The Right Hon. Lord Falconer
Eileen Chubb
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
1st July 2003
The Ashford Employment Tribunal Proceedings
The seven applicants in this case spent two years in The Tribunal system, throughout the hearings The Tribunal gave preferential treatment to the defendants, BUPA, which included the following examples:
A Allowing BUPA to change their witness statements halfway through the proceedings
B Allowing BUPA to change the case originally pleaded.
C Adjourning the hearing whilst BUPA appealed but denying the applicants the same right.
The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998
This act is flawed and failed to protect the applicants for the following reasons:
A The Jurisdiction list of an Employment Tribunal in relation to this act authorises a Tribunal to judge detriment as the result of public interest disclosure and this is the extent of their jurisdiction, however, in our case the disclosures themselves were judged by the Tribunal and therefore The Tribunal exceeded by far its jurisdiction.
B All public interest disclosures are likely to be of a criminal nature and an Employment Tribunal has no qualification to judge this area of law
C The above act allows for qualifying disclosures to be made to Ministers of the Crown and we made such disclosures to Tony Blair and Alan Milburn, however, this evidence was omitted from the verdict and it is highly likely that disclosures of this kind will be omitted from future judgments.
The Employment Appeals Tribunal
The Employment Appeals Tribunal showed clear prejudice in favour of BUPA by following actions:
A We had to assemble all the evidence bundles from scratch as our former solicitor would not release them and we were unable to obtain legal representation, we pleaded these facts to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and asked for a time extension to be granted - this was denied us.
B BUPA lodged an objection to appeal two months later and pleaded a case for being late, their reasons for time extension were allowed.
C We were denied an appeal and had five days from the date of this judgment to re-appeal but we did not receive the judgment until three weeks after this date.
The High Court
We appealed to The High Court for a judicial review, this was denied on the grounds that The Employment Appeals Tribunal were the remedy. We addressed this point with the following and re-applied.
A The Employment Appeals Tribunal denied us an appeal and the right to further appeals were also denied, by their actions in not sending us the date from which we had five days to appeal until three weeks after that date had expired.
B The jurisdiction lists of the Employment Appeals Tribunal states that this court has no jurisdiction to judge the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and can only look at a decision made by a Tribunal in relation to this Act, however, when a verdict is perverse it would require a re-examination of a great deal of evidence in relation to this act. The Employment Appeals Tribunal has no jurisdiction and is therefore no remedy
C When an Employment Tribunal exceeds his jurisdiction in relation to a particular law such as the Public Interest disclosure Act 98 then the remedy cannot be a Court who has no jurisdiction at all to judge the above act. Permission for judicial review was denied for the second time on the grounds and The Employment Appeals Tribunal were the remedy.
Summary
I would therefore like you to answer the following questions:
• Why is a company such as BUPA able to influence the justice system?
• If BUPA have not influenced the justice system then why have they been able to break the law?
• If the law and politics are separate then why has the law suppressed politically sensitive evidence?
• Why is there no remedy in place that allows for the evidence to be re-examined in detail?
• If you feel all the evidence was not deliberately suppressed by The Tribunal then can you give another explanation as to what happened?
• If you cannot answer question five then is this not sufficient grounds to warrant an investigation into The Tribunal's conduct in this case?
Eileen Chubb
On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
Monday 7th July 2003
Dear Ms Chubb
The issue raised is outside the remit of this department. Consequently, I have forwarded your letter to the Department of Trade and Industry.
The Right Hon. Lord Falconer Eileen Chubb
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
9th July 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Lord Falconer
There would appear to be some misunderstanding as you have referred our case to the Department of Trade and Industry. I will therefore endeavor to clarify the issues further.
The last Court to give judgment on our case was The High Court and I do not believe The High Court is the responsibility of the DTI. Secondly, the Department of Trade and Industry have no more authority than the Ashford Employment Tribunal or the Employment Appeal Tribunal to deal with evidence that relates to a deliberate cover-up of criminal offences.
The very fact that an employment tribunal could suppress evidence that proved beyond any doubt that BUPA not only committed criminal offences but sought to deliberately conceal such is in itself indisputable evidence that having no legal remedy in place has resulted in a Tribunal system that not only acts beyond its legal jurisdiction but does so without fear of discovery and is in fact a law unto itself.
What the law fails to condemn, it condones, I would remind you why “The BUPA Seven” will continue to fight for justice. We may have been left with huge debts and been unable to obtain other work because we are the whistleblowers and BUPA continue to publicly call us liars, we can, however, fight back but those we sought to protect from abuse are not so fortunate. As long as the law allows the injustice of our case to continue, then elderly people would continue to suffer and be abused and tortured at the hands of a company that is immune from the law.
Eileen Chubb
On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rt Hon Eric Forth MP
17th July 2003
I have written to the Prime Minister asking which of his departments has ultimate responsibility for this matter. Again, once I have had his reply I will let you know.
Eric Forth
Employment Tribunals Service
1st August 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ms Chubb
I am in receipt of your letter and documents submission of 1st July 2003. You will be aware that the Department for Constitutional Affairs forwarded your letter to the Department of Trade and Industry for consideration.
It is my opinion as an official of the Employment Tribunal System (ETS) that the questions you raise in your letter are a judicial manner. Accordingly, I am sending you a letter back to the Department of Constitutional Affairs for correct assignment.
