Saturday, November 26, 2016

Global warming - response from Julian Sturdy and my reply

I wrote to Julian Sturdy on 5 November about global warming with particular reference to Heathrow expansion and HS2.  He has now responded:

Dear Mr Franklin
Thank you for taking the time to write to me regarding the Government's recent decision to expand Heathrow Airport by building a third runway.
Air quality is a significant national health issue that the Government takes extremely seriously. The Airports Commission concluded that a new runway could be delivered without impacting the UK’s compliance with air quality limit values for nitrogen dioxide.
The Government conducted further analysis to compare these conclusions with updated projections provided in the Government’s 2015 Air Quality Plan. This analysis concluded that, based on the Government’s Air Quality Plan, the Heathrow and Gatwick schemes would neither cause nor worsen exceedances of air quality limit values.
While Heathrow is already taking action to reduce air quality impacts, such as through introducing low emission vehicles, the Government recognises that an expanded airport will need to go further, including during the construction period. Measures to mitigate air quality impacts will be determined through the National Policy Statement and development consent process. They could include measures which an expanded Heathrow have committed to, including:
I should note that the Secretary of State for Transport has said that the Government will grant development consent only if it remains satisfied that a new runway will not impact on the UK’S compliance with its air quality obligations.
The Government agrees with the Airports Commission that a new runway at Heathrow can be delivered within the UK’s carbon obligations. The airport will use low-carbon, locally sourced materials during construction, and its scheme includes plans for both improved public transport links and an ultra-low emissions zone for airport vehicles by 2025. The airport has a target of at least 50 per cent of passenger journeys to the airport being made on public transport by 2030.
More widely, October saw an unprecedented UN global agreement to combat aviation emissions. Under the deal, airlines will offset their emissions with reductions from other sectors to deliver carbon neutral growth for the aviation sector from 2020. 
I certainly agree that we need to be developing transport infrastructure outside of the South East but I believe reducing our reliance on flights is increasingly difficult in the modern world. Sadly, I feel that we would jeopardise the opportunities and life-chances of younger generations by severing Britain’s connections with the wider world.
I hope that this response is informative and if you have any further concerns or queries that you would like to raise with me please do not hesitate to get in touch. 
Yours sincerely 
Julian Sturdy


To which I have responded:
Dear Mr Sturdy,

Thank you for your letter on global warming and Heathrow expansion of 14 November.  Unfortunately I must disagree with you as you have some of your facts wrong.

It is quite clear that the government does not take air quality seriously; to the extent that it has now had two judgements against it on air quality. The first ordering it improve the plan as it did not meet minimum legal requirements, the second that the revised plan still did not meet the minimum requirements.  To quote from the recent judgement which can be found at http://www.documents.clientearth.org/download/11525/ and was published on 2 November (almost two weeks before your letter).

3….the Supreme Court made a declaration that the UK was in breach of Article 13 of the Air Quality Directive (2008/50/EC). In his judgment of April 2015 granting that declaration, Lord Carnwath, with whom the other members of the Court agreed, said (at paragraph 31), "The new government, whatever its political complexion, should be left in no doubt as to the need for immediate action to address this issue." [emphasis in the original)

16. The United Kingdom is divided, for the purposes of the 2008 Directive and AQPs, into 43 zones and agglomerations. It is common ground that in 2010 40 of those zones and agglomerations were in breach of one or more of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide.

21.  The Supreme Court decision established, as had been accepted by the Secretary of State, that the Government had failed to meet the obligations set out in Article 13 in relation to non-compliant zones. The Government accepted that it was obliged to devise a new AQP in accordance with Article 23 and that that plan should be published by December 2015. The Government did indeed publish its plan, which was entitled "Improving Air Quality in the UK-Tackling Nitrogen Dioxide in our Towns and Cities", on 17 December 2015.

86. It seems to me plain that by the time the plan was introduced the assumptions underlying the Secretary of State's assessment of the extent of likely future non-compliance had already been shown to be markedly optimistic. In my judgement, the AQP did not identify measures which would ensure that the exceedance period would be kept as short as possible; instead it identified measures which, if very optimistic forecasts happened to be proved right and emerging data happened to be wrong, might achieve compliance. To adopt a plan based on such assumptions was to breach both the Directive and the Regulations.

89….[I]t seems to me likely that fixing on a more proximate compliance target date and adopting a less optimistic assumption for likely emissions might well mean that CAZs are required in more cities, but ultimately that will depend on the outcome of further modelling.

95 iv) that it would be appropriate to make a declaration that the 2015 AQP fails to comply with Article 23(1) of the Directive and Regulation 26(2) of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010, and an order quashing the plan.

In short the government has failed to meet its minimum requirements.  The autumn statement has also failed to help, when it might, for instance, have introduced a scrappage scheme for the most polluting cars or changed car tax and fuel duty rates to encourage people to use cleaner cars.

Moving on to Heathrow airport.  Firstly, on clean air, the declaration by the government that either Heathrow or Gatwick schemes would not cause or worsen exceedances [sic] of air quality limits in the 2015 AQP is rendered moot as the plan has been found to be unlawful.  With an improved plan that meets Article 23(1) of the directive it is clear that the proposals for Heathrow would not meet the minimum requirements.

I also find it worrying that you can have confidence in a secretary of state who has twice been found to be failing to meet minimum requirements.

As to meeting our CO2 obligations, it is clear that a whole variety of government decisions have made this nigh on impossible, but here we need only consider aviation. According to a parliamentary answer in 2007 “in the UK, flights leaving UK airports are responsible for 13% of the country’s entire ‘climate impact’”, and since then aviation has been growing faster than most sectors of the economy which will only worsen the impact of aviation on climate change.

The government’s own aviation White Paper, the DfT’s ‘high scenario’ predicts that by 2030 passenger numbers will treble compared with 2003 levels and their central scenario predicts passenger numbers will double from 228 million to 455 million on 2005 levels.  (Department for Transport (2009) - CO2 and Passenger Demand Forecasts, P45 http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/atf/co2forecasts09/co2forecasts09.pdf). Government forecasts say that as a result, CO 2 emissions will increase from 37.5 MtCO2 to around 59 MtCO2 by 2030. The government’s own forecasts show that even conservative aviation growth estimates mean this one industry alone would absorb nearly 50% of the UK’s carbon budget by 2050. 

In other words, the entire rest of the economy is expected to subsidise the airline industry by billions of pounds through much harsher reductions in their own CO2 use.

Until, and unless, the government can clearly demonstrate that we can, and will, meet our CO2 obligations it should do nothing that would lead to an increase in climate changing emissions, and on the precautionary principle should not allow any airport expansion.  I have read the UN global agreement to combat aviation emissions (http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/Resolution_A39_2.pdf) and there is nothing there that requires the industry to do anything.  There are a large number of get outs and some aspirations (such as increasing efficiency by 2% per year), but nothing that requires reductions to be delivered.

