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
