they say, police are entitled to remove us and our belongings with reasonable force. If we move back in tonight, they say, police will return and move us by force – and throughout the night if they have to. In their opinion, it is in our best interests to find another place, even if that means that I am at greater risk of being assaulted.

So it seems that when the June 2008 issue of The Pavement, a free magazine for London’s homeless, reported that the local council needed a court order to get a rough sleeper moved on from a multi-storey Hampshire car park, they forgot to mention the council could have saved taxpayers’ money by having police throw him and this belongings onto the street (see blog here). Another example, of course, is squatters: the Telegraph reported yesterday that squatters living in a house owned by Labour MPs Alan and Ann Keen, who are facing a formal sleaze probe over their expenses, have been ordered to leave by a judge.

Anyway, I am hoping tonight the application of “reasonable force” will not include me getting tasered. This is shocking:

British Police Taser and Beat Man

Nottingham police use excessive force on a man, he had his legs kicked from under him and was tasered three times, handcuffed then punched three times in the face by one officer.

Just in case, this afternoon Declan emailed City of London Police Commissioner Michael Bowron (copied to Lord Lloyd of Berwick):

Subject: My complaint against the City of London Police

Dear Commissioner Bowron,

I refer to your email of 18 June signed by Darren Pulman, Staff Officer to the Commissioner, acknowledging receipt of my email of complaint to you of 17 June regarding stop at Salters' Hall: CAD 10903 of 16/06/09. My subsequent email of complaint to you of 18 June, having been further issued on the morning of 18 June with false records (386s) in relation to said stop, was acknowledged on 26 June as received by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

As you are aware, my wife and I are of no fixed abode and have been sleeping rough in the City of London since 3 November 2006, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) having terminated my joint claim JSA on 27 September 2006 because I did not sign on for Jobseeker's Allowance two days before I was actually due to do so on 29 September. (We slept in a porch in the City of London until a trellis gate was installed on 4 September 2008; as from 12 September, we have been sleeping at Salters’ Hall, 4 Fore Street, London EC2Y 5DE.)

I wish to confirm that at 11.00pm last night PC 300CP and PC 360CP from Bishopsgate police station insisted in the company of the Beadle to the Salters’ Company, Mr. Michel Goeller, that my wife and I move out of our sleeping pitch – a porch of the Salters’ Hall located on (a derelict) St. Alphage Highwalk. When my wife requested the court order to which she is entitled, PC 300CP informed her that he was not in need of any such order and that she had to vacate the porch immediately. My wife refused as a result of having nowhere else to sleep, the upshot being that PC 360CP issued us with two 386s for the stop, PC 300CP informing my wife in the presence of Mr. Goeller that if she returned to the porch tonight City of London police would use “reasonable force” to move her and her belongings away – and throughout the night if she does not desist from returning.

I beg to again point out that my wife and I do not wish to be sleeping in the street. We have been denied benefits by the DWP because I did not sign up early enough – even though we were both doing so in a timely fashion. And I have exhausted the appeals process: my case has been dismissed by the High Court (Judicial Review), Court of Appeal and European Court of Human Rights, despite that I was denied the internal appeal process by procedural impropriety on the part of the DWP. We have informed the homeless organisation Broadway that all we require is a reinstatement of my joint claim JSA and the payment of a deposit on a flat, a small fraction of what we are entitled to in accumulated arrears. That we are dealing with such an obvious "mistake" (however deliberate), I cannot imagine what is motivating the officials to deny us benefits to which we are entitled.

I am copying this email to former Law Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the Master of the Salters’ Company c/o the Clerk to the Salters’ Company at clerk@salters.co.uk.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

cc Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Master of the Salters’ Company

Police ‘No sleeping’ sign in the place we sleep, Salters

As I said in yesterday’s blog “Salters’ Company threatens us with ‘the authorities’”, the night before last we arrived to our sleeping pitch – a porch of the Salters’ Hall located on a derelict highwalk (see blog of 5 June “Salters back in the spotlight” for two Google map photos of the pitch) – to find three notices on official headed paper stating that the Salters' Company would report to “the authorities” anyone found sleeping in the porch. Last night there were two additional notices, this time on official notepaper from the City of London Police, stating as follows:

PRIVATE PROPERTY

Please do not sleep in this area or leave your personal belongings.