Finally, in your penultimate paragraph you state “I believe reducing our reliance on flights is increasingly difficult in the modern world. Sadly, I feel that we would jeopardise the opportunities and life-chances of younger generations by severing Britain’s connections with the wider world.”  I hope you appreciate that the effects if global warming would do far more to jeopardise the life-chances of younger generations than not flying as often as people currently do.

You do not address my points about renewable energy generation and fracking at all.  I must therefore again request that you:
  • Press the Prime minister and transport minister to cancel airport expansion as this is not compatible with even meeting our current emission targets.
  • Press the Prime minister, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy transport minister and Chancellor of the exchequer to cancel HS2 as unnecessary and polluting.
  • Press the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to change planning regulations to make it easier to install wind turbines
  • Press the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to ban fracking as incompatible with meeting our global warming targets and a danger to health and industrialisation of the countryside.


Yours sincerely
Tom.

Tom Franklin

Friday, November 25, 2016

Treatment of Palestinians by Israel - open letter to Julian Sturdy MP

Dear Mr Sturdy,

I have just watched the short documentary, 'Breaking the Generations: Palestinian prisoners and medical rights', which is now available online (https://vimeo.com/157902498). I am writing to you because I am concerned about the serious human rights and health issues it raises, and am especially concerned as a Jew.

The documentary covers several issues including Israel's arbitrary and repressive use of so called administrative detention (ie imprisonment without charge for an indefinite period) on Palestinian detainees, the use of torture and the failure to provide proper medical care.

Remarking on the film, Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association said, “Over 700 Palestinian administrative detainees are currently being held without charge or trial. It is crucial that the UK speaks out on their behalf and highlights Israel's systematic violations of international human rights laws, including systematic detention without charge or trial, torture and ill treatment, and medical negligence inside Israeli prisons and detention centres.”

The film also addresses the issues of alleged torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and "systematic" medical negligence creating potentially dangerous medical consequences for the physical and mental health of Palestinian prisoners. Given that these prisoners have no mechanisms available to meaningfully raise, challenge and end these violations, I am writing to you to call on the British government, as a close ally and trading partner of Israel, to apply full diplomatic and political pressure on the Israeli government to:

(1) end the arbitrary use of administrative detention against Palestinian prisoners
(2) outlaw the use of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and end these practices in Israeli prisons;
(3) fulfil its legal obligations to provide Palestinian prisoners with adequate medical care and mental health treatment.
(4) end the sale to Israel of military and dual use equipment.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,
Tom Franklin
4 Frazer Court
York
YO30 5FH

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Torture - Open letter to Julian Sturdy MP

Dear Mr Sturdy,

I am writing to express deep concern at the way the Home Office is handling the cases of people who have been horrifically abused and fled to us for safety.

The UK had a proud history of taking in victims of torture, but the current government has introduced at least two new huge problems.

The first is the new definition of torture proposed by the Home Office, which defines torture as only by state agencies.  This thereby excludes those tortured by state surrogates (which are widely used by dictators to do their dirty work for them).  It also excludes torture by non-state groups which may be supported by the state or not opposed by the state.  Fortunately, the High Court has found this definition illegal and ordered the release of hundreds of victims of torture from UK prisons (see https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/nov/21/government-ordered-to-review-policy-on-torture-survivors), but the definition clearly needs to be changed.

The second is the way in which evidence of torture is treated. New research by Freedom from Torture has shown that poor procedures and mistakes in the handling of medical evidence are letting some of the most vulnerable people down.

In the research, over three quarters of the torture survivors had their claims wrongly rejected by caseworkers who mishandled and rejected expert evidence. A judge overturned these decisions at appeal, but when so much is at stake it shouldn’t go that far. It demonstrates a culture of disbelieving claimants and looking for excuses to reject them rather than giving them a fair hearing.

Please write to Secretary of State Amber Rudd

1) Demand that she ensures that the definition of torture does not refer to who has done the torturing, but to the nature of torture.

2) Ask her to read the report and take action to improve asylum decision-making for torture survivors, including complying with their own policy and using the training they have developed but never rolled out. The report can be found here: https://www.freedomfromtorture.org/provingtorturereport

Yours sincerely

Tom Franklin

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Brexit - Open Letter to Julian Sturdy MP

Dear Mr Sturdy,

I am writing to make two important points about Brexit, which I hope you will bear in mind in your thinking on Brexit, and point out to the various Brexit ministers and the Prime Minister.

52% percent of voters who voted in the referendum voted for Brexit, but many of these people did not want “hard Brexit”.  Indeed from my discussions with people both before and since the referendum few want the so called hard Brexit proposed by several ministers (including those who are responsible for negotiating Brexit).  There is clearly no mandate for a hard Brexit, indeed when almost half the electorate who voted want to remain in the EU, and many who voted to leave want a minimal exit there is clearly a majority for having a minimal possible exit, including free movement of people and the right of EU citizens here to remain (and for UK citizens in the EU to have the right to remain there).

To put it another way, if the vote had been 52% to remain and 48% to leave there would not be a mandate for a hard remain (which might be defined as joining the Schengen area and the Euro).  Seeing the absurdity of the that proposal if the just a small number more had voted remain then it is clear that hard Brexit has no validity and would be a small number of extremists forcing their opinion onto the majority.

Whilst there are clear problems with the EU, and some things that we will be better off without it has also brought many things which have made the lives of its citizens better, and I would therefore ask you to press the relevant ministers (both departmental ministers and Brexit ministers) to ensure that we keep:
·        Clean air regulations
·        Clean water regulations
·        Car emission regulations
·        Working hours directive
·        All Health and Safety regulations
·        Medicines regulations ensuring the safety of medicines.

I have yet to meet people who want to see these regulations abolished as they protect our health and safety.



Finally, can I remind you that York voted to remain, and therefore if you see the referendum as binding you should clearly follow the mandate from your electors and vote remain in any vote in parliament.

Best wishes
Tom.
Tom Franklin

Wednesday, November 09, 2016

York Mental health hospital consultation


Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS is intending to build a new hospital in York to provide mental health support in the Vale of York.  Unfortunately they are taking a very narrow view of what to build (only considering the bits of mental health that they are currently funded to support) and of the consultation (just on the location of the hospital).  



This is my response to the consultation on the new mental health hospital for the Vale of York.

