Tenth visit by the police … and walking everywhere

There is so much material for this blog I’m afraid I have to cherrypick. OK, first thing: the tenth visit by the Bishopsgate City of London police on Thursday to the porch we sleep in at night – I was almost asleep while Declan had just tied our bags, which naturally had to be untied once we were asked for identification.

And unlike the Met’s ninth visit on 1 July, which saw us being questioned by two police officers on horses, this time round it was two police community support officers on foot – in fact, one of them was so at ease, she sat at the end of my sleeping bag. I will spare the details of this half-an-hour exchange since their questions seldom vary, except that this time the sitting officer was quite keen to know what chances we thought we had of getting off the street.

I lay back in my sleeping bag thinking about a quotation I read in a blog by literature Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka – the next morning I went looking for it so I could write it here: about the world being better off without religion … “I think so. It would be less beautiful perhaps, because some religions have created really beautiful architecture, incredible music, some of the most moving dances stem from religion – this idea or acknowledgement of something that stems from something larger than yourself. But I have a feeling that the world would have found a way of substituting it, or creating the same thing from a different source of inspiration”.

Apart from this visit, there has been plenty of action in the porch. Every day this week (Monday to Friday), a cleaner has been putting in a short appearance: he goes into the office building by the porch at about 5.10am – while we are packing our bags to leave – grabs a mop and starts mopping (the carpet) inside the glass porch door, leaving by the porch at about 5.25am, a few minutes before we ourselves pull out.

Maybe he should mop the porch – not while we are there, as he is threatening – although given that we are not paying rent, I suppose the least we can do is keep cleaning the porch floor every night (my job) and tie up the rubbish bags left by another cleaner for collection, sometimes inside the porch (Declan’s job).

And to keep me busy with this blog, yesterday morning at 4.00am I woke up to find an almost full pint of beer beside my head. I hid it away in a corner of the porch just in case I knocked it over or worse, somebody emptied it over me.

This cleaning job is really a very small inconvenience compared to that of having to now walk everywhere carrying all our bags (one of mine contains a thick European law book and notebook): this morning we walked from the porch to Liverpool Street Station to wash in the public toilets, and then all the way to Idea Store Whitechapel library – a tidy hour and forty minutes.

In a nutshell, this new tribulation (a first since we started selling The Big Issue back in December) comes as result of not being able to sell enough Big Issues this week to buy two weekly bus passes. I will also spare the reader a repetition of the problems we have been facing on our two pitches in Liverpool Street and our weekend pitch in Covent Garden and direct anyone interested in reading a litany of difficulties to the previous blog quite prophetically titled “We are being reduced to begging”.

In an attempt to scrap the money together to buy the two tickets (£28), Declan actually went all the way to the Big Issue head office in the hope they would buy back 42 magazines (£29.40 to us), which we bought on Tuesday and Wednesday, but head office said no. Worse to come is if we cannot afford food next week – without transport we can’t even travel to where free food is handed out. Already I only eat once a day for about £2.50, while Declan hardly eats anything in the evening.

You would reckon that whoever is orchestrating (or manipulating) events around us would take a well-earned break – but no, there doesn’t appear to be any signs of it. Not with the problems I have been running into with both the Sisters of Mercy-run Dellow Centre and the Tower Hamlets Council-run Idea Store Whitechapel library.

In the Dellow Centre I don’t seem able to grab a shower: in addition to the usual homeless woman (a resident of the local Salvation Army women’s hostel) that keeps snatching it from me – it doesn’t matter if it is a Monday at 10.00am or a Thursday at 10.30am – a new homeless woman has now let me know that she too is on my case. Oh well, it sure looks like I am going to do all my washing in a toilet cubicle with a wet towel and some shower gel – advice which Declan gave me some time ago: what does that say about the problems he has in grabbing a shower?

Which brings me to the issue of my hair. I am in desperate need of a hair cut and although the Dellow Centre has previously had a volunteer in on Wednesdays to cut homeless’ hair, that (short-lived) practice hasn’t taken place for, er, about three months. It means I must cover my hair with a cap at all times.

As for the Idea Store Whitechapel library, we are talking about the deletion on Friday of my computer booking. Because this is the second time it has happened in little over a week, Declan emailed the manager of the library, Zoinul Abidin:

Subject: Computer access

Dear Mr Abidin,

I refer to my registered letter to you of 19 July with which I enclosed, in the absence of acknowledgement, copy of my email to you of 8 July regarding the above.

In my email of 8 July I stated the following:

I wish to confirm that this evening I advised your supervisors Ms Mita Dutta and Ms Bhavia Parikh that my wife discovered that her final computer booking (which she had booked through one of your booking computers as usual) for the period 4.05pm to 4.45pm had been allocated to somebody else. Said supervisors were also advised that earlier this afternoon my wife was automatically logged out in the middle of a one-hour session and had to find a member of staff to be booked in again before she lost the computer to someone else. It was further submitted that the same logging out and re-booking occurred on two other occasions earlier in the week.

I can confirm that this afternoon my wife advised your supervisor Ms Yvonne Rowe that she discovered that her final computer booking (which she had booked through one of your booking computers as usual) for the period 4.30pm to 5.30pm had been allocated to somebody else.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely,
Declan Heavey

Specially fitting for the end of this blog is a sentence from Sir (despite Muslim opposition) Salman Rushdie – it is from an article he wrote for The Guardian on 14 March 2005 in relation to the law Tony Blair tried to pass in Parliament against incitement to religious hatred:

I never thought of myself as a writer about religion until a religion came after me. Religion was a part of my subject, of course; for a novelist from the Indian subcontinent, how could it not have been? But in my opinion I also had many other, larger, tastier fish to fry. Nevertheless, when the attack came, I had to confront what was confronting me, and to decide what I wanted to stand up for in the face of what so vociferously, repressively and violently stood against me. Now, 16 years later, religion is coming after us all, and even though most of us probably feel, as I once did, that we have other, more important concerns, we are all going to have to confront the challenge. If we fail, this particular fish may end up frying us.

“Religion may end up frying us all.” A fine motto, suitable for embroiding on any teacloth.

We are being reduced to begging

Although I have been given enough attitude – while selling The Big Issue on my pitch in Liverpool Street – to last me a lifetime, I am about to sink to lower depths: I mean we are getting close to being reduced to begging, which is illegal.

Declan has told me that if things continue the way they are, we can hold out for two weeks because he is going to stop buying our weekly bus tickets – charming, now I get to walk everywhere. However, I am not holding my breath: when we were living in Birmingham, ooh, a little while ago, Declan also told me we had two weeks before going homeless in London and yet early a few mornings later he more or less told me to get dressed and go and buy two one-way bus tickets.

Why are we being reduced to such a pitiful state? Well, the simple reason is that we don’t seem able to sell enough Big Issues anymore – in fact of late we have been dumping them: 19 magazines last Sunday and 25 today (incidently, these 25 magazines were bought on Thursday morning; the vendor pays 70p for a magazine, which sells for £1.50).

Take this morning at our weekend pitch in Covent Garden. While Declan was watching a re-run of today’s rugby game between New Zealand and South Africa, I stood in on the pitch. I had only been there for about fifteen minutes when a Big Issue vendor came along, situated himself directly across the road from me – taking the crowds that come down New Row and past me on their way towards Leicester Square – and began shouting “Big Issue”, “Big Issue”. He had just rendered me being there so utterly pointless that when I see that he has just taken a little break and is sitting a few feet away from me, I ask him if he is going to stay long across the road. Oh yes, he told me, that is his pitch. Well that is big news for me: Declan has been working our Convent Garden pitch for months now, and never has there been a Big Issue vendor opposite. So there, for all our troubles, we now have a near worthless weekend pitch – isn’t that nice?

Then there are our respective pitches on Liverpool Street, which we are now frequently forced to walk off. Take Thursday evening for example. Declan had to walk away because on one side he had some guy harassing passers-by to take flyers, while on the other side there was the regular London Lite girl, with whom he has had so many problems – vendors can be suspended from selling the Big Issue if they argue with other street traders on their pitches so there was really not much point in being there. The day before, I myself was forced to walk off after two Chinese girls stood directly opposite me, almost within touching distance, and started tossing their flyers to everyone passing. (I was also treated to their presence on another occasion the previous week.)

The Bishopsgate City of London police too seem to be quite aware we are heading towards begging because for the last week, while standing in my pitch, I have seen homeless asking people for money. Of course, I can always find a cash machine and sit there for the day in the hope somebody will toss me some coins. Oh, I forgot, one of the local pimps is also passing by my pitch quite regularly now. So I am really spoiled for choices …

To be a successful beggar, it is primordial your clothes look not only like they are walking off you but that they have been picked out of a bin. A crutch is a very good idea, and so is a dog – apparently some people give money to homeless with dogs so the dogs get fed. But I think that a crutch and a dog are too over the top and so we have settled for the crutch on its own. I must remember to ask the beggar on a crutch that passes by my pitch seven or eight times a day – but who nonetheless can walk very fast when he wants to – where he got his. He also carries a couple of up-to-date Big Issue magazines which he sells to unlucky people that happen to be waiting for a train, a taxi, or simply drinking a beer outside one of the pubs about the station. Anyway, I assume that since the police turn a blind eye to him, and others who harangue people in and about Liverpool Street Station, so will they turn a blind eye to us. Or maybe not, given that we seem to always be singled out for special treatment.

My clothes are indeed starting to look like I picked them out of a bin because I simply don’t have the money to replace them … in one way I am happy the summer hasn’t arrived in Britain yet. I am also running quite low on toiletries. I had been going to Boots in Liverpool Street Station to take advantage of the skincare stalls there, where potential customers can try products by among others Clarins and Clinique – products which I owned before I had to dump them on my first day as a homeless person (because I couldn’t carry them). Almost two weeks ago, while I was at the Clinique’s stall, two police officers passed very slowly by me so I knew my days in Boots were numbered. Sadly, I wasn’t mistaken: yesterday, while at the Elizabeth Arden stall, one of the assistants came along and the way she asked me “Can I help you, Madam?” I knew instructions in relation to me had at last been given – needless to say I am now out.