In the previous blog I mentioned that The Salters’ Company, one of the Twelve Great City Livery Companies, describes itself as a company very largely devoted to charity; it also plays an important part in the system of local government in the City of London, reflecting its historical roots. I also explain that under the Human Rights Act 1998 people have the right to sleep in the streets and that Salters need a court order to move us on. (I also publish a picture of Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the Master of the Salters’ Company, and a former law lord.)

Nonetheless, I am actually prepared to break any court order that would put me back on street level: within two weeks of sleeping in the street somebody sat on the right hand side of my face (see here); I was grabbed by the ankles while I was asleep and dragged out of the two-step porch and down the pavement two or three metres, then a few hours later I was kicked in the back (see here); a guy repeatedly kicked me in the chest and shoulders as his mates stood by (see here); and I was urinated on (see here). I would actually feel safer in a cell!

In Thursday’s blog “Still no resolution!”, I wrote that there wouldn’t be any need for a cell if the homeless organisation Broadway got a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) acknowledging an error in respect to the payment of our benefits and committing to the payment of a deposit on a flat, a small fraction of what we are entitled to in accumulated arrears - we came to England in 2003 and for two years attempted to get NAC up and running; we went on benefits in July 2005; the DWP terminated our benefits on 27 September 2006 because Declan did not “sign on” two days before he was due to do so on 29 September. Broadway, of course, never seem happy about the task, I assume because we never succeeded in getting this from the High Court (see here), Court of Appeal (see here) or the European Court of Human Rights (see here).

What would motivate the DWP to deny us benefits to which we are entitled? Well, there can be no explanation other than to run us back to Ireland, where an organisation like NAC wouldn’t stand a chance of seeing the light of day. In fact, Ireland is currently shuffling through a law creating penalties for blasphemy, an offence that has never properly existed in the Irish state. The proposed law states that a person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000. Irish writer Michael Nugent comments in the Index on Censorship that the law “treats religious beliefs as more valuable than secular beliefs and scientific thinking”.

I uploaded this video featuring Nugent, titled “Blasphemy Is Not A Crime Part 1” (parts 2 to 9 can be accesses here), to a Guardian article “Who asked for Ireland's blasphemy law?”, which I posted to the NAC website yesterday .

Salters’ Company threatens us with ‘the authorities’

As I said in the previous blog “Still no resolution!”, on Tuesday and Wednesday night we arrived to our sleeping pitch – a porch of the Salters’ Hall located on a derelict highwalk (see blog of 5 June “Salters back in the spotlight” for two Google map photos of the pitch) – to find petrol or diesel spilt about the porch floor. Last night it was even better: three notices on official company headed paper - one sellotaped to a large wooden free standing stand - stating as follows:

TO ALL THOSE WHO MAY BE CONCERNED

Please be aware that the Salters’ Company has NOT authorized anyone to use or sleep in the doorways or stairwells of the Salters’ Hall and anyone found to be disregarding this notice will be reported to the authorities.

The Salters’ Company, one of the Twelve Great City Livery Companies, has its origins in the City of London of the fourteenth century, and describes itself as a company very largely devoted to charity; it also plays an important part in the system of local government in the City of London, reflecting its historical roots. In fact, communications started out cordial between us: the company not only fund raises for science education (Declan’s petition to the United Nations on research cloning of embryos and stem cells has been signed by 591 scientists and academics, including 24 Nobel laureates, and despite many months of serious spamming), but runs a project for the homeless.

Anyway, as I was writing the notice on paper, I joked to Declan that I half-expected to be woken up in the middle of the night by somebody on a horse wearing a big curly wig with ‘the authorities’ behind him to make sure we would be taken away in chains! I think Salters’ Company needs to catch up with realities of the 21st century. In the June 2008 issue of The Pavement, a free magazine for London’s homeless, there is a story under the title “Rough sleeper evicted from car park”. It points out that the local council needed a court order to get a rough sleeper moved on from a multi-storey Hampshire car park.

We have been sleeping in this porch since January. (For some months prior to this, we slept about twenty paces from the front entrance of the same building, down some twelve steps. Prior to that, we slept for almost two years in a porch at street level until a trellis gate was installed … on Declan’s birthday!) An article in the April 2007 issue of the Police Review magazine, titled “Rough Sleepers”, points out that “people have the right to sleep in the streets if they want to”, and that in this respect police “need to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998”. Of course, we don’t want to be sleeping in the streets but have no choice, having been put to the street by the Department for Work and Pension (see previous blog).