Number of beds

The proposal is a marked reduction in the number of beds for the region at a time when we know that there is a great need for mental health beds with significant numbers of people being shipped around the country due to the lack of availability of local beds.  Having only 60 beds to cover the Vale of York will create severe problems at a time of rising mental health problems and a lack of services to meet the existing need.  Whilst I do not have the expertise to say how many beds are required it is clear that the cuts over the last few years have put a strain on services and even more to the point a severe strain on people with mental health issues.  Using the  formula has clearly not helped as the situation has been deteriorating for many years.

Hospital location

Building a single hospital to cover the whole or the Vale of York is not appropriate as many patients, and their families, will have to travel a long way.  This will mean that it is harder for families to visit patients in terms of both time and cost so that they will be able to make fewer visits.  Yet, we know that contact with family is vital to improvements in mental health.  Therefore there should be more than one hospital to cover the area.  Perhaps one in York and one in Selby.  The location of the one in York might be affected by the location of the second (or second and third) hospitals.

However, if there is to be only one hospital then Bootham Park is the only sensible location.  It has far and away the best public transport access (and drivers can use any of the park and ride points).  It is close to York Hospital which is important for many patients who have physical as well as mental health issues.  And both the other locations are pretty sterile.  There is nowhere to go with patients for a short trip outside the hospital (this appears to be seen as advantage in that the consultation document refers to the low likelihood of other development in the vicinity).  Again, it is important for people’s recovery that they can re-integrate with general society with such things as visits to shops, cafes, cinema, museums etc.  None of these are possible at either of the other sites.  With both the Haxby and Clifton sites it would be necessary to take a bus into town and back again meaning that any excursion would be at least a couple of hours by the time one had got to the bus stop, got a bus, got into town, done something and retraced ones steps.

Service provision

Whilst this does not seem to be part of the consultation I think that there is a problem with the way that the consultation is being undertaken.  We are being asked merely to consider the number of beds to be provided, but in fact that can only be done as part of a proper service review, working out what services should be provided (for instance it might be better to include provision for mother and baby or mother and child units and alcohol treatment units within the provision).  By saying that it is only looking at services provided by Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Trust a huge opportunity is being missed.  The opportunity to provide an integrated service including social service provision etc.  The hospital cannot, and should not, be treated in isolation.  To take a single example, at the consultation we were told that no provision would be made for alcohol treatment as that is now funded through public health provision.  However, it may well be sensible for an ATU to be collocated in the new hospital, whether funded TEWV or public health.  It is this very failure of integrated thinking and integrated support that is causing many people real and very severe problems.

Another way of putting this, is that the hospital is being designed to match the current funding formula rather than needs of patients and the community.  If you really want to meet the needs of patients and the community then the hospital should address mental health needs, not the funding formula, and this will mean working closely with others with responsibility for parts of adult mental health need and creating a hospital focused on patient needs whatever the funding source.

Summary

·        We do not have enough information to know how many beds are needed
·        There should be more than one hospital to cover the area
·        The best site in York is Bootham Park Hospital
·        There is a need to take an integrated approach and not develop the hospital to match the way services are currently funded.


Tom

Tom Franklin
York Green Party
15 Priory Street
York
YO1 6ET

Email: office@yorkgreenparty.org.uk


Saturday, November 05, 2016

Global warming targets - Open letter to Julian Sturdy MP

Dear Mr Sturdy,

The UN Environment Programme published its Emission Gap Report on 3rd November (http://web.unep.org/emissionsgap/) this clearly shows that not enough is being done to reduce CO2 emissions in order to limit global temperature rises to the 2°C maximum safe limit, and certainly will not achieve the 1.5°C limit that we really need to achieve.

There is therefore a clear need for all countries, including the UK, to do more than so far committed in order to keep the world safe for our children and future generations.

The government has made a number of decisions that will make meeting the targets even harder, including:

  • The new runway at Heathrow which will allow a significant increase in flights and hence CO2 emissions.
  • HS2 as high speed trains use considerably more energy to transport the same number of people as slightly slower trains.
  • The effective prevention of land-based wind turbines – which is currently the cheapest way to produce electricity.
  • Ending of subsidies to solar photovoltaic (PV) generation too early, whilst this would have reasonable in a year or two as prices fell we have seen a massive reduction in installation of domestic PV generation, and loss of capacity to install PV as a result.
  • Licensing of fracking, which is simply another form of fossil energy that will produce both CO2 and methane both of which are greenhouse gases (besides the issues of industrialisation of the countryside and pollution of water supplies).


We are also realising a considerable part of our CO2 reduction by exporting the CO2 production, for instance by closing our steel industry.  This does not actually reduce the amount of CO2 produced, simply moves it elsewhere; in some cases, to places where less efficient processes may be being used resulting in even higher CO2.

I am therefore writing to you to press the government to work harder to reduce global warming in the following ways:


  • Press the Prime minister and transport minister to cancel airport expansion as this is not compatible with even meeting our current emission targets.
  • Press the Prime minister, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy transport minister and Chancellor of the exchequer to cancel HS2 as unnecessary and polluting.
  • Press the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to change planning regulations to make it easier to install wind turbines
  • Press the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to ban fracking as incompatible with meeting our global warming targets and a danger to health and industrialisation of the countryside.


I would also be interested in your opinion on each of these and their importance in meeting our obligations to the future of the planet as a habitable place.

Best wishes
Tom.
Tom Franklin
4 Frazer Court
York
YO30 5FH

Tuesday, November 01, 2016

NHS funding - open letter to Julian Sturdy MP

Dear Mr Sturdy,

I am extremely concerned because of the news that almost half of NHS areas are planning to cut hospital beds  and one third could close A&Es, because of the NHS funding crisis (as reported in The Telegraph last weekend: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/30/almost-half-of-nhs-authorities-to-cut-hospital-beds-and-third-to/. ), including plans to close the A&E facilities at Scarborough.

Besides the impact that this will have on Scarborough (with an extra hour to reach A&E facilities in York or Hull) it will clearly also have a knock on effect on people from York using the already over-stretched facilities at York General hospital.  It will also have a huge impact on the ambulance service as increased journey times will mean that  each ambulance can answer fewer calls.

We are also seeing other cuts in the area including the closure of first Bootham Park Hospital and then the Archways which will have a massive impact on those with mental health issues.  Archways being the only facility in the area to take people below 75 years who need residential medical support and after-care.

As my MP, please could you tell me what you are doing to support the local services at risk of being cut? And what will you do to ensure there is enough funding to stop this from happening?  We know that the health service needs more funding.  The UK spends less on healthcare as a proportion of GDP than any other developed country, and that amount has been cut further in real terms by your government.

Only this week the medically trained MPs (from all parties) pointed out that the £10 billion that Theresa May claims has been provided to the NHS is a lie as much of this has been moved either from medical training or other forms of social care. And the Health Select Committee have called for urgent funding for the NHS to save it from collapse.