Tyrieana Long
Operational Policy Manager
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Right Hon. Lord Falconer
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
7th August 2003
Dear Lord Falconer
I have received the following correspondence as a result of the serious concerns I have raised with you.
1 Letter from your department, dated 7th July 2003, which states that you have forwarded our case to the Department of Trade and Industry as it is their responsibility. (I disagree as our case is a judicial matter, letter of July 9 th ).
2 I then receive a letter from a Department, dated 15th July 2003, which states your department is now dealing with this matter and I will receive a reply from you by July 30 th 2003. (No reply ever received).
3 I receive a letter from The Employment Tribunal Service, a department under the remit of the D.T.I, dated 1st August '03, (which states that our case is a judicial matter and has been referred back to your department).
4 I receive a letter from your Department, dated 4th August '03, which states your department is dealing with this and I will receive a reply by August 19 th 2003. (No reply is ever received)
5 I receive a letter, dated 5th August 03, from The Court Service stating our case has been referred to The Employment Tribunal Service a Department under The D.T.I.
To summarise the above we have been sent backwards and forwards between Departments and no action has been taken, it is hardly surprising why an Employment Tribunal can suppress evidence and act beyond their jurisdiction when it is considered that this allegedly ,Court of Law, is not answerable to either The Department that deals with justice , or the department that deals with industry, what causes me the gravest concern is the even these two departments cannot agree who is responsible. I enclose a list of all the steps we have taken in the past and ask you to seriously consider if anyone should have to fight so long and so hard to get someone in authority to instigate an official inquiry into what is clearly judicial misconduct at the very least.
As you department has responsibility for The Legal System, Justice and rights, then your department is responsible for the following.
A Court of Law is provided that complies with the natural laws of justice, that legal remedies are available if the Court of first Instance fails to give just and unbiased judgment, and that such Courts comply with the right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act.
Eileen Chubb
On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment Tribunals Service
7th August 2003
Dear Ms Chubb
Thank you for your letter of the 4th August. I am writing to confirm that I am sending your letter and document submission to the president of the Employment Tribunals Service for England and Wales , His Honour Judge Meeran whose address is:
I'm afraid that the Department of Constitutional Affairs are not responsible for sending you a reply.
President's office
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment Tribunals Service
19th August 2003
Dear Miss Chubb
I refer to your letter of 12th August 2003 regarding the hearing that took place before the Ashford Tribunal of the London South Region. In note your dissatisfaction with the way in which the Tribunal dealt with the case was the subject of an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. You also made an application to the High Court for judicial review.
It seems to me that you have exhausted the legal processes and yet continue to be dissatisfied. I'm afraid that there is nothing further I can do to assist you.
Yours sincerely
President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the President of Employment Tribunals Service
Eileen Chubb
20th August 2003
Dear Sir
In response to your judgment dated 19th August 2003, I will deal with each of the conclusions you have reached in your one and a half paragraph judgment as follows:
The evidence that was submitted to you
1 A 140 page condensed evidence document, which contained evidence taken directly from that submitted to the Tribunal and which contradicts every finding of fact in this Tribunal verdict. This document also contains full details of every step we have taken to seek a remedy.
2 The letters dated 1st July, 9th July and August 7th , sent to the Lord Chancellor which give full and detailed accounts of our concerns.
3 The full jurisdiction lists of an Employment Tribunal, which state that an Employment Tribunal can only judge detriment under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 98 and can not judge disclosures, which are criminal and therefore beyond its jurisdiction.
4 Official confirmation from the Employment Tribunal Service that the Employment Appeal Tribunal has no jurisdiction to judge Public Interest Disclosure cases.
5 Official letters confirming that we were illegally denied the right to appeal as we had five days to enter an appeal from the date of the E.A.T judgment, we did not receive this judgment until three weeks after that date expired. (The High Court judgment upheld this fact).
6 My letter to your office dated August 12th 2003 which consists of the following short paragraph:
“Dear sir, our case has been recently referred to you via the E.T.S, in order to proceed in dealing with this matter you will require the evidence and judgments from the relevant court, I enclose the details and reference numbers from the Royal Courts of Justice”.
The evidence you judged in order to reach your conclusions:
my letter to you dated 12th August, 2003
I quote from your above dated judgment in relation to our case “I refer to your letter of August 12 th 2003, regarding the hearing that took place before the Ashford Tribunal”
The very fact that the only evidence you examined was this one short letter which makes no reference whatsoever to the Ashford Tribunal or any of the concerns we wish investigated is of course entirely consistent with the allegedly legal remedies we have received to date.
The time in which you reached your conclusions
I refer to the attached letter addressed to me from the Employment Tribunal Service which is dated August 7 th 03, and which states “I am sending your letter and document submission to Judge Meeran, the president of Employment Tribunals”. This confirms that you received the above sometime after August 7 th , I would also refer you to my letter dated 18th August 2003, in which I confirm my telephone call to your office on the same date, was told by your assistant that you have not yet looked at our case and requested you begin your investigation as soon as possible yet your judgment is dated one day later and therefore I must point out that it would be impossible to read all the documentation and carry out a thorough investigation within this time.
Summary
You have given a judgment that has not addressed any of the concerns raised as you have not examined any the documentation as to what these concerns are.
You have failed to read any of the evidenced submitted that upholds these concerns in less than a day.
I think it might be helpful if I state what I expect from an investigation.