Curiously, the May 2008 issue of The Pavement says that shopkeepers in the big tourist area of the Strand (Westminster area) are abandoning City of London Police “No sleeping” signs on their shop fronts, claiming that they are no longer effective and that they prefer to call the police if they have any problems or incidents. Perhaps it is worth noting here that our sleeping pitch is located on a derelict highwalk, we bed down around 10.00pm, get up about 6.00am, and don’t drink or smoke.

Anyway, I am all up for another arrest tonight; exhibits for the solicitor appointed to me all a go. A court order didn’t mean squat to the City of London Police last September when four officers arrested me because I refused to move on as a result of having nowhere else to sleep (see blog of 11 September “I am arrested for ‘breach of the peace’”; I was later released because I “wasn’t breaching the peace anymore”). I doubt that they are any more fazed by the Human Rights Act 1998 than they were then. Could be an interesting night!

Salters' Prizegiving Ceremony. This photograph shows Rachel Cooke being presented with an award by Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the Master of the Salters' Company. The ceremony was held at the Salters' Hall on Thursday, 7 December 2000.

Our sleeping pitch is targeted

In yesterday’s blog I wrote that for two days a cleaner has been arriving at the place we sleep in at night at 4.00am, twenty minutes before we get up – since 7 September we have been sleeping tucked away, about twenty paces from the side entrance of a building, down some twelve steps; prior to that we slept for almost two years in a porch – and when yesterday he came out with a hose to fill a bucket of water above us as we were packing to leave, we wondered if we were in for at least the wetting we got on 3 November (see blog “State Stem Cell Policies Deserve National Attention”). Alas, when last night we returned to the sleeping pitch we found that the dim bulbs in the spotlights above us had been replaced with very powerful ones. The down-light is so bright it feels like sleeping under the search light of a low-flying police helicopter.

We find it all a bit odd, especially since communications started out cordial between us and employees: we were visited by an employee within days, and on three occasions we have been given food. Also, according to the website of the company that owns the building, they are well respected and not only fund raise for science education (Declan’s petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells has been signed by 581 scientists and academics, including 24 Nobel Laureates), but run a project for the homeless.

Nonetheless, we are staying put. We have little appetite for spending another nine hours looking for an alternative place to sleep. And I most certainly do not have to be reminded of the eventful two years in the porch, despite it being located in London’s financial district (I slept on the outside, Declan on the inside with our well-tied bags): for example, within two weeks somebody sat on the right hand side of my face (see blog of 18 November 2006); I was dragged 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 (see blog of 5 May 2007); a guy repeatedly kicked me in the chest and shoulders as his mates stood by (see blog of 22 September 2007); and I was urinated on (see blog of 2 August). Declan was also jumped on, feet first, as he slept in the porch, and was especially fortunate not to have bones broken (see blog of 14 June).

As I stated in yesterday’s blog, we will seek to make a statement in our local police station should this situation get out of hand. Of course, in addition to washing us out with a hose, there is always the option of soaking the shelter to ensure we can’t bed down. In the latter instance, we are undecided if we will sleep anywhere nearby for the night and, should the police insist we move on, I take the arrest as I did on 11 September (see blog “I am arrested for breach of the peace”). As I stated in the blog of 13 September “Letter from the City of London Police”, I am well prepared to have the legality of such an arrest tested under the Human Rights Act 1998, and even on appeal, if necessary.

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
 

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

We are (illegal) beggars

In the last blog I reported that Declan and I were being forced into (illegal) begging. Alas, we have been illegal beggars for four days now and I can tell you we are not having a whale of a time. Not to be outdone, two days ago the Bishopsgate City of London police threatened us with immediate arrest and custody pending a court appearance the next time either one of us is caught begging. That seems to me a bit prejudicial: the beggar we call “the Crutch” – for obvious reasons – and at least 3 or 4 other homeless are always begging, not just in Liverpool Street Station (outside of which we have our respective pitches where we sell The Big Issue magazine) but in the streets about the station.