Please will you tell the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Health Secretary that they need to urgently provide additional funding for the NHS in order to meet the health needs of everyone in the UK, and to ensure that there is better provision in our region.

Yours sincerely

Tom Franklin

Sunday, October 30, 2016

Refugees - open Letter to Julian Sturdy MP

Dear Mr Sturdy,

I am writing to ask you to press Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, to restart the rescue of refugees.

Refugees, including children, have been evicted from the "Jungle Camp" at Calais. A large number of children have had no provision made for them. Some of the children have been rounded up by the French riot police during the day and then let go at night with nowhere to sleep except in the "Jungle Camp" which is even more dangerous than it was before the demolition.

We have a legal duty to admit all the children with a connection to the UK, and a moral duty to admit many more. The actions of the UK in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and other countries (including armed intervention and the sales of arms to parties to the conflicts) are partly responsible for the creation of the refugees. We cannot create the problem and then walk away from it - which is what this government (and to be honest many previous governments) have been doing.

The UK has taken far fewer refugees than most countries, and being the fifth largest economy in the world (according to the government) we are clearly in a position to do much more.

We have also made it nigh on impossible for refugees to come to the UK by pushing for and supporting EU Directive 2001/51/EC which effectively makes airlines the frontline preventing refugees flying safely to the UK (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO0IRsfrPQ4 for a short 3 minute video explaining this).

Please, as a matter of urgency, press Amber Rudd to admit many more refugees. The UK has the resources to take tens of thousands and York City Council has agreed to accept and support some, as have many other Councils so there is nothing to prevent the country from accepting them and sending a message of hope to the world.


Yours sincerely,

Tom Franklin

Judicial Review - to be heard some time

Well, the High Court has now decided, in its wisdom, that there are grounds for hearing the judicial review. There is no timescale for the hearing at this stage, but something will happen at some time....

This is what they said:

In the High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division Administrative Court
co Ref: 00/3570/2015
in the matter of an application for Judicial Review
The Queen on the application of DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS 
 versus
STRATFORD MAGISTRATES COURT
Interested Parties: (1) ANGELA DITCHFIELD (2) ISA ABDULLA (3) THOMAS FRANKLIN (4) LAURA BUTLER (5) SUSANNA MENGESHA (6) BRAM VRANKEN (7) LUIS TORREJON (8) JAVIER NEIDHART
NOTIFICATION of the Judge's decision (CPR Part 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement(s) of Service filed by the Defendant and interested Parties
Order by The Honourable Mrs Justice Jefford 
Permission is hereby granted 
Observations:
1. The interested Parties were charged with offences of wilfuily obstructing the highway contrary to s. 137 of the Highways Act 1980 in trying to obstruct vehicles headed to the Defence Security Exhibition. Their defence was that they were using reasonable force to prevent illegal arms sales and/or crimes committed overseas.
2. Having regard to the authorities relied on in the Claimant's application tor permission, in particular, R v Jones. Birch v DPP and Barkshire. it is reasonably arguable that the learned District Judge was wrong in law in finding that a defence under 5.3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 was available to the Interested Parties in the circumstances of this case and in acquitting them. The issue is also one of general public importance.

3. Further or alternatively, it is reasonably arguable that the learned District Judge was wrong in law in refusing to state a case on the grounds that the Claimant grounds of appeal were frivolous. 

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Bias in the BBC - follow up

The BBC has responded to my compaint about bias in the Bottom Line as follows:

Reference CAS-4031583-87CDXY

Thanks for contacting us regarding BBC One’s ‘The Bottom Line’ broadcast on 1 October.
I understand you felt there was not enough union representation and workers during a discussion on Theresa May’s business plans.

While the programme discusses business matters and hears from ‘people at the top’, it’s not always possible or practical to include all viewpoints within a particular programme. Contributors to our programmes are appointed on the basis of their experience and talent, but judgements are often subjective and we would never expect everyone to agree with every choice we make.

We have circulated your complaint to senior management and ‘The Bottom Line’ programme in this overnight report.

These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensures that your complaint has been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future programmes.

Thanks once again for taking the time to contact us.

Kind regards
Neil Salt

BBC Complaints Team


so I have followed up the original complaint with the following:

The response addresses neither the specific nor the general complaint,

you say ", it’s not always possible or practical to include all viewpoints within a particular programme" which is true, but there is never a trade union voice in the bottom line.  This was a progamme specifically about workers, but no ordinary worker was heard.  That it was not deemed necessary to provide such input shown just how ingrained the bias is that it has become normal.

Nor is there an equivalent programme to the Bottom Line where trade union voices are heard.  Therefore there is systematic bias; both within the Bottom Line and generally across, at least, Radio 4 where it is extremely rare for a trade unionist to be heard without a response from management, but very common to hear managers without any response from trade unions.

We need to hear from trade unionists more often, perhaps a new programme? Workers united?

Saturday, October 01, 2016

BBC Bias

Having just listened to The Bottom Line on Radio 4 I was struck once again by the degree of bias in the BBC.  Can you imagine the BBC having a series where only trade unionists were panel members? Where the business community did not get a right of reply? Where trades unionists were supposed to speak for bosses?

I suspect that it makes your mind boggle.  But here was a programme where bosses were saying what workers need.  Four bosses, and their representatives.  No workers, no trade unionists; not even representatives of civil society.

Anyhow I have put a complaint into the BBC as follows:

"The Bottom line only represents one view of business, which is normally bad enough anyhow (how about a discussion programme with unions members every week?).  This week the discussion included workers rights, business ethics etc. but we only got the view of business owners we did not see hear the views of workers or wider society.

This is actually an issue that goes wider than The Bottom Line, and affects most reporting on the BBC, where it is very rare to hear a union spokesperson without a view from a business representative, but we very frequently hear from business spokespeople without any workers' voice."

Let's see how they respond.

Sunday, August 14, 2016

College of policing FOIA response

Below is the College of Policing's reply to my Freedom of Information request for their risk assessment.  If you don't want to read it all it basically says that we are not going to release the information because it would be embarrassing, or is they put it
"The disclosure of the information requested is very likely to prejudice and cause irreparable damage to the international relations between the College and Saudi Arabia".



Date: 25 July 2016
Our Reference: FOIA-2016-0059
Your Reference:  N/A

(Via email: tom@franklin-consulting.co.uk)

Dear Mr Franklin,

RE: Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request

I write in response to your Freedom of Information Act 2000 (or ‘FoIA 2000’) request dated 16 June 2016. I note from your request that you seek the following information:
“I would be grateful if you would send me a copy of the submission to the International Policing Assistance Brief (IPAB) regarding training of police officers in Saudi Arabia and the risk assessment that was undertaken.”
Decision

When a request for information is made under the FoIA 2000 a public authority must inform you, when permitted, whether the information requested is held. It must then communicate that information to you. If a public authority decides that it cannot comply with all or part of a request, it must cite the appropriate section or exemption of the FoIA 2000 and provide you with an explanation.