That each separate concern that has been raised is addressed in full.
That all evidence is submitted is considered and addressed.
That if any evidence is discounted, then a full explanation as to why is given.
I refer this case back to The Lord Chancellors Department and in the meantime request that I am forwarded a full and complete list of your jurisdiction in the following areas.
Your jurisdiction to judge criminal evidence in relation to The Public Interest Disclosure Act 98.
Your jurisdiction to judge a perverse verdict in relation to The Public Interest Disclosure Act 98.
Your jurisdiction to investigate bias and misconduct of an Employment Tribunal chairman appointed by The Lord Chancellor.
Your jurisdiction in relation to articles 6, , 10, and 14 of The Human Rights Act.
I would also like to know who appointed you and who you are answerable to?
Finally, in relation to the final paragraph of your Judgment, there are many words that could describe the four years of hell we have suffered because we spoke out against the abuse of vulnerable elderly people, I can assure you that the word “dissatisfied” is not among them.
Eileen Chubb
On behalf of The BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment Tribunals Service
21 st August 2003
Dear Ms Chubb
I am pleased that His Honour Judge Meeren has answered the earlier submission although I realise that you will be disappointed with the reply.
I wish to confirm that your complaint concerning the judicial matters you have raised should now be referred to the Department of Constitutional Affairs (formerly the Lord Chancellor's Department) at the following address:
I am sorry that I cannot be of any direct help, however, I hope the above information will be some assistance.
Tyrieana Long
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Lord Falconer
22 nd August 2003
After being sent back and forth between your department and The D.T.I, I now refer this case back to your Department. I enclose the result of yet another Employment Tribunal Judge acting beyond his jurisdiction and my response to this judge.
I expect a full inquiry into the concerns I have raised and will supply further and better particulars of what will be expected from such an enquiry.
Eileen Chubb
On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 nd August 2003
Thank you for forwarding me a copy of the correspondence that you, and Ms Chubb have recently had with Judge Meeran, the President of the Employment Tribunals Service.
I have written to Judge Meeran asking him to give careful consideration to the points that you make in your letters.
Eric Forth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 th September 2003
Dear Ms Chubb
The contents of your letters have been noted and placed on file and we will address your concerns in our response to your MP, Mrs Jacqui Lait, in accordance with departmental procedures.
Miss M Young
Judicial Correspondence Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
Eileen Chubb
11 th September 2003
With regard to future correspondence being sent via my M.P. Jacqui Lait, I totally object to this proposal for two reasons, firstly because I am the authorised representative of The BUPA Seven, and as such you should correspond directly to me. The second reason for my objection is the fact that Jacqui Lait, is not and never has been my M.P.
Eileen Chubb
On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
12 th September 2003
I can confirm that we have all your correspondence on file relating to your complaint about Mr Zuke, the Ashford Tribunal Decision and letters and enclosures dated 9 July, 7 August, 22 August and 2 September, in relation to your complaint on behalf of the BUPA 7.
Miss M Young
Judicial Correspondence Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judicial Correspondence Unit
Eileen Chubb
13 th September 2003
Dear Miss Young,
Thank you for your letter of September 12 th 2003 and for confirming that you have the full documentation in support of our complaint.
However, I am at a loss as to why Jacqui Lait M.P. would forward me correspondence from The Lord Chancellor, my own M.P. John Horam has raised concerns on my behalf with The Lord Chancellor and as such you should respond to him. I still object to the fact that you cannot respond to me directly in the course of your official investigations, as I would have thought it would have been helpful given that I have presented the evidence as such would be in a better position to respond to any queries you may have.
Eileen Chubb
On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Constitutional Affairs
18 th September 2003
Dear Ms Chubb
Thank you for you letter dated 13 September 2003, in which you reiterate your concern that we would deal directly with Mrs Jacqui Lait MP and not yourself.
Please accept my apologies for my letter of 12 th September as the information contained therein was incorrect. As I am sure you are aware, we have received a number of letters from a number of MPs regarding BUPA and your name was registered as one of Jacqui Lait MP's constituents in error. We have now amended our records and I will address your concerns below.
I am sorry that the letter from Court Service implied that the DTI could investigate your complaint. However, this was addressed in the DTI's letter of 8 November and I can add nothing further.
The Department of Constitutional Affairs is responsible for the judiciary. However, we can only investigate matters of “personal conduct” and not judicial decision or the way a case was handled. The Lord Chancellor believes that there is a distinction between the judicial conduct and the personal behaviour of the Judge. The public expects Judges to maintain at all times proper standards of courtesy and consideration and the Lord Chancellor and his predecessors have, with the support of the senior judiciary, sought to exercise some personal (as opposed to official) authority over the personal behaviour of Judges, should their personal behaviour warrant it.
The independence of the judiciary from the Government means that such matters can only be reviewed by a higher court, by way of an appeal. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor does not offer an alternative avenue of appeal in those cases where it is felt by one of the parties that something has gone wrong. Questions about the merits of a case, about the evidence that was offered, about the interpretation of that evidence, or about the decisions that have been made are not questions on which he can take a view, or which he will consider. For these reasons we do not investigate individual cases and would be unable to instigate an official inquiry on your behalf.
Miss M Young
Judicial Correspondence Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Miss M Young
Eileen Chubb
The Department of Constitutional Affairs
20 th September 2003
Dear Miss Young,
With regard to your official response to our concerns, dated September 13 th 2003 and deal with the responses you have given below.
