Declan barred from the IT centre at The (Church of England) Connection

Last Friday Declan was barred from accessing the IT centre at The Connection at St. Martin-in-the-Fields (“St.Martin's”), which he had been using almost every day since the beginning of August to print copies of our CVs and requests for application forms and fight for the reinstatement of his joint claim for Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA). The Connection is a Church of England homeless centre situated at St. Martin-in-the-Fields – one of the most famous non-cathedral churches in London. According to Wikipedia, St. Martin-in-the-Fields is “famous for its work with homeless people through The Connection at St Martin's which shares with The Vicar's Relief Fund the money raised each year by the BBC Radio 4 Appeal's Christmas appeal”.

On 28 April 2008, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, spoke at a special Service of Thanksgiving to celebrate the renewal of the church: in January 2006, work began on a £36 million renewal project; the Church of England got the money through public appeals and a grant of £15.35 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund. Anyway, you can read the Archbishop’s sermon on his website, but what interests us in particular is one of the notes which appears at the bottom of the sermon:

More specifically, among the many aspects of Christian ministry at St Martin's, there is a long tradition of caring for homeless people and those at risk of homelessness. This work continues with the Connection at St Martin-in-the-Fields, formed in April 2003 from a merger between St Martin-in-the-Fields Social Care Unit (working with rough sleepers and other vulnerable homeless people) and the London Connection (which helped young homeless people).

Furthermore, the Connection website also explains that in its IT Centre (“the Workspace”) users can get job search support like CV preparation, internet search, etc. The webpage states: “Since 1990, the Workspace team has provided employment training and education support for homeless people, people in temporary accommodation and people at risk of becoming homeless.” Well, I am puzzled! For more than 2 1/2 years (from 3 November 2006 to 13 July 2009) we slept rough on the streets of London, having been put there by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) because Declan did not “sign on” two days before he was actually due to do so (see “About us”). Moreover, for the last three months the DWP has given us an absolute nightmare (see, for example, blog of 7 October “After a huge run-around, the Department for Work and Pensions denies me a Crisis Loan”).

Declan was also getting lunch at the Connection – although it costs about £1.50, there is always a queue because many homeless people are receiving benefits (we only received notification of the reinstatement of Declan's joint claim JSA on Saturday). We were also puzzled when on 19 August the Providence Row charity denied us access to food by effectively barring us from entering their Dellow Day Centre in the morning (a coffee in the afternoon is fine!). Declan lodged a formal complaint of discrimination against the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy with the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Archbishop Vincent Nichols (see here); having received nothing by way of reply, he took his complaint on 23 September to the Apostolic Nunciature to Great Britain, Archbishop Faustino Sainz Muñoz (see here); and finally he wrote to Pope Benedict XVI (see here). Shortly after Declan wrote to the pope, the papal nuncio replied (see here) ... to zero effect!

Perhaps also revealing is that Declan and I have been barred from the Methodist Church Whitechapel Day Mission. On 18 June 2007, the minister’s wife barred us due to concerns about our safety following an unprovoked assault on me in the canteen by another homeless woman (crime reference no. 4217341/07; see blog of 18 June 2007 “Assault and bar in the Whitechapel Mission”). Despite that the Whitechapel Mission’s website states that homeless people are not barred or excluded and that Declan wrote by registered post to the minister himself and to the then head of the Methodist Church of Great Britain, Rev. Graham Carter, we were never readmitted.

For the record, this is the email that Declan sent last Saturday to the CEO of The Connection Colin Glover (the letter to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to which Declan refers is published here):

Subject: The Connection at St. Martin-in-the-Fields

Dear Mr. Glover,

I refer to the attached copy of my email of complaint of 15 October to your IT floor supervisor, Ms. Diana Cimpanu ("ComplaintCSTM(15.10.09)”), which I copied to you together with the attachment therein referred to, namely, my email letter of 7 October to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions The Rt. Hon. Yvette Cooper MP regarding the reinstatement of my joint claim for Jobseeker's Allowance (see attachment “Cooper(7.10.09)”).

I wish to confirm that yesterday I was denied access to computers and photocopier in the Connection at St. Martin's by your IT manager Bill (surname withheld), which I had been using since the beginning of August to access my Google Mail account (that is, when possible to do so, see attachment “ComplaintCSTM(15.10.09)”), print CVs and requests for application forms, and photocopying documentation relating to the reinstatement of my joint claim for Jobseeker's Allowance.