Anyway, it’s not like we have a choice. On Thursday evening we sold no Big Issues at all and so I had to again run the gauntlet in the station until I could put together a few pounds. Yesterday morning Declan had to walk off his pitch (for a litany of the sort of difficulties we encounter selling the Big Issue see here) because the homeless with the supermarket trolley was back sleeping on the ground to one side of him: another example of the Bishopsgate police’s willingness to turn a blind eye despite the trendy hotel overhead. I hadn’t sold anything either, so we again had to go into the station and while Declan was keeping an eye on me I went downstairs and approached people – my line: “I’m terrible sorry to bother you, can you help me with some change, please?” It’s imperative we somehow manage to scrape the money together to buy two coats expediently, or at least one for Declan (he was hospitalised last December with pneumonia and on 2 August had to attend the local Accident & Emergency department where he was treated for an upper respiratory tract infection).

After being threatened with a criminal record on 13 September, that afternoon Declan sent the following letter by registered post to the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights:

Application no. 22541/07
Heavey v. the United Kingdom

                                RULE 41-URGENT

Dear Sir/Madam

In reference to my urgent request for expedition under Rule 41 of the European Convention on Human Rights made on 8 September 2007 (with particular regard to the reasons cited for the necessity of expedition), I enclose for the attention of the Court copy of my letter and enclosure of today’s date to Chief Superintendent Ken Stewart of Bishopsgate Police Station regarding my (illegal) begging this morning.

Please note that under the heading “Necessity of expedition”, the aforementioned urgent request for expedition states the following:

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 will be violated is the right to private and family life by the threat to the applicant of being severely assaulted, becoming seriously ill and/or being reduced to begging. This would constitute a threat of irreparable and serious harm. Being reduced to begging is a threat that is imminent given that the applicant’s savings have already been exhausted.

Yours faithfully

Declan Heavey

Enc

And this is the enclosed letter to Chief Superintendent Ken Stewart (without its enclosure):

Dear CS Stewart

My (illegal) begging

I refer to my conversation this afternoon with PC 809C at Bishopsgate Police Station regarding my (illegal) begging in Liverpool Street Station this morning.

I understand that the next time either my wife or I are caught begging that we may be subject to immediate arrest and custody pending a court appearance.

In reference to my letter and enclosure to you of 5 September 2007 regarding Crime Reference No. 7221/07, I enclose copy of chronology in respect of my efforts to have the suspect prosecuted/convicted.

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

Enc

cc  The Registrar, European Court of Human Rights (by registered
      post – together with enclosure herein referred to)

We are also being squeezed in other ways. Take for example the porch we sleep in at night. For the last two nights we have slept under the flashing blue light of the porch alarm – the last time we were treated to a full weekend of this flashing light was at the end of July. Last night, at 8.30pm, two employees came out of the office building through the porch door as we were unpacking our things and although they stayed in the porch while one of them was digging for something in his pocket, they didn’t seem to notice the flashing light. The cleaner arrived at 8.35pm – and out at 8.45pm – and she didn’t notice it either. It was also missed by the two police officers on horses that questioned us in the porch on 1 July (Bishopsgate police’s ninth visit) and on 10 August (eleventh) when they passed by the porch at 9.00pm. Oh well, it sure looks like tonight we will be treated to more of the same.

The British government, as a High Contracting Party of the European Convention on Human Rights, is proving disinclined, in our case, to comply with its obligations under Article 34, which establishes a duty on Convention states not to hinder the effective exercise of the right to apply to the European Court. 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.

It wouldn’t take Sherlock Holmes to solve the mystery of the interest group behind this extraordinary hunting – perhaps it’s not a coincidence that we have been barred from the Methodist Church-run Whitechapel Mission by the minister’s wife due to concerns about our safety? That I haven’t been able to grab a shower for well over a month in the, er, Sisters of Mercy-run Dellow Centre? Granted, NAC is running a campaign against Magdalene Laundries in Asia and Africa that is not very flattering to the Sisters of Mercy. Whoops.

Perhaps an explanation for the Vatican’s pursuance of as much political clout as it can get – the Holy See maintains diplomatic relations with 174 states and in 2004 its rights as a Permanent Observer in the United Nations were strengthened by the General Assembly – is Christopher Hitchens’s four irreducible objections to religious faith: “that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking”.

The Catholic Church, in particular, has a very accurate perception of what is good for itself and the hierarchy never tires of letting the world know what an important role it plays in humanitarian interventions and how often its agencies are one of the few to be able to quickly reach people in need. A few months ago the satirical Private Eye wrote a small article on former advertising executive Steven Hilton, which stated: “Hilton told Coca Cola and Nike that the way to avoid bad publicity was to embrace social responsibility whole heartily. A few token good works would just be ‘icing on shit’ as he charmingly put it.” I wonder where Hilton looked for his inspiration.

