Eighth visit by the police

At 11.15pm last night we were woken by two police officers at the porch we have been sleeping in since 3 November. To put this eighth visit in context, I have to roll back a few days, to Thursday to be precise.

That evening, Declan wasn’t able to sell The Big Issue because the regular London Lite girl had encroached on one side of his pitch and there was a guy harassing passers-by to take a copy of The London Paper on the other side.

We reckoned that the Bishopsgate City of London police had made the decisive move on our only source of income in order to stop Declan from submitting his application against the UK to the European Court of Human Rights (he has already lodged the case with the Court by introductory letter of 18 May), reducing us to illegal beggars in a matter of two or three weeks. And because I have been working like a demon on the application ever since, we were hardly surprised to wake up and find two police officers eyeing us. The spin this time?

The Chief Superintendent of Police for the City of London (there are two – CS Alex Robertson is responsible for anti-terrorism and public order) has come up with the policy that rough sleepers are to be woken every hour to force them to get off the streets. Hmmm.

As one of them is issuing us a ticket – we already had two from November – we are asked the usual questions: how long have we being sleeping in the porch, why don’t we go into a hostel, what about getting a job, etc.

It was good that Declan knew from his reading of an article entitled “Rough Sleepers” in the April issue of the Police Review magazine that people have the right to sleep in the streets if they want to. The police have the power to arrest people for sleeping rough under the Vagrancy Act 1824, but they need to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. They will frequently use the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 to crack down on offensive behaviour and they will enforce the Vagrancy Act 1824.

Anyway, it was clear from Declan’s answers to their questions that we are doing our best to get off the streets – they didn’t bat an eyelid when Declan told them that our unemployment benefit was terminated by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) because he didn’t “sign on” two days before he was due to do so; nor when they were informed that we are working on Declan's application to the European Court of Human Rights, having been denied an effective domestic remedy by the DWP both in the manner we had the benefit initially suspended and eventually terminated.

They didn’t seem too surprised either when Declan told them that he had applied to Chief Superintendent Jerry Savill of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets under the Data Protection Act 1998 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, when a homeless punched him twice in the face in an unprovoked attack.

As the police officers walked off at 11.40pm, Declan asked them when we could next expect to be woken by the police. He was told that we will not be woken again until next week. Who can doubt it?

And so interminably on.

Second request for access to case file

Last night, I think, the Bishopsgate City of London police wanted to move on us under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. They have the power to arrest under the Vagrancy Act 1824, but they need to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998.

In an article in the April edition of the Police Review magazine, titled “Rough sleepers”, journalist Sarah Bebbington reports that people have the right to sleep outside if they want to, but the police use the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 to crack down on offensive behaviour and they will enforce the Vagrancy Act 1824.

In a nutshell, three workmen did their best to provoke us in the porch we sleep in at night. The objective: no doubt to render us porchless, and perhaps even arrested for offensive behaviour. It wouldn’t have taken much to offend them.

This move on us was unprecedented: we have been sleeping in the porch (save a brief period in rolling shelters) since 3 November. OK, this is the account. No sooner have we spread our things along our cardboard (9.35pm), when two workers come out of the building and, as if we are not there, start smoking and chatting while standing on the cardboard, forcing us to dump all our stuff unceremoniously to one side.

One of them then picks up one of Declan’s runners and asks if he can use it as a doorstop. No, Declan tells him, so this guy takes off one of his own runners and uses it for the purpose. After a few minutes, a third worker arrives by van and he and his loose dog join in the fun – the dog takes particular interest in us and sniffs about, until his owner eventually decides to put him back in the van.

Ten minutes having past, all three head inside, only to leave again at 10.00pm. They return at 10.20pm and leave for good at 11.25pm, blowing the alarm of the porch on their way out. Were they upset at being so careless? Not if their body language and laughs mean anything. If you ask me, they were having a ball: the best end to their day.

The alarm wasn’t switched off until 11.40pm, but we don’t know by whom because whoever it was never left by the porch – yes, there is a very fine front to the building. And after that? The alarm box flashed a blue light all night, still going strong when we got up as usual at 5.00am.

So much for Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which says that applicants to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg must not be subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to modify or withdraw their complaints, either by direct coercion or flagrant acts of intimidation (see previous blog).

Article 38 of the Convention is one we are particularly keen on for our introductory letter to lodge our case against the UK with the European Court of Human Rights. This Article requires that the respondent state should provide “all necessary facilities” for any investigation (in whatever form it takes) carried out by the Court in order to establish the facts. Enter the Royal Courts of Justice.