You will note that I am once again taking the time to copy the Chief Executive of Providence Row Jo Ansell into my current situation. As I mentioned in the aforementioned email of 15 October to Ms. Cimpanu, it was Ms. Ansell who, on 19 August, denied my wife and me access to food in the Dellow Day Centre run by the Sisters of Mercy in spite of our unstable circumstances (see attachment "Cooper(7.10.09)").

Perhaps you would be so kind as to forward this email and its attachments to the Justice of the Peace in the City of London Lady Diana Brittan, Chair of the Connection at St. Martin's. Ultimately, I will be lodging a formal complaint with the Archbishop of Canterbury His Grace Rowan Williams; by which time I expect to have an alternative contact address for Lady Justice Brittan.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely,
Declan Heavey

Email: dheavey@gmail.com

Home address:
83 Priory Gardens
London N6 5QU

cc Lady Diana Brittan, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Connection at St. Martin's
Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Master of the Salters' Company
His Excellency Most Rev. Faustino Sainz Muñoz, Apostolic Nunciature to Great Britain
His Grace Archbishop Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster
Sr. Coirle McCarthy, Congregational Leader of the Sisters of Mercy
His Grace The Duke of Norfolk, Patron of Providence Row
Alderman Sir Michael Oliver, Vice President of Providence Row
Mr. Simon Bartley, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Providence Row
Ms. Jo Ansell, Chief Executive of Providence Row
Mr. Howard Sinclair, Chief Executive of Broadway Homelessness and Support
Superintendent Lorraine Cussen, Snow Hill Police Station

And this is the email that Declan sent last Thursday to the Workspace supervisor, Diana Cimpanu:

Subject: The Connection at St. Martin-in-the-Fields

Dear Ms. Cimpanu,

I refer to our conversations this morning and wish to reconfirm that between 11.15am and 12.00 noon I was unable to access my Google Mail account from the Connection at St. Martin's. I attach copy of my email letter of 7 October to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions The Rt. Hon. Yvette Cooper MP, to which I was unable to gain access.

I regret that I am unable to provide you with a list of the particular days and times I have experienced this anomaly at your day centre since the beginning of August. However, as I told you, this week it has been particularly bad and getting progressively worse; moreover, I have yet to hear another client of yours complain of any such difficulty. In future I will keep accurate and daily records of the time I spend on your computers and any difficulties I experience accessing the internet, for your future reference.

You will note that I am taking the time to copy the Chief Executive of Providence Row Jo Ansell into my current situation. As I have previously explained to you, it was Ms. Ansell who, on 19 August, denied my wife and me access to food in the Dellow Day Centre run by the Sisters of Mercy in spite of our unstable circumstances (see attachment "Cooper(7.10.09)"). I am also copying this email and attachment to, among others, the Justice of the Peace in the City of London Lady Diana Brittan, Chair of the Connection at St. Martin's c/o the Chief Executive of the Connection at St. Martin's Colin Glover at info@cstm.org.uk. (To compound our difficulties, we our in possession since 14 October of neither a tenancy agreement nor a rent book, despite our repeated requests from our live-in landlady for both items.)

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

Email: dheavey@gmail.com

Home address:
83 Priory Gardens
London N6 5QU

cc Lady Diana Brittan, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Connection at St. Martin's
Mr. Colin Glover, Chief Executive of the Connection at St Martin's
Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Master of the Salters' Company
His Excellency Most Rev. Faustino Sainz Muñoz, Apostolic Nunciature to Great Britain
His Grace Archbishop Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster
Sr. Coirle McCarthy, Congregational Leader of the Sisters of Mercy
His Grace The Duke of Norfolk, Patron of Providence Row
Alderman Sir Michael Oliver, Vice President of Providence Row
Mr. Simon Bartley, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Providence Row
Ms. Jo Ansell, Chief Executive of Providence Row
Mr. Howard Sinclair, Chief Executive of Broadway Homelessness and Support
Superintendent Lorraine Cussen, Snow Hill Police Station

Police intimidation at the place we sleep, Salters

As I said in the previous blog, I am starting to run out of ideas for new blog post titles so many things have happened to us this month, particularly at Salters’ Hall where we sleep at night – more about Salters’ Company can be read in Declan’s email this afternoon to Superintendent Lorraine Cussen of Snow Hill police station, presented below.