It also seems impossible to shake the homeless off. On Tuesday at 8.15am, Declan had been at his pitch for forty-five minutes when a homeless told him that he was looking very clean, clapping him hard on the shoulder. When Declan asked him to take his hands off him, this homeless aggressively threatened to do his face in – later the same day a homeless woman shouted at Declan as he was coming out of the local post office that she was going to kill me.

Gordon Brown is turning out to be rather like his predecessor and already we are getting a lot of stick: the church can raise a glass of something expensive to the Brown year(s) to come. As Andrew Copson has pointed out, the UK is moving at a menacingly creeping pace towards a government that is in thrall to religion. Declan jokes that we may have to apply for asylum to the US. Wait – the US?

Ninth visit by the police

The fact that Declan and I are very much in an end game – as I reported in my previous blog on Saturday – was affirmed last night when we received our ninth visit from the police – this time by two police officers on horses. Police officers on horses – always in pairs – frequently pass by the porch we sleep in at night, but not until last night had they taken any interest in us. (Incidentally, the questioning took place from the pavement, with the two police officers on their horses and us standing in the porch.)

We should have a written page of prepared answers that Declan can just pull out and read because the questions seldom vary: where do we come from, how long have we been sleeping in the porch, has anything happened to us while sleeping, have we been visited by St Mungo’s, what about a job, what are our plans for the future.

The latter question is probably the most important one, since no doubt the police want to know if all the intimidation and harassment has us reconsidering our obstinate desire to make NAC happen – talk of the European Court of Human Rights and the submission of our application against the UK is not an answer they seem ready to accept. (Throughout the questioning – so long that one of the horses began moving impatiently – Declan kept his arms folded, which I thought rather appropriate.)

I like to think that Declan did extremely well in this question and answer session. I particularly liked the answer he gave as to why we can’t get a job: first, there are nights we only get two or three hours sleep and second, since we have been barred from the (Methodist-run) Whitechapel Mission by the minister’s wife due to concerns about our safety, we have no choice but to wash in the street and in toilets. How can anybody get a job (let alone keep one) in such circumstances?

The only time that Declan and I (involuntarily) laughed was when one of the police officers let it slip that he hoped we would get what we deserved – police are no paragon of civil liberties so we shouldn’t hold it against him.

When the police officers left, Declan told me he wouldn’t be surprised if one of these nights we find upon arriving back at the porch that a homeless has taken it over, despite that we have been sleeping in it since 3 November and now have five tickets issued to us by police with the porch address on each one – when that happens, the first thing we will do is take a trip to the local police station; see what they have to say about it.

Although by comparison it’s a little dull, yesterday also we were woken – a few minutes before we get up at 4.50am – by some well-dressed guy that lent over me and hit Declan in the thigh. And oh, this morning at 5.20am a (highly motivated) employee came into the office building through the porch door, only to leave ten minutes later as we were pulling out.

CCTV footage required for a prosecution/conviction

This morning Declan wrote to the head of the Methodist church of the UK, Rev Graham Carter, given his ongoing difficulties in having the homeless guy that assaulted him in the canteen of the Methodist-run Whitechapel Mission on 17 February prosecuted. This is his letter:

Dear Rev Carter

Re:  Harassment and intimidation in the Whitechapel Mission

Further to my letter and enclosures to you of 19 May, please find enclosed copy of my cover letter of 8 June to Chief Superintendent Jerry Savill of Bethnal Green Police Station regarding my request under the Data Protection Act 1998 for a copy of the statement that was written by Detective Constable Alexander Head on my behalf in Bethnal Green Police Station on 27 April in relation to the assault on me in the canteen of the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February.

I can confirm that in the absence of an update, this letter to CS Savill will be forwarded with its enclosures to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg as part of my application against the UK establishing violation, inter alia, of Article 3 (the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

On 9 May, I met with DC Head in Bethnal Green Police Station for a crime report update in respect of the assault on me on 17 February. As stated in my letter to you of 10 May, DC Head advised that he had spoken with the Director of the Whitechapel Mission, Minister Tony Miller, who confirmed that he was aware of what took place and the name of the suspect. On 10 May, as stated in my letter to you of 11 May, DC Head left a voice message for me (see transcript attached), wherein he states:

... I’ve spoken to Sue and Tony. They have stated to me they have spoken to all their staff members. None of them can remember an incident involving yourself taking place. Whether that is the case – whether they just do not want to come forward and speak to police, that probably sounds like the more reason behind itself.

I reconfirm that in light of the fact that no longer can any of the staff of the Whitechapel Mission remember an incident involving me taking place, CCTV footage of the assault on me in the canteen of the premises on 17 February is required for a prosecution/conviction.

As first stated in my letter to you of 5 May, Minister Miller advised me on 1 May that in a matter of days I would be in receipt of a letter from the management of the Whitechapel Mission in response to my allegations of harassment and intimidation in their premises. Please note that I am in receipt of no such letter to date.

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

And this is the letter to the CS Savill of 8 June:

Dear CS Savill

Re:  Request for information (Crime ref: 4204886/07)

I refer further to the enclosed copy of MPS (Metropolitan Police Service) Refusal Notice of 15 May 2007 in respect of my request to you of 5 May 2007 under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the following information:

Copy of the statement that was written by Detective Constable Alexander Head on my behalf in Bethnal Green Police Station on 27 April 2007 in relation to the assault on me in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February 2007.

I also re-enclose copy of my Subject Access Request form (3019a) of 21 May 2007 under the Data Protection Act 1998, which I forwarded to you on 21 May 2007 with postal order for £10 and proof of identity, as requested. Please note that this Subject Access Request includes the following attachments:

(i) chronology from 19 February 2007 to 27 April 2007 in respect of my efforts to have my statement taken;

(ii) copy of the statement I handed to DC Head on 27 April 2007, some of which he transcribed verbatim;

(iii) copy of my letter and enclosures of 19 May 2007 to the head of the Methodist church in the UK, Rev Graham Carter regarding harassment and intimidation in the Whitechapel Mission.

I note from the aforementioned Refusal Notice of 15 May 2007 that it may take up to 40 days from receipt of my completed application of 21 May 2007 to process my request.

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

I am still working quite hard on Declan’s application to the European Court of Human Rights – following the lodgement of his case to the Court on 18 May by introductory letter – and not surprisingly there are plenty of highlights of the week. Here are some: Declan is handed two burnt toasts with his breakfast of cereal and coffee, and then told they can’t be replaced because he has just handled them (Thursday at 9.45am in the Sisters of Mercy-run Dellow Centre); my Big Issue pitch by Liverpool Street Station is taken out by a distributor for an escort service (Thursday from 12.30pm to 2.00pm at the George Pub); Declan has to speak with the deputy manager for a 60p refund on six lost prints (Saturday at 4.00pm in the Idea Store Whitechapel library); a homeless spills a full cup of milk over my (new) jeans, (new) bag and jumper without apology (this morning at 6.05am in the Whitechapel Mission).

The serious difficulties with Declan’s Big Issue pitch by Liverpool Street Station (at McDonalds) are far from resolved but he is waiting for The London Paper to involve themselves again before bringing the matter to the attention of the chair of the Board of Trustees of The Big Issue, and then the Charity Commission.

Court denies access to case file

Last Friday Declan received a letter of reply of 15 May from Lynne Knapman, Head of the Administrative Court Office in London’s High Court.

Despite Declan’s three requests to date, she is neither giving him access to the case file nor copy of this letter from the Department for Work and Pensions which was referred to by Mr Justice Walker in his dismissal of Declan’s application for judicial review on 11 December and, by inference, Lord/Lady Justice Scott Baker in their rejection of his application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal – a letter we have never seen, which allegedly makes out that the termination of our unemployment benefit because Declan did not “sign on” was a mistake, but that there is another good reason (unknown to us) for the termination of payment.

Anyway, this is Knapman’s letter of reply of 15 May signed by Philip Lewis of the Administrative Court Office (Declan’s letter to her of 3 May can be seen here):

Dear Sir

Thank you for your letter date 3rd May 2007.

First of all, can I apologise for the misunderstanding that occurred on receipt of your letter dated 18th April 2007. This was due to an unintentional error on my part and I apologise for any delay that has arisen because of that.

Because this matter has been closed in the Administrative Court Office since 11th December 2006, the court file was ‘broken up’ in order to allow ease of storage due to the sheer volume of cases that we have. Once a file has been broken up, it contains documents key to the claim, such as the claim form, any acknowledgments of service and grounds of defence supplied by the defendants or other parties. Because of this, unfortunately, the court file does not contain a copy of the letter which you are asking for.

May I suggest you contact the Department of Work and Pensions directly to ask for a copy of this letter?

Once again, my apologies of any delay that has arisen.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully

Phillip Lewis
Administrative Court Office, Issue Section

It was going to take something special to match that letter but, by an astonishing coincidence, on the same day that Declan received Knapman's reply, he also received a letter of reply of 15 May from Chief Superintendent Jerry Savill of Bethnal Green Police Station advising him that his second request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 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, fell foul of the Act. According to the Metropolitan Police Service, this Freedom of Information Act “does not confer the right to access your own personal information.”

To obtain a copy of the statement DC Head took on 27 April, he had to re-apply under the Data Protection Act 1998 by completing their form 3019A and paying a fee of £10. Now it just so happens that Declan’s first request to CS Savill of 27 April was under the Data Protection Act 1998, but he never received a reply. Oh, and the whole process may now take up to 40 days!

It’s certainly hard to find the rationale behind the delay in getting a copy of this statement from the Metropolitan Police, if not in the context of Declan’s application of 18 May to the European Court of Human Rights, which cites violation, among others, of Article 3 (the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

For the record, this is Declan’s registered letter to Savill yesterday:

Dear CS Savill

Re:  Request for information (Crime ref: 4204886/07)

I refer to the enclosed copy of your letter of reply to me of 15 May 2007 signed by Mr Saeed Yusuf, Information Manager in connection with my request of 5 May 2007 under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In my letter of 5 May 2007, I requested the following information:

Copy of the statement that was written on my behalf by DC Alexander Head in Bethnal Green Police Station on 27 April 2007 in respect of the assault on me in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February 2007.