It is important to note that a FoIA 2000 request is not a private transaction. Both the request itself and any information disclosed are considered suitable for open publication, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the FoIA 2000, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received. Any information released under the FoIA 2000 will also be published on the College of Policing’s website at a later date.

After conducting careful searches for any information relevant to your request, I can confirm that there is information held. However, it is with the above in mind that the College of Policing has decided to refuse your request under the following exemptions:


  •  Section 27 (1) (a) (c) and (d) (international relations)
  •  Section 31 (1) (a) (law enforcement)
  •  Section 43 (2) (commercial interests)

Your attention is drawn to the refusal notice provided in Appendix A.

May I take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in the College of Policing. Details of your complaint rights are provided in Appendix B.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Smith | Freedom of Information Caseworker
Ethics, Integrity and Public Interest Unit
College of Policing

Email: FOI@college.pnn.police.uk
Website: www.college.police.uk

Appendix A

Refusal Notice
Section 27 (1) (a), (c) and (d) (international relations)

Section 27 provides –

‘(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice —

(a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other State,
(b) …
(c) the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, or
(d) the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of its interests abroad.’

The exemption under Section 27 (1) of the FoIA 2000 is both qualified and prejudice based. This requires me to determine the nature of the prejudice and/or harm that may result from disclosure of the information.

I must also conduct a public interest test to establish whether there is a public interest in disclosing or
withholding the requested information.

Prejudice and harm considerations


The case of Hogan v IC and Oxford City Council provides that the requisite prejudice must be real, actual or of substance. Furthermore, in the case of John Connor Press Associates Limited v The Information Commissioner, the Tribunal confirmed that, when determining whether prejudice would ‘be likely to occur’ the test to apply is that “the chance of prejudice being suffered should be more than a hypothetical possibility; there must have been a real and significant risk.”

The UK government works with many countries to secure the UK’s national security and economic well-being, often through government to government agreements. Many of these agreements include law enforcement training provision by the College, where the UK provides training to improve the capacity of foreign law enforcement agencies to tackle serious and organised crime and security threats internally.

The provision of this bespoke training and assistance increases the security of the relevant countries which in turn increases the security of the UK. The International Academy of the College works closely with a number of international partners such as the Department for International Development (DFID), the Stabilisation Unit (SU), the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the UN and is regularly approached to provide support and assistance to these partners.

Any training of overseas law enforcement officers is coordinated by the College of Policing working in partnership with the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) - International Coordination Committee (ICC) and other stakeholders. The ICC oversees and coordinates the assistance that UK policing gives to other countries, both at home and abroad.

The College submits case by case international policing assistance proposals (or ‘IPABs’) to the DFID-SU to ensure multi–agency coordination and compliance with government policy. Feedback from DFID-SU and wider stakeholders, consideration of human rights and the College’s Code of Ethics inform the final decision made by the College to proceed or decline a request for international policing assistance.

HM Government publishes Overseas Security and Justice Assistance (OSJA) guidance which can help the NPCC-ICC assess the human rights risks of UK overseas security and justice assistance work and identify measures to mitigate such risks. The College completes a full OSJA Human Rights profile for countries where human rights compliance is of concern and will seek sign off through the relevant High Commission or Embassy of that country. The guidance can be accessed at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/overseas-security-and-justice-assistance-osja-guidance

The information within the OSJA profiles and IPAB referrals are kept out of the public domain so as not to highlight the specific areas in which the College and the UK are co-operating with particular countries. This is not only essential for law enforcement purposes, but in order to maintain effective bilateral relations between the UK and our international partners and to ensure the protection and promotion of UK interests abroad. The disclosure of this information is likely to undermine these objectives and as such, there is a real and significant risk that is more than a hypothetical possibility.

Section 27 (1) of the FoIA 2000 recognises that the effective conduct of international relations depends upon maintaining mutual trust and confidence. If the College and in turn the UK, does not maintain this trust and confidence with states with which it engages, the ability of the College to protect and promote UK interests through international relations will be severely diminished. I consider that the disclosure of the information requested is likely to highlight specific areas in which we are cooperating with Saudi Arabia and given the high expectation of trust and confidence as regards the information, this is very likely to be seen as a breach of trust on the part of the College and in turn the UK.

In the case of Campaign Against the Arms Trade v Information Commissioner and Ministry of Defence, 3 it was submitted that the disclosure of details relating to the provision of assistance to Saudi Arabia would result in an adverse reaction from Saudi Arabia and this would mean that Saudi Arabia would be less likely to be willing to do business with the UK. The Tribunal in the case held that there could be prejudice to the interests of the UK abroad, or the promotion of those interests, if the consequence of disclosure was to expose those interests to the risk of an adverse reaction or make them vulnerable to such a reaction notwithstanding that the precise nature would not be predictable, either as a matter of probability or certainty. The prejudice would lie in the exposure and vulnerability to that risk. The Tribunal held prejudice can be ‘real and of substance’ ‘if it makes relations more difficult or calls for a particular damage limitation response to contain or limit damage which would not have otherwise have been necessary.’

In the present case, on the basis of evidence we have received, there is a very real risk of an adverse
reaction from Saudi Arabia if the information was to be disclosed and this in turn, is likely to have an adverse impact on our relationship with Saudi Arabia and our ability to conduct effective international relations. The consequences of disclosure of the requested information is therefore, to expose the UK to the risk of an adverse reaction from the government of Saudi Arabia and undermines the capacity building and stabilisation work carried out there and elsewhere. This in turn is likely to dissuade Saudi Arabia and other international states from working with, and seeking assistance from, the UK and the College in the future. This would have the very real effect of compromising the ability of the College and the UK to work with and influence international governments on key security issues.

Please find the public interest test considerations that I have identified and considered in relation to my application of section 27 (1) (a), (c) and (d) of the FoIA 2000 stated below.

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

The disclosure of appropriate and relevant information would reinforce the College’s commitment to being an open and transparent organisation, serving to maintain public confidence in the College and the wider police service. Furthermore, the relationship of the UK and Saudi Arabia is currently of a high public interest and disclosure of the information will result in an increased public awareness of how the College conducts business with the country and its international partners and what risk assessments are made prior to undertaking work with countries abroad. This would include providing details of how the College takes account of human rights issues and the consideration to mitigate risk and harm.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

The disclosure of the information requested is very likely to prejudice and cause irreparable damage to the international relations between the College and Saudi Arabia as well as other international states with whom we engage. Disclosure of the requested information is very likely to be seen as a breach of the mutual trust and respect which is fundamental to the College’s international relations. Should this mutual trust and respect be diminished, this would compromise the ability of the College and in turn the UK, to promote and protect its interests abroad and in forming new and mutually beneficial relationships with international states.

