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.

Police threaten to evict us from the porch

Last night we received our fifteenth visit to the porch by the City of London Police. One moment I am sleeping in my sleeping bag and the next I am listening almost in disbelief to this big stocky policeman telling us that he and his partner have an order to evict us from the porch.

"We have been sleeping here since 3 November 2006 and we are gone before 5.30am every morning," I point out, adding that since the beginning of the year a cleaner has been going in and out of the building through the porch door every weekday night between 10.00pm and 11.00pm and another cleaner has been doing the same between 5.00am and 5.30am (we get up at 4.40am) and our behaviour has never been deemed disruptive or disorderly. I also mention that for over a year now workers have been accessing the building through the porch door at all hours of the night without any difficulty whatsoever – Declan even tears the cardboard so there is no chance the door is ever blocked.

"Some rough sleepers get drunk and leave their porches dirty, upsetting and angering the owners," says the other police officer. "Ah," I reply, "but we don't drink or smoke and in fact almost every night I spend some time cleaning the porch floor." Declan also mentioned our protection under the Human Rights Act 1998 – we became aware of our rights as rough sleepers under the Act after police told us on 28 May that rough sleepers were to be woken every hour to force them off the streets (see here).

Anyway, if the City of London Police insist on evicting us from the porch, Declan intends complaining to London Mayor Ken Livingstone under the Human Rights Act: we have been sleeping in this porch for almost 16 months without one single complaint; we are in this dreadful situation through no fault of our own; and eviction will put us at even greater risk (which can only be the intention - I have been dragged out of the porch by the ankles and on another occasion I was repeatedly kicked in the shoulders and chest, despite the porch being in a business area heavily covered by CCTV).

Eviction was not the only hurdle we were asked to jump in the past few days – a week ago it was the near collapse of Declan's petition to the UN in support of therapeutic cloning (see previous blog), which is still taking a battering. On Thursday I was stopped from selling The Big Issue (a magazine sold by homeless people on registered street pitches) after my pitch was unceremoniously taken over by a street distributor of the WTF Magazine – as I reported in my blog of 20 January "Begging for over a week", I have been begging in the local train station since 10 January – so my fling as a Big Issue vendor since Monday lasted, well, two days.

Needless to say, this weekend we have almost no money to buy food - I will be begging in the train station again on Monday morning, having been threatened with arrest on 18 January. Of course, like every other homeless, we could get some coffee and a basic breakfast for 60p in the Methodist Church-run Whitechapel Mission except that the minister’s wife barred us back in June due to concerns about our safety. It hasn’t helped that all last week food has been particularly scarce in the Sisters of Mercy-run Dellow Centre, even on Friday, when Medecins du Monde UK made an appearance. Things are not looking good for next week either, as they will be closed on Wednesday. On Monday, a homeless woman cleaned herself in the women’s washroom with a broken piece of soap, and did her teeth with her finger and some water. A look at their annual report of 2006/07 doesn’t provide any clues, but contains three pages of supporters: charities, societies, churches, companies, livery companies, religious organisations, trusts, statutory funders (London Borough of Tower Hamlets, London Councils and The Corporation of London) and the Duke of Norfolk (to whom Declan reported the withdrawal of his use of a landline phone) as Patron.

We have yet to hear from the European Court of Human Rights – Declan received a letter from the Registrar turning down his request of 8 September for priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of the Court, but informing him that the Court would examine his application, also of 8 September, possibly before the end of January. We have arrived to the conclusion that since we didn’t convince the Court of the merits of our case for priority, the chances are we didn’t put a good enough case together for the British government to be invited to set out its observations on the merits and admissibility of the case. I am sure it is also relevant that, according to Philip Leach in Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights, in 2003 96% of cases were declared inadmissible, or struck out, by the Court.

For the record, this is Declan’s second email on Thursday to The Big Issue outreach manager:

Subject: WTF Magazine

Dear Mr Joseph

Thank you for your email regarding the problems I am having with Ebuyer (UK) Limited's WTF Magazine.

You recommend that in correspondence to companies I should be "more specific as to what the problem is rather than simply referring to the 'takeover' of the pitch". Should Ebuyer (UK) request more detail from me, I will inform the company that at 7.35am this morning, five minutes after my wife stood into her Big Issue pitch at The George Pub, Liverpool Street, a street distributor of the WTF Magazine planted his trolley full of magazines within no more than a metre from her and proceeded to distribute the magazine between her and the trolley, completely oblivious to the fact that she was standing only a few inches behind him and less than a foot to his right – a railing at her right side. My wife left the pitch at 8.30am, having sold no magazines.

With reference to the quote from the letter of 10 September 2007 I received from John Bird, Founder and Editor-In-Chief of The Big Issue, you state: "I should point out that the quote from John Bird (who is not Dr.) relates to you not needing to contact him directly about Big Issue problems and to instead contact Distribution staff such as myself, and is therefore not relevant in communications you have with other companies." However, the quote to which you refer also indicates that he is not unwilling to get involved in these matters:

I have employed many people over the years to do jobs related to the running of The Big Issue. I have never employed them to do my job; likewise I do not do their job. Please bear this in mind when you are composing your letters. You do not need to address your letters to me, as it is not my job. I would only get involved if you were utterly and totally let down by those whose job it is in The Big Issue. I hope this assists in your deliberations in pursuit of your claims.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey
Big Issue badge no. 1163

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