As requested, I hereby re-apply for this information by making a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998. Please find enclosed a completed form 3019A together with a) chronology in respect of my efforts to have my statement taken, b) copy of the statement I handed to DC Head on 27 April 2007, some of which he transcribed verbatim, and c) copy of my letter and enclosures of 19 May 2007 to the head of the Methodist church in the UK, Rev Graham Carter regarding harassment and intimidation in the Whitechapel Mission.

I also enclose a £10 postal order made payable to “The Metropolitan Police Authority” together with a) copy of the inside back cover of my passport showing full name and date of birth, b) copy of letter of 24 November 2006 from St Mungo’s confirming that my wife and I have been verified as rough sleepers, and c) copy of my contract of 15 December 2006 for using the Whitechapel Mission as an address for mail.

I confirm that I am currently a rough sleeper.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please contact me on 077 9284 3167 or at the address at the top of this letter.

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

cc  Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (by registered post – with enclosures herein referred to)

Yesterday afternoon my pitch outside Liverpool Street Station – where I sell The Big Issue every week day – was virtually put out of action by a guy, less than three metres away, harassing passers-by to take a copy of the free tabloid The London Paper (a first since I started selling The Big Issue over six months ago). On the other side of me, about 10 metres away, I had a guy handing out the free London Lite (at his usual spot) and in front of him another guy doing the same with The London Paper.

Will The London Paper become a regular feature at both sides of my pitch? Passers-by during evening rush hour may not wish so, but then again the Bishopsgate City of London police may well have other ideas. A clue as to what are their intentions might be provided by the fact that yesterday afternoon the girl who usually hands out the London Lite a few metres away from Declan’s pitch, tried her best to run a number on him too.

You would be forgiven for thinking that as Britain has ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (although it has not yet ratified protocols containing substantive rights: what does that tell us?), the Government would let applicants get on with the job of presenting their case to the European Court in Strasbourg – apparently not.

Introductory letter to the European Court of Human Rights

Yet another example of police intimidation and harassment, this time involving London Lite and The London Paper (two free London tabloid papers handed out to people in the evening Monday to Friday): Thursday evening Declan didn’t even bother stepping into his pitch outside Liverpool Street Station – where he sells The Big Issue during the week – after he found a bicycle tied up at his pitch and facing it a girl flogging the London Lite on one side and a guy harassing passers-by to take The London Paper on the other.

While such intimidation and harassment does little for the state of our finances, at least on this occasion there was a silver lining. The next morning, Declan lodged our case with the European Court of Human Rights by introductory letter. This is the letter he sent by fax and registered post:

Dear Sir/Madam

Re:   HEAVEY v UK

I am writing to introduce an application under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

On 11 August 2006 I attended an advisory interview to review my Jobseeker’s Agreement (JSAg) with an employment officer in Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus of the Department for Work and Pensions in respect of my claim for Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA). As with my first JSAg, my pursuance of a “temporary job” that would enable me retrain to start my own business was accepted as part of the new JSAg that I signed.

On 14 August 2006 my wife attended an advisory interview in Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus to review her JSAg in respect of her JSA on my claim. Contrary to the provisions of her first two JSAg’s however, she was threatened with the suspension of her JSA unless she agreed to sign a new JSAg without the restriction that she is looking for a temporary job that would enable her retrain for a new career. She was not provided with any reason as to why this restriction was no longer acceptable, and was furthermore denied her right pursuant to section 9(6)(a) of the Jobseekers Act 1995, to have her proposed JSAg referred to an adjudicator for him to determine whether she would satisfy the conditions that she was available for employment and was actively seeking employment.

On 18 August 2006 my wife and I were to attend another advisory interview in Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus, this time with the adviser manager. After my wife had been informed by this adviser manager that he would neither accept her proposed JSAg nor refer same to an adjudicator, she refused to attend the interview. I likewise refused to attend any such interview until such time as I was advised that the Jobcentre would either accept my wife’s proposed JSAg or refer same to an adjudicator in accordance with section 9(6)(a) of the Jobseekers Act 1995.

In a letter dated 18 August 2006, Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus advised my wife and I that my joint claim JSA would be suspended from 19 August 2006 on the basis that there was a doubt as to our availability for work.

Having been denied the only remedy that was capable of providing redress in respect of my wife’s complaint, on 24 August 2006 I lodged an urgent application in person for permission to apply for judicial review against Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions with the High Court in London, claiming that the suspension of my joint claim JSA was irrational.

In a letter dated 13 September 2006, an adjudicator advised my wife and I that the doubt as to our availability for work had been removed and that any arrears of JSA due to us would be paid. On 14 September 2006 summary grounds for contesting my claim by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was lodged with the High Court, claiming that the decision to suspend benefit was lawful. Further it was submitted that my application for judicial review was premature and/or disproportionate.

On 15 September 2006 I wrote to the manager of Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus advising that neither my wife nor I would attend another advisory interview until such time as I was advised that the Jobcentre would either accept my wife’s proposed JSAg or refer same to an adjudicator. This resulted in the suspension of my joint claim JSA on 19 September 2006 due to the non-attendance of my wife and I at our respective advisory interviews earlier that same day. In a letter dated 25 September 2006, Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus advised me that my joint claim JSA had been looked at again and reinstated from 21 September 2006.

On 29 September 2006 my wife and I attended Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus to sign our respective declaration (that we were available for employment and actively seeking employment) as we were meant to, but were prevented from doing so without explanation. On 30 September 2006 I received a letter dated 27 September 2006 from the Jobcentre advising that the entitlement of my wife and me to JSA was ceased as from 19 September 2006 because I did not attend to sign my declaration. On 30 September 2006 I wrote to the manager of Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus advising of the Jobcentre’s mistake, and sent a copy of this letter to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Subject to regulation 27(1) of the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996, entitlement to a jobseeker’s allowance 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, the Department for Work and Pensions neither changed the decision of 27 September 2006 to cease our entitlement JSA nor gave me an explanation, the latter of which I required within one month of the date of the decision letter to have a right to appeal to an Appeal Tribunal. (All I received from the Department was a letter from Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus dated 5 October 2006 acknowledging receipt of my letter dated 30 September 2006.)

In a letter dated 31 October 2006, the High Court in London advised me that my permission application had been listed for oral hearing on 11 December 2006. With no income, our savings depleted, and not entitled to JSA hardship provision (JSA at a reduced rate) or a Social Fund loan (unable to repay), my wife and I were faced with the choice of going homeless in London or in Birmingham. We chose London because the pursuance of our claim through the national courts was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of my complaint and offered reasonable prospects of success. We would have been more vulnerable and insecure had we stayed in Birmingham, particularly as I had been deprived of my right of appeal against the decision to cease our entitlement to JSA.

My wife and I have been rough sleepers in London since 3 November 2006 save a brief period in rolling shelters. On 22 November 2006 the Dellow Day Centre recorded in my wife’s registration form that St Mungo’s, London’s largest organisation working with the homeless, had informed the Centre that neither my wife nor I could be referred into night shelters "due to not being on any benefits". My application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused by the High Court on 11 December 2006. According to the Court, my application for permission was premature. The Court’s decision also stated that I should have had my complaint about the letter of 27 September 2006 determined by an Appeal Tribunal.

On 18 December 2006 I was admitted to Chelsea and Westminster Hospital for pneumonia. In the discharge summary report dated 20 December 2006, my doctor recorded that I was admitted with chest pain worse on breathing, worse on inspiration, and that I had not been eating due to lack of finance. Furthermore, the doctor also noted that I did have an episode of loss of consciousness, witnessed by my wife. On 17 February I was punched twice in the face in the Whitechapel Mission Day Centre in an unprovoked attack by a homeless man (crime reference number: 4204886/07).

My application for permission to appeal was refused by the Court of Appeal on the papers on 22 March 2007 as being totally without merit for the reasons cited by the Court on 11 December 2006, and an order was made that I may not request the decision to be reconsidered at a hearing. No further avenues of redress are available to me. My wife and I are currently surviving on the streets of London by selling The Big Issue, a magazine that is sold on the streets by homeless people in the UK.

I submit that in the circumstances of this case there has been a violation of Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) arising from the two suspensions of my joint claim JSA and the subsequent ceasing of the entitlement of my wife and me to JSA and that we were deprived of an effective remedy in violation of Article 13 of the Convention. I also complain that we have been the victims of discrimination because my wife wanted to continue to have her interests protected (in violation of Article 14 taken together with Articles 8 and 13).

I further submit that the abandonment of our flat and possessions and our current status as homeless has caused us suffering of sufficient severity for the acts of the Department for Work and Pensions to be categorised as inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 (the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment). I also complain that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 (protection of property) arising from the abandonment of our home and possessions.

In addition, I submit that the true purpose of the two suspensions of my joint claim JSA was to intimidate my wife into signing a new JSAg on unfavourable terms in violation of Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8. I also complain that the ceasing of the entitlement of my wife and me to JSA was a measure introduced with a view to influencing the judicial determination of the dispute, in violation of the right to fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention.

I seek a declaration from the Court that Articles 3, 6, 8, 13, 14, 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol 1 have been violated, together with just satisfaction under Article 41 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, plus legal costs and expenses).

This letter has been introduced within six months of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, in accordance with Article 35(1) of the European Convention.

A completed application form, together with a file of relevant copy documents, will be submitted shortly.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours faithfully

Declan Heavey

And these are some of the highlights of the week: we are treated to employees leaving the building by the porch we sleep in – they do have a very nice front entrance – either at the moment we arrive or when we are getting into our sleeping bags (Monday to Thursday between 8.15pm and 8.45pm); homeless try to get Declan to let them use his sink, and the fact that he is at it with half a foot of soapy water, for one character it was “So what?” (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday between 6.15am and 6.30am in the Whitechapel Mission washroom); a homeless first kicks the table Declan is sitting at, spilling coffee that narrowly misses his papers, and then kicks Declan in the shin as he is reading (this morning at 10.30am in The Connection at St Martin-in-the-Fields).

On the secular front, on Tuesday I found a very funny short bit in the Independent on Pope Benedict’s visit to Brazil. It reads: “In a speech at the end of his tour of Brazil, Pope Benedict condemned 'authoritarian governments' who are 'wedded to old-fashioned ideologies'. Presumably a sense of irony isn't very useful if you're a Pope, but even so it was a wonder he didn't blush. I thought 'old-fashioned ideologies' - resistant to reason - were part of the point of the Roman Catholic Church.”