Well, this is what happened last night while we were asleep in our sleeping bags: at about 1.00am I am woken rudely by a female police officer (PC 493CP) who says that pursuant to Operation Poncho II we must move ourselves and our things away so that two City of London Corporation street cleaners can wash and disinfect the porch floor – located ... on a derelict highwalk! An hour later they are gone, poodles of disinfectant about me – the cleaner who poured the stuff presumably quite knackered because he didn’t even bother to use a brush.

I was quite convinced that I was going to end up once again in the back of a police van – last September I was arrested by four police officers for a breach of the peace because I refused to move on as result of having nowhere else to sleep (see blog of 11 September “I am arrested for ‘breach of the peace’”); I was later released without charge. This time I also refused to move, and for the same reason. I also don’t happen to believe that Operation Poncho II would stand up to scrutiny in a court of law subject to the Human Rights Act 1998 (see blog of 13 September “Letter from the City of London Police”).

Anyway, I still can’t figure out which night was more surreal: the night of the 28 May when two police officers and two workers from the homeless organisation Broadway came to visit us (see blog “Last night something surreal happened”) or last night’s encounter with PC 493CP and two street cleaners. Perhaps last night – the police officer even made out that we weren’t sleeping where we were sleeping on the copies of the record of the encounter/stop we were issued!

First, she tells us that our porch is not located at Salter’s Hall. So Declan proceeds to read her the CCTV notice over my head: “CCTV Surveillance. Salters’ Hall. Images are being monitored and recorded for the purposes of crime prevention and public safety. The scheme is controlled by the Salters’ Company.” Still, she insists on “Highwalk - St. Alphage House” because, she says, she is standing on Alphage Highwalk with St. Alphage House behind her! I should have said that technically it would have been more correct to write Laurence Highman Bespoke Tailors, another derelict building, because it is a lot closer to our sleeping pitch than St. Alphage House! (In the blog of 5 June “Salters back in the spotlight” I publish two Google map photos of the pitch.)

There is one thing, though, that I remember particularly well. As Declan is on the highwalk separating our things for what we are both pretty sure will be my arrest, he informs PC 493CP that if there is any damage to my property (I was in my sleeping bag, on a shower curtain) that he would seek to make a statement in the police station, adding as the two cleaners approached me that he was hoping they would throw the disinfectant over my head. “We’re not thugs,” she replied.

Normally on Saturday mornings we walk for 45 minutes to the Catholic Manna Centre for a small bite to eat and a cup or two of tea – something we decided was wise to skip this morning (for more on the Manna, see blog of 14 May “Letter to Archbishop Vincent Nichols”).

For the record, this is the email that Declan sent this afternoon to Superintendent Lorraine Cussen of Snow Hill police station who is overseeing Operation Poncho II within the City of London Police (the email was also copied to City of London Police Commissioner Michael Bowron):

Subject: Operation Poncho II

Dear Superintendent Cussen,

I refer to the attached copy of your email of 12 September 2008 regarding the arrest of my wife on the night of 11 September for refusing to move on as a result of having nowhere else to sleep (she was later released without charge). You stated in an email of 10 June 2008 (also attached) that you are "the supervisory police officer who is overseeing Operation Poncho II within the City of London Police".

As you are aware, my wife and I are of no fixed abode and have been sleeping rough in the City of London since 3 November 2006. (We slept in the same porch until a trellis gate was installed on 4 September 2008; as from 12 September, our sleeping pitch has been at Salters' Hall, Fore Street.)

I wish to confirm that at 1.00am last night PC 493CP insisted pursuant to Operation Poncho II that my wife and I move out of our sleeping pitch at Salters' Hall to allow two City of London Corporation street cleaners to wash and disinfect the porch floor - located on (a derelict) St. Alphage Highwalk. When my wife refused as a result of having nowhere else to sleep, she was told by PC 493CP that she would be arrested if she did not vacate the porch. Again my wife refused, the upshot being that one of the street cleaners poured disinfectant around where she remained outstretched in her sleeping bag. With that, PC 493CP and the two street cleaners left.