Evaluation

The public interest test is not an evaluation of what interests the public but rather consideration of whether the community benefit of possession of the information outweighs the potential harm. On weighing up the competing interests, I find the public interest test favours withholding the requested information.

I acknowledge that complete transparency in response to how the College engages with international states informs public debate, provides reassurance and promotes confidence in the police service, as well as in the College as the professional body for policing. However, as highlighted above, there is a real and considerable risk that disclosure of the information requested would be regarded as a breach of mutual trust and respect by Saudi Arabia and this would very likely cause severe and lasting damage to the UK’s international interests.

I consider that the release of information that is highly likely to prejudice the interests of the UK abroad and undermine the ability of the UK to influence and work with Saudi Arabia on key international and security issues cannot be in the public interest. As such, I am unable to provide you with the information requested under section 27 (1) (a), (c) and (d) of the FoIA 2000.

Section 31 (1) (a) (law enforcement)

Section 31 provides –

‘(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice —

(a) the prevention or detection of crime’

The provision to refuse access to information under section 31 (1) (a) of the FoIA 2000 is both qualified and prejudice based. I am, therefore, required to establish the nature of the prejudice and/or harm that may result from disclosure and where prejudice and/or harm is established but not certain, determine the likelihood of it occurring. In addition, I must also conduct a public interest test to determine whether the public interest lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information.

Prejudice and harm considerations

As stated above, any prejudice must be real, actual or of substance. The chance of prejudice being suffered should also be more than a hypothetical possibility with there being a real and significant risk.

Having reviewed your request, I consider that the disclosure of the information requested has the significant and weighty chance of highlighting the specific nature of how the College is cooperating with Saudi Arabia or how it intends to do so in the future. The disclosure of information regarding the type of assistance provided, or intended to be provided in specific countries has the very real risk of the unintended disclosure of law enforcement capabilities, or lack thereof, which may have an undesirable impact on law enforcement operations both in the UK and abroad. This in turn, creates a real and undeniable risk to the safety of the public and indeed law enforcement personnel in those countries with which we engage.

Please find the public interest test considerations that I have identified and considered in relation to my application of section 31 (1) (a) of the FoIA 2000 stated below.

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

There is a clear public interest in making appropriate information available to the public in order to promote openness, transparency and to provide reassurance to the public, in particular, in terms of assurance as to the quality of training provided by the College both to UK officers as well as to international clients.

The increased public awareness of law enforcement capabilities and the way in which the police seek to bring law enforcement operations and incidents to a safe conclusion would promote a feeling of safety in the general public. In addition, the use of public money as well as the income generated by public bodies such as the College, is also a matter of strong public interest.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure


I consider that disclosure of the requested information runs the risk of disclosing the law enforcement
capabilities, or the lack of such capabilities, of Saudi Arabia. In addition, the disclosure of the requested information has the likely potential to disclose law enforcement tactics which could jeopardise specific operations, both in that country and elsewhere.

The effect of disclosure has the likely effect of hindering the effective prevention and detection of crime and would compromise the ability to bring incidents and operations to a safe conclusion. Disclosure of information that undermines the operational integrity of law enforcement tactics and capabilities will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on law enforcement generally and this cannot be said to be in the public interest.

Evaluation


As stated above, the public interest test is a consideration of whether the community benefit of possession of the information outweighs the potential harm. It is not an evaluation of what interests the public. On weighing up the competing interests, I consider that the public interest test favours withholding the requested information.

I acknowledge that there is a clear public interest in transparency in relation to how the College conducts its business with international states and the decision making process, however, this must be weighed against the very real and considerable risk that disclosure of the information may bring, in particular with regards to disclosure of law enforcement capabilities, or lack thereof, as the case may be of Saudi Arabia, as well the risk of compromising specific operations which in turn jeopardises the safety of officers and the public at large.

I consider that the disclosure of the information is highly likely to provide assistance in undermining police capabilities and therefore compromise law enforcement operations which cannot be in the public interest. As such, I am unable to provide you with the information requested under section 31 (1) (a) of the FoIA 2000.

Section 43 (2) (commercial interests)


Section 43 (2) provides –

‘Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it).’

The provision to refuse access to information under Section 43 (2) of the FoIA 2000 is both qualified and prejudice based. As such, I am required to establish the nature of the prejudice and/or harm that may result from disclosure and I must conduct a public interest test to determine whether the public interest lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information.

Prejudice and harm considerations

Due to the fact that the information requested relates to the work that the College is undertaking, or
proposes to undertake, in Saudi Arabia, I consider that the disclosure of the requested information would have the likely risk of undermining the commercial position of the College with regard to negotiating agreements for the provision of expert training and assistance with Saudi Arabia and other international states in the future.

The disclosure of information into the public domain runs the real risk that our competitors would exploit the information and therefore expose the College to the risk and vulnerability of commercial loss. This in turn, would be likely to have an adverse impact on the ability of the College to reach agreement with countries in the future on the provision of training, and thereby have a detrimental impact on its ability to generate revenue, meaning it will remain reliant on public funds for a longer duration.

The College is actively working towards reducing its grant in aid from the government and in becoming an independent statutory body, which would be adversely impacted should our commercial position be jeopardised through the disclosure of the requested information. It is clearly in the public interest that the College reduce our reliance on grant in aid from the government since this would save public funds.

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

There is a clear public interest in making appropriate information available to the public. The release of such information promotes transparency and provides reassurance to the public as to the training and assistance provided by the College to various international states. This in turn, serves to support and maintain public confidence in the law enforcement capabilities of these countries and help to foster a feeling of safety in the general public.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

As a disclosure under the FoIA 2000 is a disclosure to the world at large, it is not only the applicant who would have access to the information. Consequently, the disclosure of the requested information is very likely to compromise the commercial position of the College and result in the College’s international clients seeking training and assistance elsewhere, not least from the College’s competitors who may seek to use and exploit the information that is disclosed to undermine the College’s commercial position.

The ability of the College to generate its own income by provision of training and assistance is fundamental to the College’s objective of becoming a statutory body that is independent of government. This requires reducing the College’s dependence on grant-in-aid from the government, which can be said to be very much in the public interest.