PARAGRAPH 3
You have stated that it is “my belief that evidence has been suppressed” this is neither my belief or opinion but a fact that is fully upheld by the evidence, evidence that you confirm receipt of in your letter of, September 12 th 2003. Yet this evidence has been neither addressed nor even referred to in your conclusions.
You have also made reference to the fact that a large number of M.Ps have been asked by their constituents to write to Lord Falconer, I presume that you must therefore be aware that the evidence document, which you have chosen to ignore completely, has been published and made available to the public. In view of this fact I would ask you to consider the wisdom of ignoring a document that upholds our concerns in full.
PARAGRAPH 4
You refer to a letter dated 8 th November 2001, you confirmed that you were fully aware two years ago that our case was not the responsibility of the D.T.I. Why then did you refer our case again to the D.T.I on the 7 th July 2003?
PARAGRAPH 5
You state that “The Lord Chancellor believes there is a distinction between the judicial conduct and the personal behaviour of judge”.
As you have all the documentation in relation to the evidence suppressed by the Ashford Tribunal you are therefore fully aware that the evidence included qualifying disclosures under The Public Interest Disclosure Act, that showed criminal offences had been committed, were being committed and were likely to continue to be committed, and that there was a deliberate cover-up, which amounted to perverting the course of justice, those disclosures were made to and acknowledged by, The Prime Minister, Mr Blair and The Secretary of State for Health, Mr Dobson and Mr Milburn.
As the Lord Chancellor is a personal friend of Tony Blair, you will understand if I set little store by his personal opinions in the circumstances.
PARAGRAPH 6
You state that The Lord Chancellor has no power to intervene on Judicial matters, you must be fully aware that there are numerous documented occasions when The Lord Chancellor has done just that, in reality The Lord Chancellor can intervene on judicial matters but only when it suits him or the government of the day.
SUMMERY
We have also submitted to you clear evidence to uphold that we have been denied a fair hearing or legal remedy.
You have failed to investigate or address our concerns and state that our legal remedy is to be found in a Court of law. As it is now clear that this case is not under the jurisdiction of The Employment Tribunal system or The High Court, please inform us which Court in England has jurisdiction to hear our case.
Eileen Chubb
On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Constitutional Affairs
24 th September 2003
Dear Ms Chubb
Thank you for your letter of 20 th September 2003. You have questioned several aspects of the response, contained in our letter of 18 th September, to your letter of 13 th September. I shall address these here, using the paragraph numbers to which you have referred.
I believe that we have addressed the matter of reference to the DTI and note that both they and the Court Service have apologised for the misunderstanding. It is unclear what it is you wish us to say in addition. We too are sorry for the mix-up occurred.
As explained in paragraph 3 above, we have acknowledged the strength of your conviction that criminal offences, namely, a deliberate cover-up and a perversion of the course of justice, have occurred, and that we do not seek to argue the point with you. We reserve the right only to point out why it is that the Lord Chancellor cannot intervene in the way that you would wish.
We note your summary of the evidence that you say proves that you have been denied a fair hearing or legal remedy, and your dissatisfaction with the handling of your complaint. With reference to your question as to which Court has jurisdiction to hear your case I can only repeat the suggestion that you seek independent legal advice on this and on the basis on which you might make an appeal.
Henry Hochfelder
Judicial Correspondence Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Hochfelder
Eileen Chubb
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
25 th September 2003
Dear Mr Hochfelder
The numerous legal opinion and advice we have sought have agreed the following facts:
The Ashford Employment Tribunal have suppressed evidence to the extent that the verdict they reached is perverse in both fact and law, as the evidence before the Tribunal contradicts every conclusion.
That in a case where the verdict is so perverse, the only remedy would be a total re-examination of all the evidence.
That there is no Court presently available with jurisdiction to re-examine all the evidence and therefore there is no legal remedy in existence.
I have not asked that The Lord Chancellor, in person, carry out this investigation, in fact I have made it quite clear that I consider the Lord Chancellor's political alliances to be in conflict with the interests of justice. What I will continue to request is that The Lord Chancellor accepts that this case warrants a full, independent and formal inquiry and refers this case for such.
If you cannot accept the fact that we have been denied legal remedy, then I ask you again to name the Court of legal remedy, I look forward to hearing from you.
Eileen Chubb
On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
29 th September 2003
Dear Ms Chubb
Given our previous replies in this matter, we can do no more now than place your letter on file.
Yours Sincerely
Henry Hochfelder
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Henry Hochfelder
Eileen Chubb
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
30 th September 2003
Dear Mr Hochfelder
Yours Sincerely
Eileen Chubb
On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
1 st October 2003
Your letter has been placed with all previous correspondence on file.
Yours Sincerely
Henry Hochfelder
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
Eileen Chubb
7 th October 2003
Dear Mr Hochfelder
In response to your letter of October 1 st 03, which I have just received.
You state you contest the route by which I seek to resolve the concerns that I have raised, that route being your Department.
If an alternative route exists in the form of a legal remedy, then again I ask you to either name that remedy or acknowledge that none exists.
Yours Sincerely
Eileen Chubb
On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
8 th October 2003
Dear Ms Chubb
I regret that we are unable to advise you, what, if any, legal remedy may be open to you, and can only suggest that you seek the services of a solicitor.