Surely the fact that the Catholic church is rich and powerful, regularly earning bonuses of billions of pounds a year in deals with governments, and claiming a monopoly on truth, means that its head shouldn’t have to be constrained by fine-tuned speeches.

Letter on behalf of the trustees of the Methodist Church in Tower Hamlets

Last Thursday Declan received a letter from Superintendent Minister Peter Powers on behalf of the trustees of the Methodist Church in Tower Hamlets regarding the harassment and intimidation Declan is being subjected to in the Whitechapel Mission – some of which I report in this blog almost all the time. This is the letter (my favourite bit is at the end, where he says he is simply saddened by Declan’s “cynicism”):

Dear Mr Heavey

Thank you for your letters of 24th & 28th April and many enclosures. Although you have not actually asked for response to me I have noted the contents of your letters.

I have spoken to Mr. Tony Miller, Director of the Whitechapel Mission and he has assured me that every care possible is taken of all those who work or volunteer at the Mission as well as those who visit the Whitechapel Mission. This is as I would expect.

It is indeed unfortunate that you feel you have been subject to “harassment and intimidation” whilst using the Whitechapel Mission’s services, although I note that your difficulties seem to be with one particular other person who also uses the Mission’s services rather than with any staff or volunteers. Obviously we cannot control the actions of everyone who comes to use the Whitechapel Mission and any incidents of assault should be reported to the police, which it seems you have already done. I cannot comment on the actions or response of the police in this matter that is for them.

The work of the Whitechapel Mission is part of the Methodist Church help offered to the some of those in most need in society. We see it as part of our Christian faith to help those in need if we can. The services provided by the Whitechapel Mission are open to anyone who comes, both those who are homeless, such as yourself, and those who are vulnerably housed in insecure or temporary accommodation. I see that in addition to the showers and breakfast offered you also use the postal address service provided by the Mission.

I note that you run a blog on the internet called ‘Network of those Abused by Church’ (http://network-of-those-abused-by-church.blogspot.com/). What I find interesting is the fact that you appear to run an organisation that calls for the separation of church and state and for public policies that are based on secular principles, not religious doctrine. You seek the “scientific, rational examination of religion to protect future generations from the ignorance so often fostered by religion hiding behind doctrinal smoke screens”. Clearly you have some issues with the Church and yet it is the Christian Church, not the secular state that seems to be offering you support and help. In fact, it is many of the secular institutions that you appear to have problems with and continue to cause difficulties for you. Can I point out that the Whitechapel Mission raises all its own funds for the work it does and receives no state funding whatsoever. It simply saddens me that your cynicism can’t actually see beyond the smoke screen you appear to have made for yourself.

Yours sincerely,

Rev. Peter Powers
On behalf of the trustees of the Methodist Church in Tower Hamlets

Cc. Mr. Tony Miller, Whitechapel Mission
      Rev. R. Graham Carter, President of the Methodist Conference

Rev Powers should perhaps be informed that the director of the Whitechapel Mission, who he refers to as “Mr” Tony Miller, is, er, a minister – how do I know that? I looked him up on the internet. There are other things he also gets wrong, like the showers and the breakfast he says we use in the Whitechapel Mission.

Take showers. Declan has never showered in the mission because men shower communally. There is one shower in the women’s washroom, which I would be using if it wasn’t for the fact that there has been no hot water since 22 April (a first), at least not from 6.00am to 6.35am.

Take breakfast. After narrowly escaping being assaulted for the second time on 16 April – he brought it on himself for not talking to the homeless that visit the premises, was the view taken by the kitchen worker who intervened – he left the table with our bags to a chorus of derisive shouts and laughter from homeless about the canteen. Since that most pleasant experience, we don’t sit at a table anymore. We wash (bringing our bags with us to our respective washrooms); have a coffee standing up; and by 6.50am we are out – breakfast doesn’t kick off until 8.00am, seven days a week.

Anyway, on Thursday and Friday Declan wrote to the head of the Methodist Church in the UK, Rev Graham Carter on the subject of all the harassment and intimidation in the Whitechapel Mission, which is on-going. This is the second letter, sent by registered post (Carter's letter to Declan of 20 April can be seen here):

Dear Rev Carter

Re:  Harassment and intimidation in the Whitechapel Mission

I refer further to the enclosed copy of your letter to me of 20 April and re-enclose copy of letter to me of 8 May from Superintendent Minister Peter Powers on behalf of the trustees of the Methodist Church in Tower Hamlets regarding the above.

I also re-enclose copy of my letter and enclosures of 5 May to Chief Superintendent Jerry Savill of Bethnal Green Police Station requesting in pursuance of section 8(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, a copy of the statement that was written on my behalf by Detective Constable Alexander Head in Bethnal Green Police Station on 27 April in respect of the unprovoked assault on me in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February.

I reconfirm that on 16 April I narrowly escaped being assaulted for the second time in the Whitechapel Mission. On this occasion, as first stated in my letter to you of 17 April, the kitchen worker who intervened took the view that it was my fault for not talking to the homeless that visit the premises. (That this was the view taken, would be evident from CCTV footage.)

Although I was informed by the manager of the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February that I enter the premises at my own risk, I remain adamant that this ought not to be the case. Again, I understand that if a visitor is invited onto the institution’s premises then a common duty of care will be owed by the institution to the visitor. This is to ensure that the visitor will be reasonably safe in the premises for the purposes for which he has been invited or permitted.

On 9 May, I met with DC Head in Bethnal Green Police Station for a crime report update in respect of the assault on me on 17 February. As stated in my letter to you of 10 May, DC Head advised that he had spoken with the Director of the Whitechapel Mission, Minister Tony Miller, who confirmed to him that he was aware of what took place and the name of the suspect, but not that the canteen worker who intervened will be a corroborating witness, nor that there is CCTV footage of the assault.

Yesterday morning, DC Head left a voice message for me (see transcript attached) stating that he has spoken again with Minister Miller, who confirmed to him that there are no corroborating witnesses, but not that there is CCTV footage of the assault.

As first stated in my letter to you of 5 May, Minister Miller advised me on 1 May that in a matter of days I would be in receipt of a letter from the management of the Whitechapel Mission in response to the questions raised herein. I can confirm that I am in receipt of no such letter to date.

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

And this, the transcript attached:

Crime Ref: 4204886/07

Voice message of 10 May (11.03am) from DC Alexander Head of Bethnal Green Police Station
_______________________________________________________________

Good morning, Declan. It’s Alex speaking from Bethnal Green Police Station. Just to let you know – I’ve spoken to Sue and Tony. They have stated to me they have spoken to all their staff members. None of them can remember an incident involving yourself taking place. Whether that is the case – whether they just do not want to come forward and speak to police, that probably sounds like the more reason behind itself. So I’ve updated the crime in regards to that. Obviously we now have no corroborating evidence, unless yourself can get any further regarding writing your letters, and such like. What I’m going to do is – the crime is completely updated with what has taken place and our meetings and everything else. What I will do is, just for the time being – is close the crime, but it can be re-opened if anything else comes to light and we can have corroborating evidence to try and take this to court. Thank you very much. If you want to give me a call back, that’s fine – or if you want to come in, it’s not a problem either. Thank you very much. Bye bye.

So, case closed, more or less. How nice! Anyway, now that it looks like the Whitechapel Mission is not being too cooperative on the prosecution front, a decent interval may have to pass before there is an attempt to assault Declan in the place again. Which can only mean that all eyes are now on the only other place where an assault can take place: the porch. Well, wasn’t I dragged from the porch while sleeping on 5 May, only to be kicked in the back a few hours later?

Finally, these are the highlights of the week: a cleaner leaves the building by the porch a few minutes after we arrive, blowing the porch alarm on her way out (Wednesday, alarm blows 8.15pm – 8.30pm); a guy with a friend wakes us up to ask if Declan’s sleeping bag is his – only leaving after I tell him twice quite aggressively, “Do you mind? I am sleeping” (Thursday at 10.30am); an ill-mannered homeless mutters that he and his friends are going to have us sorted out after Declan wouldn’t give him some of his shaving cream (this morning at 6.10am in the Whitechapel Mission washroom).

I’m assaulted twice while sleeping in the porch

Last night I was twice assaulted while sleeping in the porch (I sleep on the outside) by two different guys, at two different times – some coincidence. (The last time and only time I was assaulted in the porch was almost six months ago on 18 November when a stocky man in his thirties sat on the right hand side of my face.)

The first time, at 11.30pm, I was grabbed hard by both ankles – how he knew where to grab me, when I was in my sleeping bag with my back to the road and my head hidden, is a mystery to me – and with speed I was dragged in an arc down the two marble steps of the porch, carried 2 or 3 metres and then released, having been turned a full 180 degrees. I was quite shocked, but I distinctively remember, like some frozen memory, seeing the guy joining his three friends and looking back at me before turning down the main street.

He carried out this assault in full view of CCTV (we are in a business area after all) and even some passers-by, but this was a man on a mission, not too concerned with such banalities. I don’t remember how I got back to the porch – did I stand up or crawl? But I know now that when I woke Declan to ask for my notepad and pen (I was boiling with anger and wanted to get even), he didn’t understand that I had just been dragged onto the street like a sack of potatoes and he told me to go back to sleep – he was wearing earplugs and thought I had said to him that somebody had just moved my feet.

I couldn’t sleep for some time, in part because there was something that kept bothering me: was I supposed to get a lump on my head and a broken arm or hand instead of the severe bruising I now have on my left thigh and forearm, as well as a sore left wrist and little finger?

Declan doesn’t think so though: the attack was at 11.30pm when sleep quality is not at its best and so, at least in theory, I was more likely to lift my head up in a reflex action; the attacker was in his late 20s and was athletic and strong, meaning he was confident he wouldn’t bang my head; and I was dragged in an arc rather than pulled straight to the street, the latter more likely to have banged my head not once but twice. There was a small element of risk to my head that would explain, Declan says, why the assailant felt compelled to look back. Oh well. Declan has a degree in Physical Education, and I am sure he knows best.

The second attack happened at 3.45am – again I had my back to the street and my head inside the sleeping bag. After the guy twice shouted at us “Ahhhh” (probably to wake us up), he kicked me in the back with the sole of his shoe.