From my position with our bags on the highwalk, I took issue with PC 493CP on the location cited on the copies of the record of the encounter/stop we were issued: PC 493CP insisted on "Highwalk - St. Alphage House", arguing that she was standing on the highwalk with (a derelict) St. Alphage House behind her; in fact, the location of the encounter/stop was "Salters' Hall", as evident from the Salters' Company CCTV notice I drew to the police officer's attention above my wife's head.

Salters’ Company describes itself as a Great City Livery Company very largely devoted to charity; it also plays an important part in the system of local government in the City of London, reflecting its historical roots. The company not only fund raises for science education (my petition to the United Nations on research cloning of embryos and stem cells has now been signed by 591 scientists and academics, who include recognised authorities from the world’s leading universities and research institutes, as well as 24 Nobel laureates, and this despite several months of serious spamming), but runs a project for the homeless.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

cc Commissioner Michael Bowron

Letter from the City of London Police

Yesterday Declan received an email letter from Superintendent Lorraine Cussen in reply to his email to her on Thursday (see previous blog) – following my arrest at 12.30am by four City of London police officers for a breach of the peace because I refused to be 'moved on' as result of having nowhere else to sleep. The background is quite simple: on 4 September we returned to the porch we have been sleeping in since 3 November 2006 to find an unlocked trellis gate; and the following night the gate was locked.

As I stated in the blog of 10 September "Human Embryonic Stem Cells Reduce Multiple Sclerosis Symptoms", on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday we slept in an out-of-the-way place; but after some guys decided to hold a fifteen-minute party almost beside us – our road is described on the internet as "a quiet thoroughfare" – we went back to the place we slept in on Friday night. It was also an out-of-the-way place, but that didn't stop me from landing in a police van. (We are now back sleeping in the "quiet thoroughfare".)

This is the second time Cussen has emailed Declan: the first time, on 10 June, was in reply to an email Declan sent on 9 June to City of London Police Commissioner Michael Bowron (see here) complaining that on 2 and 9 June we were threatened by City of London police officers with arrest, under Operation Poncho, if we did not move out of the porch to beyond city boundaries. On the night of my arrest, we were issued two tickets citing Operation Poncho, hence Declan's email to Cussen, the supervisory police officer who is overseeing Operation Poncho within the City of London Police.

Cussen says in her email (presented below) that "this programme is likely to continue for the foreseeable future", which I take to mean that I could be arrested again, unless of course I prefer to walk for the night carrying all my belongings – as I explained to the four officers that arrested me, Declan and I had spent over eight hours looking for an alternative place to bed down. She seems to justify arrest as an enforcement measure to drive rough sleepers off the streets. However, according to the co-author of a report, published last year, which examines the impact of enforcement on ‘street users’ in England, arrests as a tactic is of “questionable legality”, particularly in a place such as London where there is no ‘freely available’ accommodation. Accordingly, I am prepared to have Operation Poncho tested: I don't believe that in a court of law it would stand up to scrutiny under the Human Rights Act 1998. (An article in the April 2007 issue of the Police Review magazine, titled “Rough Sleepers”, points out that "people have the right to sleep in the streets if they want to", and that in this respect police "need to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998".)

This month’s issue of The Pavement, a free magazine for London’s homeless, states that local authorities justify ‘hot washing’ (wetting the streets to discourage rough sleeping) as a deterrent that may encourage rough sleepers to “come inside”. Well, I would say to a judge that Declan and I are working quite hard to “come inside”: by running a petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells which has already been signed by 530 scientists and academics, including 24 Nobel laureates; and by seeking to raise £450 so that I can buy a laptop and build within two weeks a 20 or so page website for an international campaign in support of embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning.

I would further explain to a judge that we cannot look for accommodation or be referred to a hostel for homeless people because we would have to 'sign on' for benefits, and consequently Declan would have to withdraw his application to the European Court of Human Rights – the Department of Work and Pensions terminated our benefits on 27 September 2006 because Declan did not ‘sign on’ two days before he was due to do so on 29 September (see blog of 8 September 2007 “Application to the European Court of Human Rights”.) And even if we were offered beds that don’t require benefits, we would still be forced to turn them down given the amount of harassment and intimidation that Declan in particular is normally subjected to by other homeless: see, for example, blog of 18 June “Declan robbed in the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre”; or blog of 19 June “Declan assaulted in the Manna Centre”; or blog of 16 May “More racially aggravated harassment in the Dellow Centre”; or blog of 10 April “Washing in the street”. Oh, and on 18 June 2007 we were barred from the Methodist Church Whitechapel Mission by the minister's wife due to concerns about our safety, after I was assaulted in an unprovoked attack by a homeless woman in the canteen (see here).