Henry Hochfelder
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
Eileen Chubb
9 th October 2003
You say in your letter that you are unable to inform us if any legal remedy , in fact does exist and you again suggest that we seek the services of a solicitor. I stress to point out that I have already addressed this point in my letter of September 25 th 2003.
The fact that The Department for Constitutional affairs, Justice and Rights is unaware of what legal remedies are available to uphold the right to Justice is of course cause for concern, but what concerns me the most is that the full facts of our case can be brought to your attention without any action being taken to address what is clearly a case that highlights serious failings in the legal system.
As it would appear that your Department is unable to deal with our rights to justice could you please inform me which Government department has responsibility for this matter.
Yours Sincerely
Eileen Chubb
On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
13 th October
Dear Mrs Chubb
Thank you for your letter dated 9 th October 2003.
This Department cannot, any more than any other Government Department, provide legal advice on the merits of individual litigation. I can only repeat the suggestion that you seek the services of a solicitor.
Henry Hochfelder
Judicial Correspondence Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Hochfelder
Eileen Chubb
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
14 th October 2003
Dear Mr Hochfelder
This case is not about individual litigation, nor is it about asking a Government Department for legal advice. Furthermore, The Lord Chancellor is fully aware of these facts.
You have been provided with the full details of the concerns I have raised, however, you have not only refused to address of investigate this matter, but have also deflected from the true issues at every opportunity.
This stance you have taken is not only unfortunate but ultimately futile. I can assure you that I have the right to raise these matters with The Lord Chancellor and have my concerns addressed, I am fully aware of the other cases that have been brought to The Lord Chancellor's attention regarding the failings of The Employment Tribunal System, therefore, inaction when there is prior knowledge would not seem to be an advisable stance to take in the circumstances.
Yours Sincerely
Eileen Chubb
On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr H Hochfelder
Eileen Chubb
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
15 th October 2003
Dear Mr Hochfelder
I enclose a copy of a letter dated October 8 th 2003 from Patricia Hewitt at The DTI despite stating you that you were fully aware in 2001, that our case was not the responsibility of the DTI.
Your response to my concerns is contained in your letter to me dated, September 24 th 2003, in which you state:
“I believe that we have addressed the matter of reference to The DTI and note that both they and The Court Service have apologized for the misunderstanding. It is unclear what you wish us to say in addition. We too are sorry that the mix-up occurred.”
I find it inconceivable that you can apologise for the two years of passing the buck, that resulted in The Department who was responsible for investigating our concerns, namely your Department, taking no action what so ever and then within weeks of this apology you send our case back to The DTI yet again.
The treatment we have received up to date can be described as nothing other than a disgraceful cover-up, there is also the matter of the MPs who have been misled. The saddest thing of all? That doing the right thing could be met with such contempt.
Eileen Chubb
On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
15 th October 2003
Dear Ms Chubb
This has been noted and placed on file.
Henry Hochfelder
Judicial Correspondence Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
16 th October
Dear Ms Chubb
This has been noted and placed on file.
Henry Hochfelder
Judicial Correspondence Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Right Hon. Lord Falconer
Eileen Chubb
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
16 th October 2003
As you aware of the applicants in this case, The BUPA Seven, were forced to resign after making protected disclosures about the abuse and torture of defenseless elderly people in the care home where they worked. The spent two years in The Employment Tribunal System and despite the continual delay and denial tactics which were used (Known as starvation tactics in legal circles) We received a verdict in July 01.
The (Start decisis) How the law applies to a particular set of facts, means that similar facts in later cases have to be treated in the same ways. This (Ratio decidendi) is the binding precedent, that which makes law. Throughout the two year ordeal the applicants were told to trust in the law, listed below is a summary of this law, which is taken from The Tribunal verdict.
Of course, you are fully aware of all these facts as you have the evidence that upholds them in full, but I thought it maybe helpful if I summarized these facts that are “The Law” before asking you again to reconsider your response to date, that response being that nothing was wrong.
This is The Law that protected The BUPA Seven and will protect those who come after them
This is The Law that you, The Lord Chancellor, hold to be fair and just.
This is The Law that protects the vulnerable and defenseless, whose lives may depend on someone Blowing The Whistle.
This is The Law that tells whistleblowers, “You should look the other way and do nothing”.
We have stood along against the might of a multi-billion pound company, and the only people who have lifted a finger to help us have been the British media.
We will continue to seek justice not only for ourselves but for those we sought to protect, if right and truth are to prevail then it will be in spite of the law.
Eileen Chubb
On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
27 th October 2003
Dear Ms Chubb
This has been placed on file
Yours Sincerely
Henry Hochfelder
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Horam MP
Dear Ms Chubb
I have not yet received a response to my second letter to Lord Falconer and I will pursue him again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor The Right Honorable Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The Right Hon, Eric Forth MP
9 th November 2003
She believes that an official inquiry should be held in order to protect the rights of those that wish to expose injustice.
On the basis of the information Ms has provided, her complaint appears to be solely about the judicial decision and how these proceedings were handled. There is no suggestion of any bias.