Now it just so happens that yesterday morning Declan telephoned the office of Chief Superintendent Jerry Savill, newly appointed borough commander for Tower Hamlets, and was informed that if he wants to obtain a copy of the statement that Detective Constable Alexander Head took on 27 April – Declan was punched twice in the face in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February – he should do so under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, not the Data Protection Act 1998 (see blog of 28 April).

So, this morning Declan sent the following registered letter to CS Savill (for the statement Declan handed DC Head see here, and for the chronology in respect of Declan's efforts to have his statement taken see here):

Dear CS Savill

Re:  Crime ref: 4204886/07

Further to my telephone call to your office yesterday, I hereby request in pursuance of section 8(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, a copy of the statement that was written by DC Alexander Head on my behalf in Bethnal Green Police Station on 27 April 2007 in relation to the assault on me in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February 2007.

I enclose copy of the statement I handed to DC Head on 27 April 2007, some of which he transcribed verbatim, and copy of chronology in respect of my efforts to have my statement taken.

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

cc Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (by registered post – together with enclosures herein referred to)

Do we take this double assault on me as a warning of something a lot more serious to come? We sure do. I had intended starting the draft of Declan’s application to the European Court of Human Rights today (for his finishing touch). Now Declan has instructed me to finish off the draft of his introductory letter to the registrar of the court instead. Because Monday is a bank holiday, Declan wants this letter ready for posting first thing on Tuesday morning.

I will be claiming that the termination of our unemployment benefit on 27 September - because Declan did not "sign on" two days before he was due to do so on 29 September - is in violation, among others, of Article 3 (the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Maybe Article 3 explains not only the Metropolitan Police’s delay in taking Declan’s statement, but their reticence in giving him a copy of this statement.

Seventh visit by the police

Two nights ago we received our seventh visit from the police – this time by a not very friendly female police community support officer. After the usual how long have you been sleeping in the porch, she only had two other questions before walking away abruptly: where do you put your bags at night; and have you ever been robbed.

Then, as we were bedding down, a total of four homeless passed by the porch within minutes of each other – Declan recognised them from the Dellow Centre and the Whitechapel Mission. (This morning at 5.10am a rough looking character approached us while we were packing to leave, asking for the direction to somewhere while at the same time eyeing our bags. Would he have run off with a bag if he had had the chance? I think so.)

This visit from the police wouldn’t have been related to Declan’s appointment the next morning with Detective Constable Alexander Head in Bethnal Green Police Station to have his statement taken in relation to the assault on him by a homeless guy in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February – when he was punched twice in the face in an unprovoked attack. No, of course not. That would be what - thuggery?

You may ask why DC Head would take Declan’s statement now, when Declan wasn’t given the time of day for almost two and a half months (see below for chronology in respect of Declan’s efforts to have his statement taken). Enter Rev Graham Carter, head of the Methodist Church in the UK.

Carter wrote to Declan on 20 April in reply to Declan’s letter to him of 17 April (see blog of the next day) regarding harassment and intimidation in the Methodist-run Whitechapel Mission. In his letter, Carter says that the allegation of assault is being dealt with by the police and it is, therefore, not possible for him to comment on it. It would be our contention that the police then had to do just that – deal with it.

Anyway, this is Carter’s letter of 20 April:

Dear Mr Heavey

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 17th April regarding your allegations of harassment and intimidation in the Whitechapel Mission.

Clearly the allegation of assault is being dealt with by the police and it is, therefore, not possible for me to make any comments on this. Your other allegations are most appropriately dealt with locally by those responsible for the running of the Whitechapel Mission, either the Management Committee or the Trustees, and I advise you to take up your concerns with them.

With all good wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Revd R Graham Carter

And this is the letter Declan sent by registered post this morning to Rev Peter Powers, Superintendent Minister for Tower Hamlets:

Dear Rev Powers

Re:  Harassment and intimidation in the Whitechapel Mission

I refer further to the enclosed copy of letter to me of 20 April from Rev Graham Carter, President of the Methodist Conference of Great Britain.

I also enclose copy of my letter and enclosures of 27 April to Chief Superintendent Mark Simmons of Bethnal Green Police Station regarding the unprovoked assault on me in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February (Crime ref: 4204886/07).

I reconfirm that on 16 April I narrowly escaped being assaulted for the second time in the Whitechapel Mission. On this occasion, as stated in my previous letter to you of 24 April, the kitchen worker who intervened (Tony) took the view that it was my fault for not talking to the homeless that visit the premises. (That this was the view taken, would be evident from CCTV footage.)

Although I was informed by the acting manager of the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February that I enter the premises at my own risk, I remain adamant that this ought not to be the case. Again, I understand that if a visitor is invited onto the institution’s premises then a common duty of care will be owed by the institution to the visitor. This is to ensure that the visitor will be reasonably safe in the premises for the purposes for which he has been invited or permitted.

Kindly note that yesterday morning I was informed by Detective Constable Alexander Head of Bethnal Green Police Station that the Metropolitan Police have been informed by the management of the Whitechapel Mission that there is no CCTV footage of the assault on me on 17 February available from the camera covering the canteen area.

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

cc  Rev Graham Carter (by registered post – with enclosures herein referred to)

The enclosure referred to in paragraph 2 of above letter is Declan’s letter yesterday to Chief Superintendent Mark Simmons requesting under the Date Protection Act 1998 a copy of the statement taken by DC Head (some of which quoted verbatim the statement Declan handed in to Bethnal Green Police on 19 February). In this letter to CS Simmons, Declan enclosed the following chronology in respect of his efforts to have his statement taken:

19 Feb - 9.30pm, 1st visit to Bethnal Green Police Station. Hand in statement of 19 February for the attention of Police Constable Richard Bentley. Told PC Bentley will phone me to have my statement taken by him.

21 Feb - 10.00pm, 2nd visit to Bethnal Green Police Station. PC Bentley on his holidays. Told PC Calabrese of Limehouse Police Station will phone me to have my statement taken by her.

23 Feb - 11.30am, 1st phone call to Limehouse Police Station. Told to phone on 26 February for PC Calabrese.

26 Feb - 6.15am, 2nd phone call to Limehouse Police Station. Told to phone at 7.00am for PC Calabrese.

- 7.15am, 3rd phone call to Limehouse Police Station. Told to phone control room.

- 7.20am, 4th phone call to Limehouse Police Station - Control Room. Told I will be phoned back immediately. (No call.)

- 7.25am, 5th phone call to Limehouse Police Station - Control Room. Told PC Calabrese will phone me.

- 8.30pm, 1st phone message from Limehouse Police Station. Asked to phone Detective Constable Alexander Head of the Beat Crime Unit to have my statement taken by him.

27 Feb - 7.30am, 6th phone call to Limehouse Police Station - Beat Crime Unit. Told to phone at 9.00am for DC Head.

- 9.00am, 7th phone call to Limehouse Police Station - Beat Crime Unit. Speak with DC Head. Told he will phone me to have my statement taken by him.

1 Mar - 7.00pm, 2nd phone message from Limehouse Police Station. PC Bentley says he is to arrest suspect, after which he will phone me to have my statement taken by him.

23 Mar - 5.30am, 8th phone call to Limehouse Police Station. Request crime report update. Told update not available over the phone.

- 7.00am, 3rd visit to Bethnal Green Police Station. Request crime report update. Told report includes letters to me from DC Head of 26 February and 9 March, neither of which I received. Asked to call back at 8.00am for phone call to DC Head to have my statement taken by him. (7.30am, Whitechapel Mission issue letter stating no letter arrived for me since 20 January.)

- 8.00am, 4th visit to Bethnal Green Police Station. Asked to phone DC Head between 10.00pm and 6.00am.

24 Mar - 5.30am, 9th phone call to Limehouse Police Station - Beat Crime Unit. Told DC Head will phone me.

26 Mar - 12.30pm, 1st registered letter - DC Head. In reference to chronology to 26 March, I request (1) copy of the letters of 26 February and 9 March, and (2) appointment to have my statement taken.

29 Mar – 1st letter from Bethnal Green Police Station. Acknowledgement of receipt of my letter to DC Head of 26 March. States DC Head will be responding to my letter "as soon as possible".

16 Apr - 7.30am, 5th visit to Bethnal Green Police Station. Request crime report update. Told last entry is station’s letter of acknowledgement of 29 March.

- 4.00pm, 2nd registered letter - Chief Superintendent Mark Simmons. In reference to chronology to 26 March, I confirm that my statement has yet to be taken.

- 4.00pm, 3rd registered letter - Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Ian Blair. Enclose for the Commissioner’s attention copy of my letter and enclosures of even date to CS Simmons.

22 Apr - 7.30am, 6th visit to Bethnal Green Police Station. Request crime report update. Told last entry is station’s letter of acknowledgement of 29 March.

23 Apr - 10.00am, 4th registered letter - Commissioner Blair. In reference to chronology to 26 March, I confirm that my statement has yet to be taken.

25 Apr - 9.00pm, 1st phone message from Bethnal Green Police Station. DC Head says that he has moved from Limehouse PS to Bethnal Green PS. He requests that I phone him at the robbery desk to have my statement taken by him as soon as possible.

26 Apr - 7.00am, 7th visit to Bethnal Green Police Station. Told to call back at 9.00am for DC Head.

- 8.30am, 8th visit to Bethnal Green Police Station. Not known when DC Head will be on duty. Told DC Head will phone me.

- 9.15am, 1st phone call to Bethnal Green Police Station - Robbery Desk. Get voice-mail. Confirm that I wish to have my statement taken as soon as possible.

- 1.55pm, 2nd phone call to Bethnal Green Police Station - Robbery Desk. Get voice-mail. No message.

- 1.57pm, 3rd phone call to Bethnal Green Police Station. Told to phone robbery office for DC Head.

- 2.00pm, 4th phone call to Bethnal Green Police Station - Robbery Office. Told to phone back in 30 minutes for DC Head. (I confirm that my phone will be on for DC Head to phone.)

- 2.30pm, 5th phone call to Bethnal Green Police Station - Robbery Office. Told to phone back in 20 minutes for DC Head. (I confirm that my phone will be on for DC Head to phone.)

