Issues raised in the JREF Forum
Declan has posted a letter introducing ourselves and NAC to different non-religious forums (for example, the Richard Dawkins Forum) in an attempt to get us and NAC off the ground – we are still begging (illegally) of course, which is quite humiliating to say the least. Some important questions have been raised in the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum which Declan dutifully answered, and I think that he did a very good job considering that we don’t have much free time or the luxury of logging onto the internet at the drop of a hat. (In relation to the JREF Forum, we are in the Forum Community under the title “Network of those Abused by Church (James Randi, Honorary Associate)”; we have had over 1000 hits since last Sunday, so it must be a lively thread.) Below are Declan’s answers to the following questions (paraphrased, as they appear in many places in different ways):
(1) Is NAC a registered charity?
(2) Has not Declan a psychiatric history?
(3) Why don’t you 'sign on' for Jobseeker’s Allowance again?
(1) Is NAC a registered charity?
Thank you everyone. Five points which I hope will answer some of the many questions raised in this thread so far, and in particular by the posting above [we have not requested permission to publish]: (1) Each trustee of NAC has agreed to the listing of their name pending the receipt of paperwork for signing because NAC has yet to be registered as a company. (2) All honorary associates of NAC have agreed to the listing of their name in that capacity. Those who did not reply to their invitation are not included, nor are those who declined the invitation. (3) Each trustee and honorary associate of NAC has been notified by email of 17 or 18 September that I have entered forums to seek publicity and donations that can enable my wife and I to survive the next couple of months trying to get NAC off the ground. (4) Each trustee and honorary associate of NAC has been assured on 17 or 18 September that any donation is made through PayPal and will be revealed to the trustees of NAC by regular update. (5) In my application of 8 September 2007 to the European Court of Human Rights (which can be found here: http://network-of-those-abused-by-church.blogspot.com/2007/09/application-to-european-court-of-human.html), I state the following in paragraph 3:
The applicant, Declan Heavey, a former teacher, was born in Dublin in 1960 and has been sleeping rough in London with his wife since 3 November 2006. His wife, a former psychologist and an Irish citizen, was born in Madrid in 1965. They were married in July 1993, and have no children. In September 2003 the applicant and his wife moved from Dublin to Birmingham, England, where they were self-employed until July 2005. They attempted to set up an international secular humanist organisation called NAC (Network of those Abused by Church), for which the applicant's wife developed a website at www.nac1.bravehost.com. While self-employed, they covered their expenses with savings of £44,000, the remnants of the applicant's late father's will.
I know there are many other important questions that have been raised, particularly in relation to my own background (ie, my complaint against the Hospitaller Order of St John of God - the source of NAC). I hope to address as many of these questions as I can tomorrow. Thank you again everyone. Please bear with me.
(2) Has not Declan a psychiatric history?
As I stated yesterday, I know there are many important questions that have been raised, particularly in relation to my own background (ie, my complaint against the Hospitaller Order of St John of God – the source of NAC). For example: [we have not requested permission to publish].
A wardship inquiry into my soundness of mind was heard in the High Court of Ireland before Mr Justice Geoghegan (now a judge of the Supreme Court) and a jury on 26 February 1997 and following three days, and which I successfully defended in person. Dr Carol Coulter of The Irish Times subsequently wrote the following on 6 March 1997 in an opinion article for the newspaper titled “Wards of court lose rights and liberties: The ward of court process was uniquely opened to public scrutiny this week when a man successfully fought off attempts to have him made a ward”:
On Tuesday, Mr Declan Heavey convinced a High Court jury that he is not “of unsound mind” and unable to manage his person and his affairs. The vote was nine to three. He had successfully fought off an effort to have him made a ward of court.
However, before his case even came to court Mr Heavey accomplished the unusual feat of having it heard before a jury. Uniquely, he also succeeded in convincing the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Costello, that there was no good reason for it to be heard in camera, and that it could be open to the public and the media. For the first time, the workings of the law on wardship of court were open to public scrutiny.
She concludes as follows:
Being made a ward of court severely limits a person’s liberty. It is clear that the question of Mr Heavey being made a ward of court would never have arisen if he had not challenged his father’s will.