Comedian Sabina Guzzanti 'insulted Pope'

Remarkably, my lot is almost a walk in the park if you consider the case of Italian comedienne, Sabrina Guzzanti, who is facing a prison term of up to five years for saying that Pope Benedict XVI would go to Hell and be tormented by homosexual demons (Owen, Times, 12/9). She was addressing a Rome rally in July that was called in part to protest against alleged interference by the Vatican and the Catholic Church in Italian affairs. The joke may have gone done well with her crowd on the Piazza Navona in Rome, the Times says, but not with Italian prosecutors. She is facing prosecution for “offending the honour of the sacred and inviolable person” of Benedict XVI. Prosecution requires authorisation from the Ministry of Justice, for which Giovanni Ferrara, the Rome prosecutor, has applied. The Times: “The incident has strong political overtones as Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has been at pains to court the Vatican – and the Catholic vote – since returning to power for the third time in May. Last weekend he accompanied Benedict to Cagliari in Sardinia and attended mass there.”

Meanwhile, Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, says excluding discussion of creationism and intelligent design from science lessons could put some children off science completely (Randerson, Guardian, 11/9). He said that around one in 10 children comes from a family with creationist beliefs. Reiss, who is an ordained Church of England minister, agreed that creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories, but he said that did not automatically exclude them from science lessons. "Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from the science lesson … there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have – hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching – and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion." Well, if there is much to be said for allowing students with creationist beliefs “to raise any doubts they have”, surely the same should be applied to non-religious people. Like Sabrina Guzzanti. Or like us, for that matter.

This is the email Declan received yesterday from Cussen:

Subject: Operation Poncho II

Declan

I am sad to hear that your wife was arrested last night. As you are aware from my previous communication with you, the police are continuing to work in partnership with the City of London Corportion to clean areas of the City and this programme is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

If you wish to make a complaint about the incident then please click on the following link which will provide you with information on how to proceed http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/Contact/MakeAComplaint/

Yours sincerely
Lorraine Cussen
Superintendent
City of London Police

And this is the subsequent email Declan sent yesterday to the Registrar of the European Court, Erik Fribergh, with Cussen’s email attached:

Subject: Heavey v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 22541/07)

Dear Mr Fribergh

I refer to my email letter and attachments to you yesterday and attach copy of an email to me of even date from Superintendent Lorraine Cussen of Snow Hill police station establishing the arrest of my wife the night before last (for a breach of the peace because she refused to be 'moved on' as result of having nowhere else to sleep).

Specifically with regard to the reference to Article 34 of the European Convention of Human Rights (Right of individual petition), I again respectfully request that the Court take this matter up with the respondent Government. I further request under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court that the Chamber or its President decide to give priority to my application of 8 September 2007.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

I am arrested for ‘breach of the peace’

At about 12.30am this morning I was put in the back of a police van (LMO5 HZN). I had been read my rights, searched, and told I was being arrested for breaching the peace because I refused to move out of our sleeping pitch for want of anywhere else to sleep. In a pre-arranged move, Declan made himself untouchable by moving. I, on the other hand, was driven to Snow Hill Police Station, left in the van for some fifteen minutes, and then released because female police officer 827B deemed that I wasn't breaching the peace any more! When I asked to be given something in writing about my arrest, I was told to come back in the morning with my lawyer. So I found myself at 1.00am with an incident number (10411), without a clue where I was, and on my own. I'm sure police officers 827B, 361B and 596B - there was a fourth officer but I didn't get his number - had a great laugh at my expense.

As I explained in yesterday's blog "Human Embryonic Stem Cells Reduce Multiple Sclerosis Symptoms", we had been sleeping in this place since Sunday (last Thursday night we returned to the porch we had been sleeping in since 3 November 2006 to find an unlocked trellis gate installed; the next night the gate was locked). It is really just an open space behind some steps but nonetheless, as soon as we are bedded down last night, a security guard comes out of nowhere and tells us to leave immediately. Shortly after this we hear a police siren, and within a couple of minutes we are surrounded by four City of London police officers. The surroundings are owned by the City of London Corporation (the municipal government for the City of London), they haven't given us permission to sleep there, and if we don't want to be arrested we have to move on, we are told.