- 2.50pm, 6th phone call to Bethnal Green Police Station - Robbery Office. Told to phone back in 20 minutes for DC Head. (I confirm that my phone has been on since 2.00pm, and will remain on for DC Head to phone.)

- 3.10pm, 7th phone call to Bethnal Green Police Station - Robbery Office. Speak with DC Head. Told he will take my statement on 27 April at 11.00am.

27 Apr - 11.00am, 9th visit to Bethnal Green Police Station. My statement taken by DC Head. Told suspect has yet to be arrested.

The harassment and intimidation in the Whitechapel Mission has been exacerbated by police delays in taking Declan’s statement – didn’t he have to call staff on 16 April to avoid being assaulted by a homeless? Step into a bus outside the establishment to escape being assaulted by, er, another homeless?

Finally, these are a few highlights from the week: the day that DC Head leaves a message on Declan’s mobile saying that he will take his statement and requests a return phone call to arrange a time, that night we are treated to an all-night blue flashing light from the porch alarm (Wednesday from 8.30pm to 5.30am); a homeless tries to get into confrontation with Declan and, when I brush him off, he pushes me and then rubs up against me (Monday at 9.10am, in the queue to enter the Dellow Centre); no hot water in the women’s washroom since last Monday, at least not from 6.00am to 6.35am – a first (Whitechapel Mission).

Second letter to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

This morning at 7.00am Declan again narrowly escaped being assaulted – seriously assaulted would be more appropriate – by probably the most dangerous character that visits the Whitechapel Mission (or used to visit, because we hadn’t seen him for some time up to last Friday).

This time the assault was going to take place no more than 100 metres from the Whitechapel Mission – that after Declan wrote on 17 April to the head of the Methodist church in the UK, Rev Graham Carter regarding harassment and intimidation in the mission. It may well be that the only thing we have achieved is that now we have to watch our backs outside it.

And I mean “we” because Declan and I agree that it should be me who takes the next hit. So from now on I am standing between Declan and whatever homeless decides to try it on outside washrooms – there is no shortage, I can assure you.

Anyway, the narrow escape occurred at the nearby bus stop (we had intended going to Covent Garden to sell The Big Issue) and although there were about 10 people waiting for buses, this homeless selected us for special treatment. Twice he tried to talk to Declan, but on both occasions I brushed him off. Then, all of a sudden, he decides to hijack a bus: he enters but instead of paying his fare, he first changes the position of the driver’s rear-view mirror and then starts insulting everybody on the bus, including the driver. He was so time-consuming one woman left the bus while some others at the bus stop were telling the driver to call the police.

As the homeless held up this bus, ours arrived – which we just got onto in time. Also fortunately for us, the homeless left his bus too late and, having lost his target, hit the window Declan was at with his fist, looking venomously straight at him. Given the force with which he hit the window, Declan is under no illusion that he would have been knocked out.

So, if this was a premeditated attempted assault, who sent him? And why? There is no need to go into muddy waters, especially since you don’t have to be the most intelligent person in the world to figure it out. As to the why, well yes, there is no problem with muddy waters there: it is about stopping Declan from lodging his case against the UK with the European Court of Human Rights by introductory letter. Quite evidently we’ve got a pretty strong case that won’t easily be dismissed.

Needless to say, we are still waiting for sight and copy of this letter from the Department for Work and Pensions stating, according to Judge Walker in his judgment of 11 December, that the termination of our unemployment benefit on 27 September because Declan did not sign on was a “mistake”, but there was another good reason for terminating payment (see previous blog).

The next place up for an assault has to be our porch, Declan reckons. Yes, I can see it: Declan is sent to hospital (well, now it will be me); our bags are stolen (with all our documents); and, of course, we lose the porch. Come to think of it, it’s a very tempting initiative! It’s not like the porch is a blind spot though: we have already had homeless to it as we are bedding down and, with one or two exceptions, Declan has recognised every one of them.

To return the compliment, this morning Declan and I paid yet another visit to Bethnal Green Police Station (Declan’s sixth visit) to request a crime report update in relation to the assault on Declan in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February, when he was punched twice in the face by a homeless in an unprovoked attack. Still no progress, so this is Declan’s second registered letter to Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis:

Dear Sir Ian

Re:  Crime ref: 4204886/07

I refer to my letter and enclosures to you of 16 April 2007 regarding the above.

I re-enclose copy of my letter and enclosures of 16 April 2007 to the Tower Hamlets Borough Commander, Chief Superintendent Mark Simmons of Bethnal Green Police Station.

As stated in my letter to CS Simmons, I note the letter to me of 29 March 2007 from PC Katherine Jones of Bethnal Green Police Station wherein it states:

I acknowledge your letter regarding Crime ref: 4204886/07, which was received on 29th March 2007. This has been referred to DC Head who will be responding to your letter as soon as possible.

In further reference to chronology in relation to my efforts to 26 March 2007 to have my statement taken in respect of the assault on me in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February 2007, I wish to confirm that I have yet to hear back from DC Head or anyone on his behalf.

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

Letter to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

At 7.00am this morning, while I was having my first shower since last Friday (when Declan and I were denied access to services in the Sisters of Mercy-run Dellow Centre, see previous blog), Declan narrowly escaped a serious assault in the canteen area of the Methodist-run Whitechapel Mission.

The homeless guy that wanted to assault Declan was, er, a friend of Ali, the homeless guy who twice punched Declan in the face on 17 February, also in the Whitechapel Mission’s canteen area – an attack the Metropolitan Police are refusing to investigate, despite that it was totally unprovoked and eventually stopped by one of the floor staff. The mission is fast becoming a place of safety hazards; only yesterday morning I was seriously harassed in the women’s washroom (see the end of previous blog).

These two homeless are not just friends, but must be quite good friends because a few minutes before the attempted assault by this homeless guy, Ali’s girlfriend was happily chatting with him.

The scenario was not unsimilar to the last time: homeless guy wants to sit at our table, not in the seat available, but in my seat, which Declan is protecting with his rucksack; he insists on my seat and starts untying the rucksack; Declan grabs the rucksack, unties it himself and surrenders my seat to this choosy guy; the homeless, now sitting in my seat, is not apparently content with his victory and calls Declan gay, a c*** , and a lot more besides; finally, when Declan has had enough and stands up to untie our bags and leave, this guy also stands, and comes at Declan with every intention of throwing a punch.

After the assault by Ali, Declan is fast enough to avoid being trapped by grabbing the lose rucksack, moving away from the table and shouting for floor staff to come to allow him to leave in safety (he still had to untie our remaining bags from under his chair). Did he get much help from staff? Not really. Apparently it was his fault for not wanting to talk with the homeless that frequent the establishment! We must look like we came down in the last shower of rain.

Because Declan is very concerned that avoiding assault is now going to be his daily diet while frequenting the mission – where we arrive every morning at 6.00am (opening time) to wash – he took me straight to Bethnal Green Police Station to get a progress report on the case against Ali. There is no progress at all, Declan was informed.

Well, that was so reassuring that when the police officer gave Declan his notepad to initial the officer’s entry that Declan did not wish to take this morning’s incident further, Declan first wrote: “I am happy to pursue my case as it stands. No contact was made. All is on CCTV.”

This afternoon Declan sent a registered letter to the most senior police officer in the country, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Ian Blair with a serious complaint. The question now is: will Declan end up in hospital before he lodges his case against the UK in the European Court of Human Rights by introductory letter? They would have to have me seriously assaulted also; because as a relative I can not only put the finishing touches to this introductory letter, but lodge it.

This is the letter to Borough Commander, Chief Superintendent Mark Simmons that Declan enclosed with his letter to Sir Ian (“chronology” can be found in this blog):

Dear Chief Superintendent Simmons

Re:   Crime ref: 4204886/07

I refer to the enclosed copy of letter to me of 29 March 2007 from PC Katherine Jones of Bethnal Green Police Station with copy of my letter and enclosures of 26 March 2007 to DC Alexander Head of your Beat Crime Unit, to which PC Jones refers.

I note that PC Jones states:

I acknowledge your letter regarding Crime ref: 4204886/07, which was received on 29th March 2007. This has been referred to DC Head who will be responding to your letter as soon as possible.

In reference to chronology in relation to my efforts to 26 March 2007 to have my statement taken in respect of the assault on me in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February 2007, I wish to confirm that I have yet to hear back from DC Head or anyone on his behalf.

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

cc   Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (by registered post – together with enclosures herein referred to)

Roughing things up

The Bishopsgate City of London police are indeed roughing things up: we have narrowly escaped being attacked (as I wrote in the previous blog, Declan foresaw this new escalation of harassment and intimidation last Sunday when he woke me up and told me we had to work fast on the introductory letter to lodge our case against the UK with the European Court of Human Rights).

These are the facts. Two nights ago (Thursday night), while we were sleeping, 3 or 4 guys decided to party at our porch – the porch is situated in a business area, which is generally stone quiet after 8.00pm. During the course of this rather unconventional party, one of them roared at us, “Get up!” A few hours later, the same individual came back with one of his friends, screamed at the top of his voice, “Tramps!” as he passed us by and kicked a metal A-board pavement sign by the porch (which has been out for the last few nights) down the pavement.

Now this A-board happens to advertise fake-tan services, although there is not a tanning business in sight. So I think I can safety conclude that the board is removed during the day, only to be put back at night, perhaps as a bargaining chip? Fortunately, the individual on Thursday night decided to boot it a few feet down the pavement rather than hurl it at us. Still, last night, in addition to the A-board, there was a pallet!

This narrow escape has a special timing. Only that morning in the Whitechapel Mission a member of staff put a stop to all conversations to broadcast for the sake of the general homeless population, and in particular for the benefit of Declan (I say that because he was determined to catch Declan’s eye), that two of the homeless present – two middle aged friends who seem to be always drunk – were assaulted the night before while sleeping rough.

If 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) is so in accordance with the law, why do the police need to threaten us with assault (Declan says that he will be the one to end up in hospital)? Are they actually trying to prevent Declan from lodging our case with the European Court of Human Rights? And when this orchestrated assault is being carried out, will our bags (containing legal documentation, etc) be stolen too?