Evaluation

On weighing up the competing interests I am of the opinion that the public interest test favours withholding the requested information. Whilst I acknowledge and accept the benefits of transparency and public confidence in the training and assistance provided by the College to various states, I am not of the view that they outweigh the potential negative impact on the College’s own commercial interests. There is a very real public interest in protecting the College’s ability to generate income so as to allow the College to become less reliant on government funding and disclosure of the information requested would undermine this objective significantly. As such, I am unable to provide you with the information requested under section 43 (2) of the FoIA 2000.

Section 23 (5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) and Section 24 (2) (national security)


The College of Policing can neither confirm nor deny whether the above information represents all the information held that would meet the terms of your request, as the duty to comply with section 1 (1) (a) of the FoIA 2000 does not apply by virtue of section 23 (5) and section 24 (2). Please see my submissions in this regard below.

Section 23


Section 23 provides:

(5) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1 (1) (a) would involve the disclosure of any information (whether or not already recorded) which was directly or indirectly supplied to the public authority by, or relates to, any of the bodies specified in subsection (3).

This is an absolute exemption and I am therefore not required to complete a public interest test.

Section 24


Section 24 (2) is a qualified exemption and as such there is a requirement to evidence any harm confirmation or denial that any other information is held as well as considering the public interest. Please see my submissions in this regard below.

Harm for neither confirming nor denying that any other information is held for Section 24

As disclosure under the FoIA 2000 is a disclosure to the world at large, disclosure of the information, if held, runs the risk of providing criminals with information, that when used on its own or with other information that is likely to have an undesirable effect of the national security of states concerned as well as the national security of the UK. This would in turn, have an impact on the ability of these states and the UK to protect itself from threats from criminals and its enemies and cause a risk to the safety of its citizens. It is also likely to have an adverse impact on the ability to conduct effective law enforcement operations, both in the UK and abroad. This has the likely consequence of undermining the UK’s ability to protect its interests aboard which is in turn is likely to adversely affect national security.

Public interest considerations in maintaining NCND

By confirming or denying whether any other information is held would have the effect of making security measures in international states less effective since it may highlight vulnerabilities in those states. Confirming or denying whether any other information is held would also have the effect of making security measures in the UK less effective as international police forces would be unable to share information and intelligence in order to combat threats from criminals. This would, in turn, be highly likely to compromise ongoing or future law enforcement operations to protect the security or infra-structure of those states and also lead to irreversible damage to the international relations between the UK and the states with which it engages.

Public interest considerations in not maintaining NCND

The public are entitled to know how public money is being spent and how public authorities conduct their activities and generate their income. By confirming whether any other information regarding the provision of training to international states is held would lead to a better-informed public and therefore, increase public confidence and allow better public debate.

Evaluation

To the extent that section 24 (2) applies, the College of Policing has determined that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny outweighs the public interest in confirming whether or not any other information is held. I can therefore, neither confirm nor deny whether any other information relevant to your request is held.


Sunday, July 24, 2016

Crown attempts to appeal DSEI 8 acquittal


The Crown, for purely political reasons, has chosen to spend tens of thousands of pounds pursuing eight of us through the courts, despite our already having been acquitted.  Whilst we were trying to prevent war crimes and crimes against humanity the Crown took obstructing the highway as more serious.  But, having lost their case for obstruction they tried to appeal, and were slapped down by the Judge twice.  Now they are spending far more in trying to get the Judge’s decision judicially reviewed!  It is clear that it is not about our minor cases of obstructing the highway, but because they do not like the fact that the Judge went out of his way to make clear that illegal activity occurs at the Defence & Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair; and that the police are doing nothing about the crimes there.  And the crimes taking place, or supported, at DSEI include war crimes, crimes against humanity and the sale of illegal equipment such as torture equipment.

The facts are not contested.  The DSEI arms fair is one of the largest arms fairs in the world, held every other year in London, and each time illegal activity takes place there including both the sale of illegal equipment including torture equipment and cluster bombs and that weapons are sold in the knowledge that they will be used to commit war crimes or crimes against humanity.  It was also accepted that the police, and other authorities, do little, if anything to detect or prosecute these crimes.

A large group of ordinary people felt so strongly that it was necessary to prevent these very serious crimes that they chained themselves to vehicles, each other or the gates or simply lay in front of lorries in each case to try to prevent arms from being delivered to DSEI and hence sold to murder civilians in Yemen, Palestine, Turkey, Kurdistan or any of the other places where crimes against humanity are being committed.

This much is not seriously in dispute; the result is that all eight defendants were acquitted on April 15 by Mr Justice Angus Hamilton as we were trying to prevent crime.  In his summing up Hamilton said:

“the court has been presented with clear, credible and largely unchallenged evidence from three experts that criminal wrongdoing had occurred at past DSEI exhibitions involving the sale of arms to countries which then used those arms against civilian populations and the sale of items that were inherently unlawful such as cluster munitions and items designed for torture and inappropriate restraint. There was, as a result, a compelling inference that such activities would also take place at the 2015 DSEI exhibition.

“The court was also presented with clear, credible and largely unchallenged evidence that such criminal activities are not being properly investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted. Ample evidence of this was provided by the three experts.”

In other words, the prosecution did not challenge our evidence that criminality habitually occurs at DSEI and that the police were doing nothing about it; so it fell to us as concerned citizens to attempt to prevent some of the most serious crimes imaginable.

In trying to deny us the right to use crime prevention the prosecution relied on two main arguments:
·        That we had not used sufficient force to be able to use section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 which says “A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime….”  The crown argued that we did not use sufficient force to be allowed to rely on this act; which has the interesting effect that the defence might be allowable if we had used greater force!
·        That the crime was not sufficiently imminent to allow us to intervene; and that we should instead rely on the police to enforce the law.  Which we were able to clearly demonstrate that they had failed to do in the past and no evidence that they would enforce the law this time.

With the court having rejected these the Crown chose to appeal by asking the Judge to “State Case” (ie to allow the appeal on points of law).  However, they made such a cack-handed attempt that Mr Justice Hamilton was moved to write:

“I decline to state a case on the basis of the current application as it is frivolous, and in particular it is misconceived”.
and
“The CPS application repeatedly significantly misrepresents the contents of the judgement delivered at the end of the case and therefore seeks to challenge the decisions reached on wholly erroneous bases. The CPS application also muddles factual decisions with decisions of law and it is not open to the CPS to seek to appeal findings of fact.”…. “In these circumstances the very least the CPS should do is to read the judgement fully and, if appropriate, frame their application based on what was actually decided rather than what they seem to believe was decided. The CPS also needs to make a significantly better effort to identify any claimed errors of law as distinct from findings of fact.”

Rather than accepting this slap from the Judge they wrote a long and detailed explanation of their original request for appeal which the Mr Justice Hamilton also declined saying:

“There may be an appealable point in this case but unless and until the CPS prepares its application on the basis of what was actually said in my judgement (rather than something they appear to imagine was said) I am simply not prepared to implicitly condone such poor preparation by stating a case on the current application.”