The fact that this all arose out of a disputed will raises the question that this law, with its serious consequences for the individual concerned, is open to being used in family disputes in such circumstances.
My complaint against the Hospitaller Order of St John of God – the source of NAC – was initially presented in a letter of 5 December 1997 by Mr Brian Garrett of Elliott Duffy Garrett Solicitors to the Order’s (then) Provincial of All Ireland, Fr Fintan Brennan-Whitmore (a scan of this letter can be seen in my personal website www.nac1.bravehost.com/declanwebsite/vatican/garrett.html), which states:
We are acting for Mr Declan Jude Heavey who currently lives at 26 Ardaluin Heights, Newscastle, County Down, and our client has consulted us in relation to treatment which he received at St John of God Hospital, Stillorgan, where he was improperly diagnosed as suffering from a manic depressive illness and was for extensive periods treated intensively with various medications which were inappropriate and injurious to our client’s health. You will be aware that our client’s treatment was at all material times under the direction of Dr Patrick Tubridy (Consultant Psychiatrist).
We have, incidentally, been given a full history of the events and issues before the courts in Dublin which culminated in the determination of the High Court jury in March of this year that our client was not “of unsound mind” and was not unable to manage his person and affairs. This finding was contrary to the diagnosis of our client by the Hospital professional staff and at odds with the treatment which our client had been given and indeed the approach to our client while in the Hospital or undergoing treatment prescribed by the Hospital professional staff.
As for the specific reason why my wife and I find ourselves homeless, the following is taken from my urgent request of 8 September 2007 to the European Court of Human Rights for the expedition of my case against the UK under the heading “Background of request” (the full request can found at: http://network-of-those-abused-by-church.blogspot.com/2007/09/urgent-request-for-expedition-under.html):
In July 2005 the applicant and his wife were awarded Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) at their local Jobcentre Plus (JCP), Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus. On 14 August 2006 the applicant’s wife attended an advisory interview at the JCP Office to review her Jobseeker’s Agreement (JSAg) for the second time. On this occasion, however, the JCP threatened to suspend her JSA unless she extended the nature of the employment for which she would be available to include permanent work, and refused to accept her proposed JSAg for temporary work only for referral to an adjudication officer in accordance with section 9(6)(a) of the Jobseekers Act 1995. As a consequence of the refusal, the applicant’s and his wife’s entitlement to JSA was twice suspended and then ceased on 27 September 2006 because the applicant failed to 'sign on' two days before he was due to do so on 29 September. In a series of letters, the applicant notified the JCP and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions of the mistake, but no action was taken. (All the applicant received was a letter from JCP of 5 October 2006 acknowledging receipt of, inter alia, letters from him dated 29 and 30 September.)
Since 3 November 2006 the applicant and his wife have been sleeping rough in the porch of an office building in the heart of London’s business district. On 22 November, the Dellow Centre recorded on the applicant’s wife’s registration form that St Mungo’s, London’s largest homelessness organisation, had informed the centre that neither the applicant nor his wife could be referred to a hostel “due to not being on any benefits”.
Thank you everyone. I really am very sorry that it is not possible to answer more important questions at one sitting. My wife and I get up at 5.00am every morning, wash in public toilets in the local train station and, as result of all the problems selling the Big Issue magazine (which is sold on the streets by homeless people), have to beg – a criminal activity in England, for which we have already been threatened with arrest and custody pending a court hearing the next time either one of us is caught (more about this hapless situation can be found at http://network-of-those-abused-by-church.blogspot.com/2007/09/we-are-illegal-beggars.html).
(3) Why don’t you 'sign on' for Jobseeker’s Allowance again?