This week I am also seeing a new level of nastiness towards me in the Sisters of Mercy-run Dellow Centre and the Methodist-run Whitechapel Mission: a homeless woman moved all my things from one place to another while I was drying myself in the shower (Wednesday at 10.30am, Dellow Centre); a homeless woman took possession of the only two sinks in the women’s washroom a few seconds before I came out of the toilet, having changed my clothes (Thursday at 6.15am, Whitechapel Mission); and I was prevented from having a shower when a volunteer handed me a towel that wasn’t big enough to dry my feet, telling me it was the only one she had: shower or no shower (this morning at 6.30am, Whitechapel Mission).

Now that I am on the subject of the Metropolitan Police, this is Declan’s letter of 26 March to Detective Constable Alexander Head of the Beat Crime Unit in Limehouse Police Station concerning the lack of anything in relation to the assault on him in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February (when he was punched twice in the face by a homeless called Ali in an unprovoked attack):

Dear DC Head

Crime Reference Number: 4204886/07

Please find enclosed copy of my informal statement of 19 February, which I handed in to Bethnal Green Police Station for the attention of PC Richard Bentley (823 HT) on Monday, 19 February in respect of the assault on me in the Whitechapel Mission on Saturday, 17 February.

I also enclose copy of letter of 23 March from the Whitechapel Mission regarding your letters of 26 February and 9 March, neither of which the mission received for me.

I also enclose chronology in relation to my efforts to have my statement formally taken.

I hereby request (1) copy of the aforementioned letters from you of 26 February and 9 March, and (2) an appointment to have my statement formally taken.

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

This is the chronology, to which Declan refers:

19 Feb - 9.30pm, 1st visit to Bethnal Green Police Station. Hand in informal statement of 19 February for the attention of PC Bentley.

21 Feb - 10.00pm, 2nd visit to Bethnal Green Police Station. PC Bentley on his holidays. PC Calabrese of Limehouse Police Station to phone back.

23 Feb - 11.30am, 1st phone call to Limehouse Police Station. Told to phone back on 26th for PC Calabrese.

26 Feb - 6.15am, 2nd phone call to Limehouse Police Station. Told to phone back at 7.00am for PC Calabrese.

- 7.15am, 3rd phone call to Limehouse Police Station. Told to phone control room.

- 7.20am, 4th phone call to Limehouse Police Station – Control Room. To be phoned back immediately. (No call.)

- 7.25am, 5th phone call to Limehouse Police Station – Control Room. PC Calabrese to phone back.

- 8.30pm, 1st phone message from Limehouse Police Station. Asked to phone DC Head.

27 Feb - 7.30am, 6th phone call to Limehouse Police Station. Told to phone back at 9.00am for DC Head.

- 9.00am, 7th phone call to Limehouse Police Station. DC Head to phone back.

1 Mar - 7.00pm, 2nd phone message from Limehouse Police Station. PC Bentley says he is to arrest assailant, after which my statement will be taken.

23 Mar - 5.30am, 8th phone call to Limehouse Police Station. Progress report not available over phone.

- 7.00am, 3rd visit to Bethnal Green Police Station. Progress report includes letters from DC Head of 26 February and 9 March, neither of which I received. Asked to call back at 8.00am for phone call to DC Head. (7.30am, Whitechapel Mission issue letter stating no letter arrived for me since 20 January.)

- 8.00am, 4th visit to Bethnal Green Police Station. Asked to phone DC Head between 10.00pm and 6.00am.

24 Mar - 5.30am, 9th phone call to Limehouse Police Station. DC Head to phone back.

26 Mar - 12.30pm, 1st registered letter – DC Head. Request (1) copy of letters from DC Head of 26 February and 9 March, and (2) appointment to have my statement formally taken.

And this is the reply of 29 March Declan received from Bethnal Green Police Station:

Dear Mr Heavey

I acknowledge your letter regarding Crime ref: 4204886/07, which was received on 29th March 2007. This has been referred to DC Head who will be responding to your letter as soon as possible.

In the meantime, if you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact the office at the above address. Please quote the above reference number on any further correspondence.

Yours sincerely

Katherine Jones
Correspondence Clerk

A few days ago, I read avidly an article in The Times by Matthew Parris in favour of reason – as opposed to faith. It states: “You are living, dear reader, at a watershed in human history. This is the century during which, after 2,000 years of what has been a pretty bloody marriage, faith and reason must agree to part, citing irreconcilable differences.”

And it leaves me thinking that religious leaders – I think I can safely include here not only religious Christian leaders but Islamic leaders also – would agree to no such parting, at least not so long as the Government thinks it can have a shot at burying people like Declan and I: two people who are seeking to establish a global network of groups and individuals campaigning against the involvement of religion in science and public policy.

Lord Justice Scott Baker's order and transcript of judgment

This morning Declan received the news that his application of 17 January for permission to appeal Judge Walker’s decision of 11 December to dismiss our claim for judicial review against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has been refused by the Court of Appeal “as being totally without merit”. The order by Lord Justice Scott Baker, who was Conservative education secretary from 1986 to 1989, was made on 22 March; permission for the decision to be reconsidered at an oral hearing denied.

When it comes to coincidence, 22 March is an interesting date: that night two police community support officers visited us at the porch we sleep in and informed us that all rough sleepers are to be moved out of the City of London, that we are going to be “harassed” by the police over the next two weeks, and that we may be asked to move beyond city boundaries. As I wrote in the previous blog, I didn’t find anything on this police policy on the internet.

Lord Justice Scott Baker’s order reads:

ORDER made by the Rt. Hon Lord/Lady Justice SCOTT BAKER
On consideration of the appellant’s notice and accompanying documents, but without an oral hearing, in respect of an application for permission to appeal
Decision: Refused, as being totally without merit.
Reasons: The reasons are clearly explained in the judgment of Walker J.
Information for the parties: This decision is final. Where the Court of Appeal refuses permission to appeal without a hearing, it may, if it considers that application is totally without merit, make an order that the person seeking permission may not request the decision to be reconsidered at a hearing (see CPR 52.3(4A)). Such an order has been made in this case. The appellant is therefore unable to request that an oral hearing be arranged.

Under Civil Procedure Rule 54.12.3 ("Appeals to the House of Lords"), there can be no appeal to the House of Lords against a decision of the Court of Appeal refusing permission to apply for judicial review. This morning, therefore, Declan spent £85.00 on the book “Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights” by Philip Leach.

The content of the transcript of Judge Walker’s judgment referred to in this order from the Court of Appeal is presented below. Paragraph 32 refers to a secret document from the DWP that we have never seen, a letter from the DWP that says there is a good reason for the termination of our benefits other than the one Declan is complaining about, namely that he did not “sign on” on 27 September last when he was not due to do so until two days later, on 29 September. Judge Walker doesn't specify the reason given, we note.

Personally, I don’t see what all the fuss is about: are there not plenty of people, including some very successful and high profile authors and scientists, already campaigning to take religion out of science and public policy? What is so special about us?

On another subject, there is a new phenomenon occurring in Covent Garden (we sell The Big Issue there on weekends): I am now attracting its beggars! They come to me while I am selling the magazine and demand to know if I am alright. “Speak up,” one of them actually shouted at me. Declan runs into problems there too. Last Saturday the vendor we share our pitch with, who Declan had to threaten with a complaint the second time he ran into him on the pitch, approached Declan while he was eating his lunch in private and started shouting abuse at him after Declan told him that he wished to eat his lunch in peace.

The beggars of Covent Garden are late-comers: homeless frequenting the Whitechapel Mission and the Dellow Centre are bothering us – I should say harassing us – for ages now. For example, a few days back, at 6.05am in the women’s washroom of the Whitechapel Mission, a homeless woman threw a ball of wet toilet paper at me she had just been using to clean her sink (many homeless men and women spit and blow their noses into their sinks) after I wouldn’t get into conversation with her. And today in the Dellow Centre, while I was in the sitting room, a homeless guy just happened to spill a cup of coffee over my coat, which was hanging unobtrusively at the back of my chair. Also women, in both establishments, are now using the toilet with the door open ... I am actually looking forward to what they will come up with next.

Anyway, this is the judgement of Judge Walker, which Mr. Justice Scott Baker finds no fault with (it goes without saying that we will be finding plenty of fault with it in what will be Declan's application to the European Court of Human Rights):