Yours
The Right Hon. Lord Falconer From The BUPA Seven
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
Selbourne House
28 th November 2003
Dear Lord Falconer
We suggest you now read “what you have noted and placed on file”
Eileen Chubb
For and On behalf of the BUPA Seven..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Lord Falconer
Eileen Chubb
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
15 th December 2003
Dear Lord Falconer
I have been forwarded copies of your correspondence with a number a MPs who have raised concerns with you, the letters you have sent to these MPs are all identical with the exception of one, your letter to the Rt Hon Eric Forth MP, of the 9 th November, which states the following:
“There is no suggestion of any Bias, only that the outcome was not what she would have wished, in these circumstances there is no further action I can take.”
I find it quite incredible that you could make the above statement in view of the fact that not only has the issue of Bias been raised with you repeatedly in my correspondence, but that clear evidence to uphold this fact has also been submitted to you, including for example all the paperwork relating to our appeals to the E.A.T and High Court which were lodged formally on the grounds of Bias and Misconduct. As you are in possession of this evidence I can only conclude that your above letter to Mr Forth is the result of either complacency or dishonesty, and as you state in your above letter that you would have taken action had Bias been an issue I can presume that if complacency is the explanation you will now take the relevant action of granting a public inquiry.
The other main issue that I have raised in detail repeatedly with you is the fact that The Public Interest Disclosure Act is flawed and failing to protect Whistle-Blowers, I will not waste your time by listing again the full and detailed concerns you have already been forwarded, however, I enclose for your information a recent letter sent to The Rt Hon Eric Forth MP, from The Minister of Health, John Hutton, which states on page two:
“It is not a Tribunals remit to investigate any wrongdoing which is alleged to have take place.”
As you are fully aware of the concerns I raised with you which include for example that an Employment Tribunal has no legal jurisdiction to judge the criminal disclosures that we made nor the criminal assaults we were subjected to as a result, I would ask why you continue to ignore these concerns in light of your fellow minister's statement?
Finally, I would ask you to note that until such time that the case of The BUPA Seven is rectified that I will continue to knock on your door as the issues involved are too important to ignore. If you continue to take the stance you have to date then I can only offer you one piece of advice, know well what it is you defend for I promise that you will have to defend it in the face of gathering public support.
Eileen Chubb
For and On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor The Right Honorable Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The Right Hon. Eric Forth MP
4 th January 2004
Thank you for your letter of 20 th November 2003 and enclosure on behalf of your constituent, Ms Hook, who repeats her concerns about the judgment of an Employment Tribunal, involved in her case against BUPA. She says that I failed to mention the issue of bias although I was aware of her group's allegations. You go on to ask that I re-examine her claims about the court's treatment of her to ensure that she has been dealt with fairly.
While I acknowledge Ms Hook's disappointment to my response there is no suggestion of bias in this case, only that the outcome was not what she would have wished or expected. Ms Hook has concluded bias was at the root of the Tribunal's judgment, but is unable to substantiate her claim.
Yours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the Rt Hon Eric Forth MP
Eileen Chubb
12 th January 2004
Dear Mr Forth
I have been asked to write to you direct by your constituent Karen Hook, regarding the stance taken by Lord Falconer in his most recent letter to you.
Lord Falconer states in his letter to you of January 4 th 2004, that “There is no suggestion of bias in this case” and then goes on to state that “Ms Hook has concluded that bias was at the root of The Tribunals judgment but is unable to substantiate her claim”. IN July 2003 we forwarded to Lord Falconer a 140 page document containing copies of all the evidence in support of the issue of bias, this document contained copies of all the original evidence presented to The Tribunal, this evidence directly contradicts every finding of fact stated in subsequent Tribunal verdict.
The above document proves beyond doubt that this Tribunal has suppressed over three hundred separate pieces of independent evidence which include documents such as resident's medical records, the Social Services inquiry report that upheld the residents were being abused, the statements of witness' who gave evidence to the Tribunal such as the Social Services inspectors that we were telling the truth about the abuse of residents and who also gave evidence that they witnessed the harassment we were subjected to as a result, the official statements of twenty other people who witnessed abuse in this home.
Despite Lord Falconer being fully aware of the above he continues to maintain that the suppression of such evidence by a Tribunal in order to arrive at a verdict that is so perversely in favour of BUPA, the defendants, that it has not simply discounted evidence to the contrary but simply not referred to the existence of this evidence at all. In the circumstances, Lord Falconer's response to you quite simply beggars belief.
Lord Falconer then goes on to state that these issues are a matter for the higher court and completely ignores the full and detailed concerns we have repeatedly raised with him, that The Public Interest Disclosure Act is flawed and failing to protect whistleblowers. That Lord Falconer is full aware of these issues is a fact that is upheld by the numerous correspondence he has received, which includes the official jurisdiction lists of Employment Tribunals Service and the only legal remedy open to us, The Employment Appeals Tribunal, who have no jurisdiction to hear our case. Furthermore, when repeatedly asked which court of law did have jurisdiction Lord Falconer was unable to inform us of the existence of any such court. All the concerns raised with regard to lack of legal protection have been completely ignored. I enclose for your information the most recent press cuttings on our case, which Lord Falconer is already in possession of, these include John Horam MP calling for a public inquiry into our case and an article about a BBC radio four programme, which concluded our concerns were genuine and this was corroborated by a top employment barrister.
I also enclose for your information copies of letters from many of the biggest unions, as you will see, they have also endorsed our concerns and give their full support for a public inquiry, we have the support of pensioner's unions also and have been asked to speak publicly about our case at venues all over England . Lord Falconer is fully aware that the support for our cause grows by the day and yet he continues to deny that our concerns are genuine. Furthermore, his conduct in this matter to date only adds to the evidence in favour of a public inquiry.