So we repeat ourselves again and again: we are dead tired of walking trying to find a place; we are in nobody's way; we get up at 4.30am; we don't want to walk the street all night; and Declan's case regarding the termination of our benefits is before the European Court of Human Rights. None of it cuts any ice, however, and we have to leave we are told because the City of London Corporation doesn't want us there. Moreover, when I am released from the van outside Snow Hill Police Station, I am told the security guard can manhandle me and my belongings, and if corporation property gets damaged in the process I will be charged with criminal damage. It gets better: because Declan was told that I might not be released at all but brought before the court as soon as possible this morning, we didn't agree on an early meet up time when we were split up. So I didn't get any sleep at all and walked the streets until 4.00am. I then went to Liverpool Street train station and waited in our usual spot for Declan to arrive at 6.00am. What a night!

A report published last year examines the impact of enforcement on 'street users' in England. The study was carried out by Sarah Johnsen and Suzanne Fitzpatrick of the University of York and published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Arrests as an enforcement tactic against rough sleepers was not used in any of the case studies areas in London. One reason, Johnsen explains to The Pavement, a free monthly magazine for London's homeless, is because "it would be of questionable legality in a lot of places, as people can only be arrested if they have refused the offer of 'freely available' accommodation. In somewhere like London, you cannot say 'here's a bed space available to you right now' because it just doesn't happen that way. There's a real process people have to go through in order to get into a hostel, red tape that has to be negotiated, hoops they have to jump through … It doesn't happen instantly."

So this afternoon Declan wrote to Superintendent Lorraine Cussen of Snow Hill Police Station, a copy of which he sent to City of London Police Commissioner Michael Bowron and to European Court Registrar Erik Fribergh. This is Declan's cover e-letter to Fribergh pursuant to Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 34 establishes a duty on Convention states not to subject applicants to any improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy):

Subject: Heavey v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 22541/07)

Dear Mr Fribergh

I refer further to my second request for priority of 4 July 2008 under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, for consideration as supplementary to my initial application of 8 September 2007. (As the Court has been made aware, my wife and I are of no fixed abode and have been sleeping rough in the City of London since 3 November 2006.)

Please find enclosed a copy of my email letter and attachment of today's date to Superintendent Lorraine Cussen of Snow Hill Police Station following the arrest of my wife last night for a breach of the peace because she refused to be 'moved on' as result of having nowhere else to sleep.

In my email letter of 5 September, I submitted that the attempts by the City of London Police to move my wife and me out from the porch we sleep in at night to beyond the City boundaries constitute a violation of my effective right of application as established under Article 34. I again respectfully request that the Court take this matter up with the respondent Government. I further request that the Chamber or its President decide to give priority to my application of 8 September 2007.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

And this is the email letter to Superintendent Cussen:

Subject: Operation Poncho II

Dear Superintendent Cussen

I refer to the attached copy of your email of reply to me of 10 June, wherein you confirm that you are the supervisory police officer who is overseeing Operation Poncho II within the City of London Police. As you were made aware by my email letter of 9 June to City of London Police Commissioner Mike Bowron, my wife and I are of no fixed abode and have been sleeping rough in the City of London since 3 November 2006. (We slept in the same porch until 4 September 2008 when a trellis gate was installed.)

I wish to confirm that at 12.30am last night my wife was arrested under Operation Poncho II for a breach of the peace by four of your police officers because she refused to be 'moved on' as result of having nowhere else to sleep (incident no. 10411). She was subsequently brought to Snow Hill Police Station in a police van, from which she was released at 1.00am because she "was not breaching the peace anymore". Moreover, when she asked to be issued with written confirmation of her arrest, she was told to come back in the morning with her lawyer.