   1.    MR JUSTICE WALKER: On 19th August 2006 the local Jobcentre Plus (“JCP”) in Erdington made a decision to suspend the claimant’s Job Seeker’s Allowance (“JSA”) as from 19th August 2006. The claimant issued an application for permission to apply for judicial review and lodged it with the Administrative Court on 24th August 2006. He said the decision -- which concerned the joint position of himself and his wife -- was irrational. He asked for a mandatory order that the defendants cause his claim for Job Seeker’s Allowance to be reinstated immediately and for payment of the accumulated arrears.
   2.    The matter came before Sullivan J on the papers. In an order dated 25th August 2006, he abridged the defendants’ time for filing and serving its acknowledgement of service and summary grounds from 21 to 14 days. He added, among other things: “I question whether judicial review is an appropriate remedy at this stage. Is there no internal appeal/review process whereby such a decision can be reconsidered?”
   3.    The question Sullivan J asked was answered in summary grounds on behalf of the defendants. These formed part of an acknowledgement of service lodged on 14th September 2006, the reason for the delay being that the solicitor for the Secretary of State had not in fact received the claim until it was forwarded by the Erdington JCP. The summary grounds explained that section 21 of the Social Security Act 1998 dealt with suspension of payments. It enabled regulations to be made in that regard, in particular where it appeared to the Secretary of State that an issue arose whether the conditions for entitlement to a relevant benefit are fulfilled.
   4.    The summary grounds then referred to the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/991). I shall refer to then as “the Regulations”. Regulation 16 dealt with suspension of payment. Prescribed circumstances in which the Secretary of State was empowered to suspend payment included those where an issue arose whether the conditions for entitlement to the relevant benefit were or are fulfilled. Indeed, in those circumstances, in particular, there was not merely a power but a duty on the Secretary of State to suspend payment of JSA.
   5.    The summary grounds went into the reasons why an issue had arisen of that kind in relation to the claimant. I need not set out the detail in that regard at the moment. The summary grounds also added that at that stage a decision had yet to be made regarding the claimant’s entitlement to JSA. If the decision went in his favour, that would result in the suspended JSA monies being paid to him. If it went against him, he would be able to appeal to an Appeal Tribunal or to request reconsideration.
   6.    What then happened was that a decision was taken and, on the face of it, it was a decision in the claimant’s favour. If lifted the suspension and the decision provided for (and as far as I am aware, this was carried out) payment to the claimant to put him in a position that he would have been if there had not been a suspension in August.
   7.    The claimant, however, responded that the defendant had behaved disingenuously. It had made an assertion to the effect that the claimant’s contentions as to what could go into a Job Seeker’s Agreement were not accepted. The result was that when the claimant was asked to come for interview, the claimant responded “I am not going to come unless you tell me in advance that my contentions are accepted”. The upshot was that when the claimant failed to attend the interview on 19th September, his payment of JSA was again suspended.
   8.    On that occasion, the eventual decision was not in his favour. It was communicated by a letter dated 27th September.
   9.    MR HEAVEY: My Lord, there is a major error there which would seriously impact any judgment. You have missed that I was actually reinstated on 25th September, terminated on 27th September for the reasons provided. But I was actually reinstated. You are correct that I was suspended on 19th September, but I was reinstated on 25th September.
   10.    MR JUSTICE WALKER: That correction will be noted in the judgment.
   11.    On 27th September a letter was written to the claimant which said that he could not be paid his JSA from 19th September 2006 because he had not attended to sign his declaration.
   12.    MR HEAVEY: Another factual error, my Lord. What the letter said is that I did not sign my declaration but I was not due to sign until two days later.
   13.    MR JUSTICE WALKER: I am just quoting from the letter, Mr Heavey. The letter says: “You did not attend to sign your declaration.”
   14.    MR HEAVEY: Yes.
   15.    MR JUSTICE WALKER: This must have been a disappointment to Mr Heavey. It told him that he would receive his final payment of JSA ending on 18th September 2006. It added that he might be entitled to other help. If he wished other help he could seek a particular leaflet.
   16.    There was then a heading: “If you want to know more about this decision or if you think it is wrong”. Under that heading the letter asked the claimant to contact the defendant so that they could give an explanation; “Such contact should be within a month of the date of the letter”. There was then a heading: “What happens after the decision is looked at again”. Under that heading the letter said if the decision could be changed then the defendant would send a new decision. If the decision could not be changed, the defendant would say why. It added this: “You will still have the right of appeal against the decision.” That right of appeal was dealt with by the next heading: “How to appeal”. Under that heading it was explained that there was a leaflet to fill in. It should be sent within a month of the date of the letter. The appeal would be heard by an Independent Appeal Tribunal. I need not go into the details.
   17.    The application for permission to apply for judicial review then came before Collins J on the papers. He refused permission. He added some observations. The first point he made was that he appreciated the claimant’s concern that the defendants were not, according to the claimant, properly acknowledging the relevant legal position as regards the Job Seeker’s Agreement. Collins J went on: “But judicial review is not the correct route. The claimant or his wife must exercise any appeal rights to deal with what is said to be a wrong decision which results in detriment to him. Judicial review is a remedy of last resort. I make no order for costs at this stage, but the claimant must realise he may be vulnerable to such an order if the persists and it is held that he has no arguable claim.”
   18.    MR HEAVEY: My Lord, there are two substantive further omissions if I may raise them with the court. Very substantive omissions. The first one, which I hope has been added to the record is that I was reinstated on 25th September. Two major omissions subsequently have been that when I was terminated on 27th I did indeed contact Erdington Job Centre Plus and they provided me with no explanation, nor did they give any indication that they were going to provide me with any explanation which would have allowed me to take matters further. Secondly, Collins J was not aware on 13th October when he made his order that I had in fact been terminated. His order refers to a reinstatement dated 13th September, despite the fact that I had notified the court that I had been subsequently suspended again on the 19th and terminated on the 27th. Collins J made no reference to termination. His order was strictly based on reading the statement and telling me that the matter of an ES 2JP, which is an irrelevant factor in this case, is really not a matter for judicial review which I entirely agree with. He had no idea that the matter had been terminated. He was not informed as such by the court manager who I had briefed. His only briefing came from the Department for Work and Pensions. I entirely agree with his ruling with regard to the form ES 2JP but he failed to deal with, and it would appear that he had no knowledge of, the fact that I was unlawfully terminated on 27th September.
   19.    MR JUSTICE WALKER: That intervention will have been noted.
   20.    MR HEAVEY: Thank you, my Lord.
   21.    MR JUSTICE WALKER: On 17th October 2006, Mr Heavey lodged a notice of renewal of his claim. He referred to his answer to the letter of 27th September. This was that it was disingenuous at that stage to assert that he had not attended to sign his declaration, for his “sign on” day was not until two days later, 29th September. He went on that that irrational termination was no more than an alternative measure to deny his wife her right to have a decision-maker decide the question about the Job Seeker’s Agreement. He repeated that the decision of 18th August to suspend the joint claim from 19th August was irrational.
   22.    At the start of today’s hearing Mr Heavey, who appeared in person before me, handed in a document comprising a statement by him dated today, 11th December 006. Paragraph 1 repeated the point in the notice of renewal that the reason given in the letter of 27th September was unfounded because the sign on day was not in fact until two days later. Paragraph 2 made an application for a mandatory order for the JSA to be reinstated immediately and arrears paid, along with a transfer to a local Job Centre in Tower Hamlets. Paragraph 3 explained that he and his wife had moved to London and had two registered pitches at Liverpool Street station to sell the Big Issue magazine. Paragraph 4 complained that the claimant and his wife found themselves in a position where their employment prospects in the Midlands were seriously compromised by the Department for Work and Pensions. Paragraph 5 said that it had been a question of taking to the street either in Birmingham or London and, given their prospects in Birmingham, they were left with no option other than to come to London. Paragraph 6 addressed Sullivan J’s question as to whether there was no internal appeal or review process. It said that given the unlawful termination of benefit on 27th September following internal review, the application for judicial review was neither premature nor disproportionate.
   23.    During Mr Heavey’s oral submissions I asked him whether Sullivan J had not been right to question whether there was an internal procedure. Mr Heavey acknowledged that the suspension of payments had indeed been reversed by an internal procedure, but added that the reversal was disingenuous as shown by the events in September. In particular, on the one hand the decision-maker had said that the earlier doubt was removed, but on the other the decision maker had added a proviso about the dispute as to how the Job Seeker’s Agreement should be dealt with. The contention that the claimant and his wife had failed to sign on was plainly wrong. That had resulted in the need to move to London and it was only by selling the Big Issue that the claimant and his wife had been able to survive.
   24.    He accepted that the letter of 27th September told him what to do if he disagreed with it and how to appeal. He had sent a number of letters to the Job Centre. They had simply acknowledged them. The letters indeed had been copied to others, including the Secretary of State himself, but that had led to nothing additional on the part of the defendant. In his initial application he was seeking what he described as a remedy of last resort. He said it required a substantive hearing to establish that. He claimed he did not know why his application was being opposed. He added that the arrears since 19th September were now over £1,000.
   25.    MR HEAVEY: My Lord, I am very aware of why it is opposed. I just would require a substantive hearing to establish how erroneous and misleading to the court the grounds of resistance are. A substantive hearing and cross-examination, I believe, will show that the grounds of resistance by the Secretary of State in this case hold no water.
   26.    MR JUSTICE WALKER: Again, Mr Heavey, your intervention will be noted.
   27.    The question that I have to decide is whether permission should now be given for this claim to proceed. I shall examine first the question in relation to the suspension in August. As to that, the suspension was reversed. Sullivan J was shown to have been absolutely right to question whether there was an internal procedure that could assist the claimant. There was and it did. The claim for judicial review was brought at a stage when the internal process was underway. It was, in my view, plainly premature.
   28.    MR HEAVEY: My Lord –
   29.    MR JUSTICE WALKER: Mr Heavey, we have reached a stage now where I have recited my understanding of your contentions and I am dealing with them. We will come on to your rights of appeal in due course. If you just make a note of points to yourself as I go through it, then you will be in a position to identify what concerns you have and whether you wish to seek an appeal. We have now reached a stage where I must set out my reasoning.
   30.    Thus, I conclude that the claim as formulated was not a claim which ought to have been brought at all. As formulated, it plainly should not receive permission to apply for judicial review.
   31.    Is the position any different as a result of subsequent events? I quite understand that the claimant wants the Department to accept a particular contention of his about the Job Seeker’s Agreement. The position is that the Department, having suspended payment on 19th September, then went on to look at the matter internally. Mr Heavey says that they decided to reinstate the claim on 25th September. That may well be. I do not need to go into that, however, because they did not pay any money in consequence of whatever happened on 25th September.
   32.    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. Whether he is right or wrong, however, as the letter of 27th September made perfectly clear, he had open to him a right of appeal. As Collins J pointed out, judicial review is a remedy of last resort. There is no reason whatever in the material before me to think that there was any obstacle to Mr Heavey’s complaint about the letter of 27th September being determined by a fair and impartial tribunal on appeal.
   33.    I am concerned that Mr Heavey and his wife have found themselves in a position where they have had to live on the streets and have had to move to London for that purpose. As appears from my recital of the facts, however, the Department had in correspondence drawn attention to other avenues available to those who are in hardship.
   34.    On the primary question, which is the complaint about the suspension from 19th September onwards, it seems to me that the position is absolutely clear. The Department sent a letter of 27th September which claimed to justify that suspension. Mr Heavey disputed that claim. He could and should have sought an appeal. Having failed to follow the internal procedure, it would be quite wrong for this court to give him permission to apply for judicial review. Accordingly, this application for permission to apply for judicial review as renewed orally is refused.
   35.    Mr Heavey, you asked about two other matters. The first is the question of appeal. It is open to you, if you wish, to renew your application before the Court of Appeal. You have to fill in an appeal form and I am sure court staff will help you with that if you wish to do that. The second thing you raised with me was whether you could have a transcript of my judgment, and I shall direct that a transcript should be made available to you at public expense. Thank you very much.

This afternoon Declan was told in the Civil Appeals Office that he has to write to the Deputy Master of Civil Appeals to request access to the case file. He will do so, seeking sight, and copy, of this secret document from the DWP which says that “there is another good reason for terminating payment”.