On 2 April, Declan wrote to the Deputy Master of Civil Appeals requesting access to the case file for sight and copy of this letter from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) which states, according to Judge Walker in paragraph 32 of his judgment of 11 December, that the termination of our unemployment benefit on 27 September because Declan failed to sign on was a “mistake”, but that there is another good reason (unspecified by Judge Walker in his refusal of permission to allow Declan apply for judicial review against the DWP) for terminating payment.

There is nothing the Deputy Master of Civil Appeals can do, Declan was informed in writing yesterday, as this letter must have been within papers that were before Judge Walker in the High Court on 11 December. He was directed to contact the Administrative Court with his request.

Never one to miss a catch (and in this instance a catch of monumental proportions, given that the Court of Appeal refused without a hearing permission to appeal for the reasons cited in Judge Walker’s judgment), Declan did just that. This is the letter he sent by registered post yesterday afternoon to the Head of the Administrative Court Office, Lynne Knapman:

Dear Ms Knapman

Re:   Access to court documents in the matter of the Queen on the application of Heavey v Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Administrative Court Ref. No. CO/7092/2006)

As directed by the Civil Appeals Office, I am writing to you on the above matter.

I enclose copy of the order made by Lord/Lady Justice Scott Baker on 22 March 2007, which states in respect of my application for permission to appeal that the reasons for refusing permission “are clearly explained in the judgment of Walker J”.

Under Article 38(1)(a) of the European Convention on Human Rights (and to precede the lodgement of my case against the UK with the European Court of Human Rights by introductory letter), I hereby request access to the papers that were before Mr Justice Walker on 11 December 2006.

Paragraph 32 of the judgment of Mr Justice Walker states:

... there is a letter from the Department which says that in the letter of 27th September the reference to him having failed to sign on was a mistake. The Department says that there is another good reason for terminating payment ...

I seek sight of this letter from the Department for Work and Pensions which says that in the letter to me of 27 September from Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus the reference to me having failed to sign on is a mistake, and copy of same.

I can confirm that I have had no sight of any such letter from the DWP, nor have I been provided with any reason by the DWP or the Court for the termination of payment other than that provided in the letter of 27 September 2006, namely that I did not sign on (two days before I was due to do so on 29 September 2006).

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

Sixth visit by the police

Last night – I had just got into my sleeping bag – we received our sixth visit from the police. Declan was informed by two police community support officers that all rough sleepers are to be moved out of the City of London, that we can expect to be “harassed” (her word) by the police over the next two weeks, and that we may be asked to move beyond city boundaries.

The question: is this a (ruthless) method by the London Mayor Ken Livingstone to cleanse the city of rough sleepers? Or is this just the latest idea the police have come up with to move us out of our porch and put us at risk? (I should mention here that on 3 November Declan had good foresight when he chose this particular patch for us to sleep in: it has proven relatively safe and quiet, notwithstanding the sleep deprivation techniques that have been used against us, and which I have recorded throughout this blog.)

I already smell a rat. I have spent an hour on the internet in the library Idea Store Whitechapel and my research has yielded no results. There is not one single mention on the internet of an operation by the police to move rough sleepers out of the City of London or that one is going to be undertaken or has ever been undertaken; the Mayor of London website mentions nothing; other homeless organisations are reporting nothing; and the same applies to all the major papers. Even staff at the Dellow Centre told Declan this morning that they have heard of no such policy.

So if the Bishopsgate City of London police think that we are going to voluntarily move out, and put ourselves and our belongings (including legal documentation) at risk, they are mistaken. For a start, Declan is considering writing to Ken Livingstone on this apparent covert police operation.

And then there is the Independent Police Complaints Commission to write to on the manner in which the assault on him (on 17 February a homeless called Ali punched Declan twice in the face in an unprovoked attack in the Whitechapel Mission) is being dealt with by Tower Hamlets police: Declan cannot get the police to take his statement.

In a nutshell, after much trouble on Declan’s part (recorded in this blog), on 1 March PC Richard Bentley (823 HT) left a message on Declan’s mobile stating that as soon as he has arrested Ali, he will contact Declan again for his written statement of 19 February to be formally taken. (Where, for a start, does it say that the alleged assailant has to be arrested before a statement can be taken from the victim?) Needless to say, PC Bentley has never phoned back.

This morning, Bethnal Green Police Station informed Declan that in fact it is not PC Bentley who is investigating the matter at all, but Detective Constable Alexander Head of the Beat Crime Unit in Limehouse Police Station. According to police records, DC Head wrote to Declan c/o Whitechapel Mission on 26 February and 9 March. The mission, however – and this is hilarious – issued Declan a letter this morning stating no mail has arrived there for him since 20 January.