The law has to be accountable and open if a fair and just legal system is ever to be achieved, those that act in the name of the law have to be held accountable for their actions, the only judge ever removed from office by a Lord Chancellor was in 1763, what other profession could lay claim to immunity from scrutiny? The Ashford Employment Tribunal acted outside the law and the law in question has failed, yet Lord Falconer continues to defend the indefensible and I can only ask why he has gone to such lengths to do so?
I also enclose for your information, copies of correspondence with, The Department for Health and The Deputy Prime Minister.
I hope this is of assistance and we will continue to forward all correspondence.
Eileen Chubb
For and On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
13 th January 2004
Dear Ms Chubb
Thank you for you letter of 15 th December 2003 in which you reiterate your concerns about the decision of a Tribunal panel.
While I acknowledge your disappointment with the responses you have received from officials in this Department and the Lord Chancellor, it remains the case that whatever your suspicions of bias, your concerns are about the Tribunals decision. As you are already aware, The Lord Chancellor cannot and will not comment on or intervene in decisions made by the judiciary. The only remedy for someone who believes that a judge has made the wrong assessment or believes that a judge was biased is to make a legal challenge on appeal.
Judicial Correspondence Unit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miss M Young
Eileen Chubb
15 th January 2004
Dear Miss Young
Lord Falconer has already responded directly to one of our MPs with regard to my above letter, in short, Lord Falconer has been consistent in his inconsistencies and when asked why he denied the issue of bias was ever raised with him, he has changed tack and said no evidence of bias was submitted with our complaint. However, I am sure that on consulting your records that you will find that you personally confirmed receipt of the above evidence.
I am forwarding a copy of this letter to Lord Falconer with my full assurances that whilst he may be trying my patience in the extreme, this is having no impact what so ever on my levels of determination.
Eileen Chubb
For and On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor The Right Honorable Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The Rt Hon Eric Forth MP
26 th January 2004
Thank you for your letter dated 17 th December 2003 and enclosures, in which you reiterate the concerns of your constituent, Ms Hook, and those of her associate Eileen Chubb, about the decisions of a Tribunal Panel. They ask whether the framework for whistleblowers is now right and suggest that the Public Disclosure Act of 1998 be looked at , as they believe that it did not work in the case of the BUPA Seven.
While I acknowledge Ms Hook and Mrs Chubb's suspicions of bias, I am bound to re-state that the concerns raised are about the Tribunal's decision, which, as you are aware, can only be challenged by way of an appeal. It is not possible for a public enquiry to review or overturn a decision of the courts. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Tribunal decision in question.
Yours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To The Rt Hon Eric Forth MP
Eileen Chubb
3 rd February 2004
Dear Mr Forth
Your constituent Karen Hook has asked that I respond on her behalf in response to Lord Falconers letter to you of the 26 th January 2004, I also thought it would be helpful if I enclosed a set of all correspondence with Lord Falconer to date for your ease of reference.
Firstly, I will address the issue of The DTI (Please see pages 5 and 6) which is a letter to Lord Falconer dated 9 th July 2003, this letter sets out in detail why our case is not the responsibility of the DTI.
(Please also see pages 8 and 30) These are letters from a senior official at The Employment Tribunal Service and clearly state that the issues in question are a judicial and not an employment matter and are therefore the responsibility of The Department for Constitutional Affairs.
(Please see pages 42 to 47) which are letters from The Department for Constitutional Affairs formally apologizing for referring our case to The DTI when it was not their responsibility.
(Please see pages 58, 60) these letters deal with our case being referred back to The DTI yet again, despite the above apologies and official confirmation that it was not The DTI's responsibility and asks why MPs have been given misleading information.
Therefore, Lord Falconer's most recent letter to you is entirely consistent with the buck passing strategy he has adopted to date with one exception, this time he has given us both the same information, however, this does not excuse his past conduct, furthermore, this is compounded by his current actions in referring our case to The DTI whilst being fully aware of the above facts.
In response to Lord Falconer's statement that we should appeal to a higher court, (Please see pages 26, 27, 28 and 38). This Correspondence deals with the requests made to The President of Employment Tribunals for a list of their jurisdiction to deal with our case, no such list has even been forthcoming which is hardly surprising as they have no jurisdiction in the matter.
(Please see pages 44 to 54) This correspondence deals with Lord Falconer's consistent stance that we had access to a legal remedy, please note that despite repeatedly being asked to name that legal remedy he was unable to do so which is hardly surprising when it is considered no such remedy exists.
With regard to The Tribunal verdict, (Please see pages 72 to 73) which deals with the fact that over three hundred pieces of independent evidence was omitted from the Tribunal verdict without explanation, however, despite Lord Falconer being provided with the document that contains all the evidence missing from his verdict, he concludes there is no evidence missing and what is even more extraordinary, he bases his conclusion on the very document that is missing from in the first place, furthermore, he adds insult to injury by providing you and I with a copy of the verdict also.
With regard to Lord Falconer's assertion that he has no power to investigate a complaint on the conduct of a Tribunal Chairman, after a recent documentary highlighting the conduct of Judges acting in their judicial capacity, Lord Falconer released a list of judges who had been disciplined to Channel Four News, I think it would be helpful if Lord Falconer clarified this matter further as it seems he can only discipline judges when it suits, and I think he should provide us with a copy of this list and a full list of all The Employment Tribunal Chairmen he has disciplined in the last five years. I also think it would be helpful if we also had a copy of the official complaints procedure and a copy of this Departments remit and responsibility.