I reconfirm that my case in respect of the ceasing of entitlement to allowances is before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and that I am currently waiting for notification from the Court as to whether my application of 8 September 2007 has been declared inadmissible or the case communicated to the Government. On 4 July, I submitted my second request for priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, stating:

Since 9 May 2008, the applicant and his wife have been visited on a number of occasions by the City of London Police in the middle of the night, to be ordered to immediately move out of the porch they sleep in to beyond city boundaries or be arrested: on 9 and 17 May, they were told by police officers that the City of London was being "cleaned" of rough sleepers (see copy of letter and enclosures to Prime Minister Gordon Brown of 19 May in Supporting Documents, pp 10-15); on 2 and 9 June they were told by police officers that, under the City of London Police's Operation Poncho II, the City of London's cleansing service had to wash and disinfect the porch floor with immediate effect (see copy of email letter and attachments to Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Sir Ian Blair of 11 June in Supporting Documents, pp 7-9).

In your email of 10 June, you advise me to find accommodation with the help of Broadway, a homeless charity, and that "the cleansing will continue for the foreseeable future". In respect of finding accommodation, I beg to again point out that on 22 November 2006 the Dellow Day Centre recorded on my wife's registration form that St Mungo's, London's largest homelessness organisation, had informed the centre that neither she nor I could be referred to a hostel "due to not being on any benefits". Most recently, on the night of 24 June, we were visited by three street outreach workers from Broadway to be asked if we would go on benefits, which I declined because I would have to withdraw my application to the Court. (As submitted in my initial application to the European Court, the Department for Work and Pensions ceased our allowance entitlement on 27 September 2006 because I did not 'sign on' two days before I was due to do so on 29 September.)

I should perhaps mention here that as soon as my wife and I raise £450 we will buy a laptop to build within two weeks a 20 or so page website for an international campaign in support of embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. My petition to the United Nations, titled "Consideration at the United Nations of a Declaration on Human Cloning for Therapeutic Reasons", has since 22 October 2007 been signed by 530 distinguished scientists and academics, including 24 Nobel Prize winners.

Kindly note that a copy of this letter and its attachment will be submitted this afternoon to the European Court in further reference to Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 34 establishes a duty on Convention states not to subject applicants to any improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

cc City of London Police Commissioner Michael Bowron

Letter to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

First thing yesterday morning, Declan received an email from the supervisory police officer who is overseeing Operation Poncho II within the City of London Police, Superintendent Lorraine Cussen of Snow Hill Police Station – Declan emailed City of London Police Commissioner Mike Bowron on 9 June (see previous blog) after we were threatened with arrest on 2 June (2.35am) and 9 June (3.00am) if we didn’t leave the porch we sleep in at night (to beyond City boundaries) so that the City of London's Cleansing service could wash and disinfect the porch floor with immediate effect. Having read this email, we are none the wiser except that we can expect to continue being threatened – things are to “continue for the foreseeable future”. Oh, and Cussen is not refuting that the City of London's Cleansing service is being (unlawfully) used by the City of London Police to expel us to beyond City boundaries.

So this evening Declan sent an email letter to Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, Britain’s most senior police officer, who is responsible for the policing of the metropolitan area in the capital city of London, with the exception of the City of London (a "heads up" letter, so to speak: his jurisdiction is "beyond City boundaries", to where the City of London Police are attempting to expel us by unlawful means). Declan continues to look for more compelling evidence of a violation of Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights (see blog of 13 May "Letter to the European Court under Article 34"). Article 34 establishes a duty on Convention states not to subject applicants to any improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy.

Philip Leach in Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights states:

The Court is not bound by strict rules of evidence, and may rely on all forms of evidence. The standard of proof applied by the Court is that of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’, although this is not interpreted as the same high degree of probability as in criminal trials … The Court has stated that it will allow a degree of flexibility: ‘taking into consideration the nature of the substantive right at stake and any evidentiary difficulties involved. It has resisted suggestions to establish rigid evidentiary rules and has adhered to the principle of free assessment of all evidence’.

This is the email from Superintendent Cussen:

Subject: Heavey v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 22541/07)

Mr. Heavey,

Your e-mail has been forwarded to me, as I am the supervisory police officer who is overseeing Operation Poncho II within the City of London Police.

I note your concerns outlined below. However, the City of London Corporation, together with other partner agencies (the City of London Police being one of the main partners) have been recently criticised by the Communities for London Government Department (CLG) because the City rough sleeper population has significantly increased over the last year. The City of London has in fact the highest density of rough sleepers in the country.

Reducing the number of rough sleepers nationally is a government objective and therefore the City of London Corporation are required to act accordingly.