Despite this further slap down the Crown has now decided to try to get the decision of the judge judicially reviewed by the High Court.  Apparently, to achieve this they will have to demonstrate that no reasonable person could have acted as the judge did in refusing the appeal!

The Crown has already spent tens of thousands of pounds pursuing this relatively trivial case, but have now briefed a QC and prepared a two-hundred-page document! Yes! Two hundred pages! Which they have submitted to start the Judicial review proceedings.  They are asking either that the court quash the Learned District Judge's decision to acquit the interested parties (ie the defendants) and direct that the case be remitted to the magistrates' court so that it may be heard in accordance with the law; or to make an order compelling the magistrates' court to state a case.

Note that they are asking for a complete new trial – which would presumably require many more thousands of pounds to be spent both by the prosecution and the defence as well as witness’s time and court time.  I should also point out that we only offered one of our defences in the original trial – that we were trying to prevent crime as the judge said he would rule on that defence before hearing our other defences.  So even if this defence is rejected we should go back to the original court and offer our other defences which include the use of the European Convention of Human Rights Article 9 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, Article 10 Freedom of expression and Article 11 Freedom of assembly and association.


Instead, we hope that common sense will prevail and that the High Court will not allow this clearly politically motivated request for a judicial review, and allow our acquittal to stand.

Friday, July 22, 2016

Crown Prosecution Service letter to Judge Hamilton

We received this letter from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to Mr Justice Hamilton some time ago, but decided that might be best not to publish it in the hope that the CPS would not pursue the judicial review.  However we are now publishing it.


F.A.O District Judge Angus Hamilton
Stratford Magistrates' Courts
Dear District Judge Hamilton

31 May 2016
Our Ref: 01/KF/4656015

DPP V. DITCHFIELD & ORS- PRE ACTION PROTOCOL FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW (LETTER BEFORE CLAIM)

We write further to your decision to decline to state a case in the above captioned proceedings. The decision in question is dated 5 May 2016, but was communicated to the Crown Prosecution Service on 20 May 2016.

The purpose of this letter is, respectfully, to invite your reconsideration of the decision for reasons set out below. Should you maintain your decision not to state a case the Crown Prosecution Service will have no alternative other than to apply for judicial review of your refusal, although, for reasons which are obvious, it is very much hoped that this course can be avoided.

As you are aware, the Crown Prosecution Service's application to state a case posed two questions for consideration by the High Court. Your refusal to state a case is made on the basis that the application is frivolous within the meaning of that term as set out in R v Norlh West Suffolk (Mildenha/1) Magistrates Court [1998] Env LR 9. The Crown Prosecution Service maintains its position that its application is and was properly made.

The starting point is section 111( 1) of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 rthe MCA 1980"). This section sets out the procedure for stating a case and makes clear that the function of the appellate court is to determine whether the decision of the magistrates' court is "wrong in law or is in excess of jurisdiction." The remedy of an appeal by way of case stated is available in relation to an error of law or a decision taken in excess of jurisdiction. The authorities make it clear that a decision on a questions of fact may give rise to an appeal by way of case stated, in particular, where it is alleged to be a decision of fact that no reasonable court could properly have reached on the evidence before it: see Oladimeji v DPP [2006] EWHC 1199 (Admin), a copy of which is enclosed for ease of reference.

Section 111 (5) of the MCA 1980 provides that justices may refuse to state a case where they are of the opinion that the application is "frivolous". In the Mildenhall case, supra, the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of frivolous in this context. It was held that a refusal to state a case may arise "when the court considers the application to be futile, misconceived, hopeless or academic." Lord Bingham CJ observed that a refusal of a case on grounds of frivolity is not a decision to which justices will often come. For the reasons set out below, it is respectfully submitted that the application in the instant case is not futile, misconceived, hopeless or academic. Indeed the contrary is the case.

In the course of your judgment you found that the availability of the defence contained in section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 was "in a state of flux, development and consequent uncertainty. I therefore applied the principle that any uncertainty must be resolved in the defendant's favour and I agreed to hear the arguments in relation to the potential 'prevention of crime' defence and the supporting expert evidence". The decision to leave open the defence of the prevention of crime and the decision to admit evidence relating to that defence were clearly decisions of law. The observation that the law is in a state of flux is, with respect, difficult to reconcile with your refusal to state a case. The acknowledgment that the law is in a state of development suggests that clarification of the scope of the defence contained in section 3 is a matter of public importance and properly a matter for consideration by the High Court.

In the course of your judgment you also found that the "force" used by the defendants fell within the ambit of section 3. This interpretation of the phrase "use of force" also amounted to a decision of law. The case law referred to by the parties in the course of oral and written legal submissions acknowledged that whether actions such as those taken by the defendants could amount to force within the ambit of the section 3 defence has not yet been authoritatively determined. Hitherto, the courts have been prepared, for the sake of the argument, to assume that activities such as chaining oneself to a vehicle and pouring sugar in a petrol tank fell within the ambit of section 3. In so doing it has been noted that the question as to whether these types of activities involved the use of force for the purposes of section 3 would have to be decided on another occasion.

This issue of law is by no means frivolous and is properly included within question one for consideration by the High Court

As noted above, questions of law may also arise where a decision of fact is arguably one which was not open to the court. For this reason, ground 4 as set out in the Crown Prosecution Service's application (dated 29 April 2016) contends that in acquitting the defendants, on the basis that their actions were objectively reasonable in the context of a section 3 defence, was not a decision properly open to the court. This amounts to an error of law and is reflected in question 1 of the Crown Prosecution Service's application.

In Kracher v Leicester Magistrates Court [2013] EWHC 4628, the High Court emphasised the importance of challenging magistrates' courts decisions of law by way of case stated, rather than by way of judicial review. Again, we attach a copy for ease of reference. The questions in this case are plainly decisions of law and an appeal by way of case stated is unquestionably the appropriate route of appeal.

In conclusion, it is respectfully submitted that the questions included within the application are properly matters for consideration by the High Court and it would, accordingly, be appropriate to state a case.

For the reasons set out above, we respectfully invite you to reconsider your refusal to state a case. This will avoid the additional costs of seeking judicial review of your decision, which should be unnecessary and certainly is something the Crown Prosecution Service is anxious to avoid.

In accordance with paragraph 20 of the pre-action protocol for judicial review, we request that a response to this letter be provided by email (to xxxxxxx@cps.gsi.gov.uk) within 14 days (i.e. by 14 June 2016).

A copy of this letter has been provided to the legal representatives of the acquitted defendants in this case as prospective Interested Parties.

Yours faithfully

Crown Prosecution Service