Eighth visit by the police

At 11.15pm last night we were woken by two police officers at the porch we have been sleeping in since 3 November. To put this eighth visit in context, I have to roll back a few days, to Thursday to be precise.

That evening, Declan wasn’t able to sell The Big Issue because the regular London Lite girl had encroached on one side of his pitch and there was a guy harassing passers-by to take a copy of The London Paper on the other side.

We reckoned that the Bishopsgate City of London police had made the decisive move on our only source of income in order to stop Declan from submitting his application against the UK to the European Court of Human Rights (he has already lodged the case with the Court by introductory letter of 18 May), reducing us to illegal beggars in a matter of two or three weeks. And because I have been working like a demon on the application ever since, we were hardly surprised to wake up and find two police officers eyeing us. The spin this time?

The Chief Superintendent of Police for the City of London (there are two – CS Alex Robertson is responsible for anti-terrorism and public order) has come up with the policy that rough sleepers are to be woken every hour to force them to get off the streets. Hmmm.

As one of them is issuing us a ticket – we already had two from November – we are asked the usual questions: how long have we being sleeping in the porch, why don’t we go into a hostel, what about getting a job, etc.

It was good that Declan knew from his reading of an article entitled “Rough Sleepers” in the April issue of the Police Review magazine that people have the right to sleep in the streets if they want to. The police have the power to arrest people for sleeping rough under the Vagrancy Act 1824, but they need to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. They will frequently use the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 to crack down on offensive behaviour and they will enforce the Vagrancy Act 1824.

Anyway, it was clear from Declan’s answers to their questions that we are doing our best to get off the streets – they didn’t bat an eyelid when Declan told them that our unemployment benefit was terminated by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) because he didn’t “sign on” two days before he was due to do so; nor when they were informed that we are working on Declan's application to the European Court of Human Rights, having been denied an effective domestic remedy by the DWP both in the manner we had the benefit initially suspended and eventually terminated.

They didn’t seem too surprised either when Declan told them that he had applied to Chief Superintendent Jerry Savill of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets under the Data Protection Act 1998 for a copy of the statement Detective Constable Alexander Head took on 27 April into the assault on him in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February, when a homeless punched him twice in the face in an unprovoked attack.

As the police officers walked off at 11.40pm, Declan asked them when we could next expect to be woken by the police. He was told that we will not be woken again until next week. Who can doubt it?

And so interminably on.

Second request for access to case file

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Ms Knapman

Re:   Access to court documents in the matter of the Queen on the application of Heavey v Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Administrative Court Ref. No. CO/7092/2006)

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

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

Under Article 38(1)(a) of the European Convention on Human Rights (and to precede the lodgement of my case against the UK with the European Court of Human Rights by introductory letter), I hereby request access to the papers that were before Mr Justice Walker on 11 December 2006.

Paragraph 32 of the judgment of Mr Justice Walker states:

... there is a letter from the Department which says that in the letter of 27th September the reference to him having failed to sign on was a mistake. The Department says that there is another good reason for terminating payment ...

I seek sight of this letter from the Department for Work and Pensions which says that in the letter to me of 27 September from Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus the reference to me having failed to sign on is a mistake, and copy of same.

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

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

Request for access to case file

Last Sunday morning, we spent the whole day in the library Idea Store Whitechapel – Declan actually woke me up at our usual time of 5.00am, which I didn’t initially appreciate because Saturday and Sunday we treat ourselves to an extra two hours’ sleep.

Because we are taking Lord/Lady Justice Scott Baker’s order of 22 March (refusing us permission to appeal Judge Walker’s decision of 11 December to refuse us permission to apply for a judicial review against the Department for Work and Pensions) to the European Court of Human Rights, Declan thought the Bishopsgate City of London police might like to rough things up a bit, and we should work fast on our introductory letter to the Register to the ECHR, giving careful consideration to which articles of the European Convention on Human Rights we contend have been breached.

Declan was highly motivated and also wrote a letter to the Deputy Master of Civil Appeals requesting access to the case file and sight of this letter from the Department for Work and Pensions cited in paragraph 32 of the transcript of Judge Walker’s judgment of 11 December, a letter we have never been privy to. (All is made bare and open in Declan’s letter to the Deputy Master of Civil Appeals below).