This question cuts to the heart of my case against the UK in the European Court of Human Rights. From my application of 8 September 2007 (the full application can be seen at http://network-of-those-abused-by-church.blogspot.com/2007/09/application-to-european-court-of-human.html), paras 70-73:
* JCP stands for my (then) local Jobcentre Plus, Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus
70. The applicant also submits that he did everything that could reasonably be expected of him to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of the JCP’s ceasing of his and his wife’s entitlement to JSA on 27 September 2006. The Court has found that according to the “generally recognised rules of international law” there may be special circumstances that absolve an applicant from the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies at his disposal (see Van Oosterwijck v Belgium, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A, No. 40, pp. 18-19, paras. 36-40). The rule is also applicable where an administrative practice consisting of a repetition of acts incompatible with the Convention and official tolerance by the State authorities has been shown to exist, and is of such a nature as to make proceedings futile or ineffective (see Ireland v the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A, No. 25, p. 64, para. 159, and the report of the Commission in the same case, Series B, No. 23-I, pp. 394-97).
71. The applicant submits that a consideration by the Court of the following factors would lead to the conclusion of the existence of special circumstances which dispensed the applicant from the obligation to appeal to a social security appeal tribunal in respect of the ceasing of the applicant’s and his wife’s entitlement to JSA on 27 September 2006:
(1) On 30 September 2006 the applicant wrote to the manager of JCP advising of the Jobcentre's mistake in ceasing his and his wife's entitlement to benefit on 27 September because he did not sign his declaration, when both he and his wife were not due to sign on until 29 September, and sent a copy of this letter by registered post to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Subject to regulation 27(1) of the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996, entitlement to JSA 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. Nonetheless, no action was taken to rectify the mistake made by the JCP.
(2) The JCP further failed to provide the applicant with an explanation as to why it would not change its decision of 27 September, an explanation that the applicant was entitled to within one month of the date of the decision letter for an automatic right to appeal to a social security appeal tribunal. By registered letter dated 4 October 2006 the applicant complained to the Secretary of State, but no action was taken. (All the applicant received was a letter from the JCP of 5 October acknowledging receipt of, inter alia, letters from the applicant dated 29 and 30 September.)
(3) Following Mr Justice Collins’s refusal (on the papers) of leave to apply for judicial review, the application was renewed on 17 October 2006, and a copy sent by registered post to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. By registered letter dated 20 October 2006 the applicant again complained to the Secretary of State, but no action was taken.
(4) By letter dated 31 October 2006 the Administrative Court Office advised the applicant that his permission application had been listed for oral hearing on 11 December 2006 in the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Having been denied an explanation as to why the JCP would not change its decision of 27 September, and thereby deprived of his automatic right to appeal to a social security appeal tribunal, the applicant submits that he and his wife were left with no choice but to go homeless in London [as opposed to Birmingham], where the pursuance of his claim through the national courts was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the complaint and offered reasonable prospects of success.
(5) The applicant wishes to emphasise that having had their entitlement to JSA ceased on 27 September, neither he nor his wife was entitled to a hardship payment (JSA at a reduced rate) or a Social Fund loan (unable to repay).
72. In respect of the JCP’s decision letter of 27 September, Mr Justice Walker said the following in his judgment:
The defendant went on to formulate a letter sent on 27th September. That letter gave a reason for terminating payment. Mr Heavey says the reason was plainly wrong. It seems almost certain that Mr Heavey is correct. Indeed, 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. (Transcript, para. 31)
73. The applicant submits that the Department of Work and Pensions never informed him that terminating payment because he failed to sign on was a mistake but that there was another good reason for so doing. In fact, it would appear from Mr Justice Walker’s statement in paragraph 72 above that the JCP did not even inform the High Court as to what other reason existed for terminating payment. (By letters dated 18 April and 3 May 2007 the applicant requested of the Administrative Court Office a copy of the letter in which the Department says that the reference to him having failed to sign on was a mistake, but by letter dated 15 May 2007 (see Supporting Documents, p. 25) the Office advised that the court file does not contain the letter asked for.) This point, it is submitted, goes to the very heart of this case: the consistent pattern of actions taken over a relatively long period of time by the JCP and which were aimed at preventing the applicant’s wife’s proposed JSAg from being referred to an adjudication officer in accordance with section 9(6)(a) of the Jobseekers Act 1995. The applicant also submits that there was no remedy that would have been effective in changing the general situation, of which the applicant complained, and it is therefore irrelevant that in this case the applicant did not appeal to a social security appeal tribunal.
Thank you all. I am extremely grateful to everyone for the speed this forum is going. Please accept my apologies if you feel that I am not keeping up.