Rough sleeping is also an issue which is regularly raised by the City Community within the new Neighbourhood Policing Model, which we, the Police, are also tasked to address.

Broadway, a homeless charity, has recently been employed by the CoL Corporation to work with rough sleepers, to provide access to support services. Over the last few weeks we have had some very successful results with some 23 people now re-housed and a large percentage of rough sleepers awaiting access to accommodation. We have also been able to repatriate some Polish rough sleepers, providing them with access to accommodation and training.

Therefore I would fully recommend engaging with Broadway, if you have not already, as they will be able to help you find accommodation.

The City of London Corporation have a duty to cleanse the streets, which does include doorways of private property. Issues around defecation and urination remain a constant problem and the cleansing will continue for the foreseeable future. The City of London Police also have a duty to check on the welfare of individuals, which will also continue for the foreseeable future.

I hope that this helps to clarify our current position.

Lorraine Cussen
Superintendent Snow Hill BCU

And this is the email letter Declan sent to Commissioner Blair (ian.blair@met.police.uk):

Subject: Operation Poncho II

Dear Commissioner Blair

I am writing to you as Britain's most senior police officer, responsible for the policing of the metropolitan area in the capital city of London, with the exception of the City of London. My wife and I have been sleeping in a porch in the City of London since 3 November 2006. I wish to bring to your attention that under the City of London Police’s Operation Poncho II the City of London Police are attempting to move my wife and I beyond City boundaries with the (unlawful) use of the City of London's Cleansing service.

Please find attached a copy of an email I received yesterday from Superintendent Lorraine Cussen, the supervisory police officer who is overseeing Operation Poncho II within the City of London Police, and a copy of my email letter of 9 June to City of London Police Commissioner Michael Bowron, to which Superintendent Cussen refers.

As I stated in the aforementioned letter to Commissioner Bowron, on 2 June (2.35am) and 9 June (3.00am) police officers threatened my wife and I with arrest pursuant to Operation Poncho II if we did not leave the porch we were sleeping in (to beyond City boundaries) so that the City of London's Cleansing service could wash and disinfect the porch floor with immediate effect. Please note that Superintendent Cussen does not refute that the City of London's Cleansing service is being (unlawfully) used by the City of London Police to expel my wife and I to beyond City boundaries. (We have been sleeping in this porch without any complaint against us for over a year and a half (3 November 2006): we bed down at 9.00pm and get up at 4.30am, save Saturday and Sunday when we get up at 6.30am; we do not smoke or drink; and almost every night my wife wipes the porch floor clean. Further, all our contacts are within walking distance of the porch, and we have never found a more suitable place to sleep, neither within the City of London nor beyond its boundaries.)

Superintendent Cussen recommends that my wife and I engage with Broadway, a homeless charity, which has recently been employed by the City of London Corporation to work with rough sleepers, to provide access to support services. In this regard, I beg to point out that on 22 November 2006 the Dellow Day Centre recorded on my wife's registration form that St Mungo's, London's largest homelessness organisation, had informed the centre that neither of us could be referred to a hostel "due to not being on any benefits". Having had to go on state benefits in July 2005, the Department for Work and Pensions ceased our allowance entitlement on 27 September 2006 because I did not “sign on” two days before I was due to do so on 29 September.

My case in respect of the ceasing of entitlement to allowances is currently before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and I am awaiting notification (c/o Dellow Centre) from the Court as to whether my application of 8 September 2007 has been declared inadmissible or the case communicated to the Government. My most recent letter from the Court is a letter of 22 November, reference ECHR-LEO.1R CO/PHA/gz, signed for the Registrar by Legal Secretary C Ovey, stating: "I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 22 September 2007 and enclosures. With reference to your request for priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, I can inform you that the Court will examine your application shortly, possibly by the end of January 2008. It would therefore appear unnecessary to consider your request." You will note that on 12 May I made a submission to the European Court of Human Rights, citing a violation of Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Article 34 establishes a duty on Convention states not to subject applicants to any improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy.

In relation to our ongoing efforts to get ourselves off the street, my wife and I are in the process of trying to raise £4,000 to run a campaign in support of my petition to the United Nations on therapeutic cloning and the use of stem cells for research and for the treatment of disease, which since 22 October 2007 has been signed by 519 scientists and academics, including 22 Nobel laureates.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

cc City of London Police Commissioner Michael Bowron