Yesterday morning we went to The Big Issue head office to have our pitch slip stamped and our pitches registered in pitch listings, minus of course the Covent Garden pitch we had taken off us on Saturday based on the unfounded allegation that we had not been working it for the last two and a half weeks (see previous blog). When we arrived there, a member of staff and a vendor were talking about someone who had recently been debadged by the Big Issue and what bad shape he was in. Assuming he is not receiving any benefit, I wouldn’t doubt he is in bad shape: he is probably destitute if not selling drugs or running the gauntlet of illegal begging.

When I recall the cameo between this staff member and vendor, I am concerned that I too could end up destitute and wonder: should I pass on to head office a written account of the hours I work my regular pitch at the George Pub by Liverpool Street Station, just in case an outreach worker has to investigate pitches in the area?

Last night at 12.10am, we were woken by two workers who went through the door of the porch we sleep in, only to leave the building a few minutes later. At 5.00am, as we were about to get up, the same thing happened; only this time it took the worker 15 minutes to exit. Are the police looking for a complaint against us? Because blocking workers’ right-of-way sounds pretty good to me.

Needless to say, this eventuality was foreseen by us a long time ago and every night we put down in a way that blocks nobody. We have also been sleeping in this porch without complaint since we first arrived in London on 3 November.

Anyway, this is Declan’s registered letter of 2 April to the Deputy Master of Civil Appeals:

Dear Sir/Madam

Re:  Access to court documents in the matter of the Queen on the application of Heavey v Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Appeal Court Ref. No. C1/2006/2638)

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

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

To precede the lodgement of my case against the UK with the European Court of Human Rights by introductory letter, I hereby request access to the case file.

Paragraph 32 of the judgment of Walker J states:

“… there is a letter from the Department which says that in the letter of 27th September the reference to him having failed to sign on was a mistake. The Department says that there is another good reason for terminating payment ...”

I seek sight of this letter from the Department for Work and Pensions which says that there is another good reason (unspecified by Walker J) for terminating payment of my joint claim for Jobseeker’s Allowance on 27 September 2006, and a copy of same.

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

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

Sixth visit by the police

Last night – I had just got into my sleeping bag – we received our sixth visit from the police. Declan was informed by two police community support officers that all rough sleepers are to be moved out of the City of London, that we can expect to be “harassed” (her word) by the police over the next two weeks, and that we may be asked to move beyond city boundaries.

The question: is this a (ruthless) method by the London Mayor Ken Livingstone to cleanse the city of rough sleepers? Or is this just the latest idea the police have come up with to move us out of our porch and put us at risk? (I should mention here that on 3 November Declan had good foresight when he chose this particular patch for us to sleep in: it has proven relatively safe and quiet, notwithstanding the sleep deprivation techniques that have been used against us, and which I have recorded throughout this blog.)

I already smell a rat. I have spent an hour on the internet in the library Idea Store Whitechapel and my research has yielded no results. There is not one single mention on the internet of an operation by the police to move rough sleepers out of the City of London or that one is going to be undertaken or has ever been undertaken; the Mayor of London website mentions nothing; other homeless organisations are reporting nothing; and the same applies to all the major papers. Even staff at the Dellow Centre told Declan this morning that they have heard of no such policy.

So if the Bishopsgate City of London police think that we are going to voluntarily move out, and put ourselves and our belongings (including legal documentation) at risk, they are mistaken. For a start, Declan is considering writing to Ken Livingstone on this apparent covert police operation.

And then there is the Independent Police Complaints Commission to write to on the manner in which the assault on him (on 17 February a homeless called Ali punched Declan twice in the face in an unprovoked attack in the Whitechapel Mission) is being dealt with by Tower Hamlets police: Declan cannot get the police to take his statement.

In a nutshell, after much trouble on Declan’s part (recorded in this blog), on 1 March PC Richard Bentley (823 HT) left a message on Declan’s mobile stating that as soon as he has arrested Ali, he will contact Declan again for his written statement of 19 February to be formally taken. (Where, for a start, does it say that the alleged assailant has to be arrested before a statement can be taken from the victim?) Needless to say, PC Bentley has never phoned back.

This morning, Bethnal Green Police Station informed Declan that in fact it is not PC Bentley who is investigating the matter at all, but Detective Constable Alexander Head of the Beat Crime Unit in Limehouse Police Station. According to police records, DC Head wrote to Declan c/o Whitechapel Mission on 26 February and 9 March. The mission, however – and this is hilarious – issued Declan a letter this morning stating no mail has arrived there for him since 20 January.

We are making advancements

Selling The Big Issue in Covent Garden over the weekend is never boring. Yesterday, while I was relieving Declan from our pitch, the vendor who is sharing it with us came along. First he wanted the pitch for himself on weekends – yeah, he already told Declan last week that he wanted the pitch for himself everyday, all day – and then wanted me to take off so he could step in to sell the magazine for the afternoon.

When Declan pointed out that we had precedence over him, the vendor was adamant that he had precedence over me. The vendor eventually took off – “its game on,” he said – after Declan threatened him with a complaint. If the Big Issue runs more pitches like ours, the sales staff at head office must be inundated with vendor complaints – and a few fights, if you ask me.

Last Thursday night PC Richard Bentley left a message on Declan’s mobile – he must be back from his holidays – informing him that Ali was going to be arrested, after which Declan could make his statement. (Ali is the homeless guy that punched Declan twice in the face in an unprovoked attack on 17 February in the Whitechapel Mission.)

PC Bentley hasn’t phoned Declan since, so I assume Ali is giving him the slip. We haven’t seen this Ali or his girlfriend for a few days either. Last week, we were running into them every day – on one occasion, Ali’s girlfriend ran into me in the toilets of the Whitechapel library.

Yesterday morning, as we were about to leave the porch we sleep in at night, a police car stopped by. After we were asked if we were heading off, and were wished a good day, the car drove on. It’s a small advancement, but one of the threats the Bishopsgate City of London police have held over us – namely that we cannot sleep in the porch – would appear now to have been lifted. Of course, we still have to deal with the porch alarm, people invading the porch before we arrive, workers going into the building to do handiwork, and sleep deprivation techniques. Cold, wind and rain (perhaps even more snow) have also to be dealt with, but fortunately for us the police have no control over them.

The police efforts to demoralise us

At the risk of not being believed, I have to report that last night the alarm of the porch we sleep in was going off when we arrived at 9.00pm, didn’t stop the whole night, and was still going when we left at 5.30am. The alarm wasn’t one of these that deafen, perhaps because the sound was coming from the inside hall, but anybody two metres from the porch could hear it – the porch alarm box flashed a blue light.

That is the second time we have arrived to the porch to the sound of the alarm … only this time it went all night.

We also noted that the porch I mentioned in the last blog, which we are going to move to should we have to, was all lit up in a first in four months – to deter us from sleeping in it?

Three nights ago a worker wanted us out of the porch; the night before last two lovers took over our porch for 55 minutes; and last night the never-stopping alarm. It appears this is going to become our new nightly lot. Anyway, it is not like we are not aware that the job of the Bishopsgate City of London police is to harass and demoralise us. (To think that there was a time I chewed over the idea of studying criminology after finishing my degree in Psychology because I wanted to become a top police inspector.)

Declan is still trying to make a formal statement to reflect the typed statement he handed in to Bethnal Green Police Station for the attention of PC Richard Bentley (823 HT). Declan was twice punched in the face by a homeless called Ali in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February. PC Bentley was the police officer who took the details from Declan at the mission – he is on his holidays at the moment.

The following is Declan’s efforts to get the police to take his statement:

Mon 19th	- 9.30pm, 1st visit to Bethnal Green Police Station. Declan hands in typed statement for PC Bentley.
Wed 21st	- 10.00pm, 2nd visit to Bethnal Green Police Station. PC Bentley on his holidays. PC Calabrese of Limehouse Police Station to phone Declan.
Fri 23rd	- 11.30am, 1st phone call to Limehouse Police Station. Declan told to phone back on Monday for PC Calabrese.
Mon 26th	- 6.15am, 2nd phone call to Limehouse Police Station. Declan told to phone back at 7.00am for PC Calabrese. - 7.15am, 3rd phone call to Limehouse Police Station. Declan told to phone control room. - 7.20am, 4th phone call to Limehouse Police Station – Control Room. Declan to be phoned back immediately. (No call.) - 7.25am, 5th phone call to Limehouse Police Station – Control Room. PC Calabrese to phone Declan. - 8.30pm, 1st phone message from Limehouse Police Station. Declan asked to phone DC Head.
Tues 27th	- 7.30am, 6th phone call to Limehouse Police Station. Declan told to phone back at 9.00am for DC Head. - 9.00am, 7th phone call to Limehouse Police Station. DC Head to phone Declan.