With regard to the flaws in The Public Interest Disclosure Act, Lord Falconer is fully aware of our concerns as they are detailed throughout my correspondence with him. I would, however, point out to Lord Falconer that a recent legal judgment states that protected disclosures now require a higher burden of proof than that currently required in the above act or indeed then that which is currently required to convict for murder. This judgment also contradicts this act by stating that the identity of a person who has made protected disclosures to the media may be made public and also that the requirements in relation to an employer's duty of care are now much lower if the employment contracts contain a confidentiality clause, whistleblowers can now also be critisised for breeching that clause, I would ask Lord Falconer if he still stands by The Public Interest Disclosure Act of is the recent Judgment of Lord Hutton incorrect?
I have consistently responded to and addressed every single obstacle excuse that Lord Falconer has come up with to date and yet he continues to defend the indefensible. We have raised genuine concerns and yet at no time have these concerns been addressed, I know you have asked The Prime Minister which Department has or is going to take responsibility, indeed as you know I have even written to The Deputy Prime Minister, who thought the questions of law we raised were the remit of The Health Department, he then apologized and sent it to The DTI I can only presume we will be referred to The Department for Agriculture and Fisheries before long.
As you know, Lord Falconer's conduct throughout has caused us serious concern, he has shown a total disregard that our case has raised extremely serious questions regarding the protection of whistleblowers and the laws endorsement of elder abuse. You are a politician and are probably used to being lied to, however, I am a member of the public and would expect Lord Falconer's morals, given his position as Lord Chancellor ought to be unquestionable.
Eileen Chubb
For and on the behalf of the BUPA Seven
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Trade and Industry
20 th February 2003
Dear Mrs Chubb
Should a party wish to pursue his or her concerns further, he or she should contact the Department for Constitutional Affairs as it has responsibility for dealing with issues relating to judiciary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Eve Thompson
Eileen Chubb
The Department of Trade and Industry
23 rd February 2004
Dear Ms Thompson
You state that your Department has responsibility for policy on Employment Tribunal proceedings, I would however, draw your attention to the fact that our case has shown up serious failings the protection whistleblowers are afforded through The Public Interest Disclosure Act, to give just one example of this failure, Employment Tribunals have no jurisdiction to hear and judge criminal evidence.
You state that if I wish to pursue my concerns that I can write to The Department for Constitutional Affairs as this Department has responsibility for dealing with judicial matters, I am in full agreement with you but Lord Falconer believes that matters such as the right to a fair hearing and legal remedies are not questions of law but questions for trade and industry.
In the circumstances, I would ask you that you provide me with a copy of your Department's remit to deal with disclosures made involving criminal acts, I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Eileen Chubb
For and On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Trade and Industry
27 th February 2004
Mrs Eileen Chubb
Dear Mrs Chubb
Thank you for your letter of 23 rd February in reply to mine of 20 th February regarding your employment tribunal complaint against BUPA.
You suggest that the Public Interest Disclosures Act 1998 is flawed because it does not provide Employment Tribunals Service to hear and judge criminal evidence. It might be helpful if I explain that the Act is an employment protection measure which allows workers to complain to an employment tribunal if they are dismissed or otherwise victimized for responsibly disclosing wrongdoing in the workplace. The tribunal's role therefore, is to decide whether or not the worker was dismissed or subjected to detriment for making such a disclosure and to order such remedy as is considered appropriate to compensate the worker for the loss of their job or for the detriment they suffered. The Government has no plans to amend the legislation, which is considered to be working well. It was never intended that the purpose of the legislation should be to provide for tribunals to investigate the wrongdoing which is alleged to have take place. Such investigation is the role of the relevant authorities in any particular case- for instance, where criminal activity is alleged to have taken place, the local police force or the Home Office.
Eve Thompson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Eve Thompson
Eileen Chubb
The Department of Trade and Industry
3 rd March 2004
Dear Ms Thompson
Thank you for you letter of February 27 th 04, which has indeed clarified matters and I would be most grateful if you could answer the following questions:
Firstly, I agree with you that it is not an Employment Tribunal's remit to judge disclosures involving criminal evidence under The Public Interest Disclosure Act, I would ask what legal protection is afforded to the whistleblowers in cases where the employer submits to a Tribunal that the disclosures were untrue and therefore not made in good faith.
Secondly, if an employer submits such a defence of total denial, to what degree does the above act allow for the breech of trust that would inevitably arise from such an action?
Thirdly, you state that it is not an Employment Tribunal's remit to give judgment on the disclosures themselves but that it is a matter for the relevant authorities to investigate, in our case the subsequent inquiry by Social Services and an independent Pharmacist's report upheld our allegations, would it therefore be in Tribunal's remit to fully discount this evidence in order to arrive at entirely contradictory conclusions?
Yours Sincerely
Eileen Chubb
For and On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Trade and Industry
10 th March 2004
Dear Ms Chubb
Thank you for you letter of 3 rd March in reply to mine of 27 th February.
The queries you raise in your letter appear to relate to your own individual circumstances. I am afraid that I can only reiterate that we are unable to comment on individual circumstances and if you wish to pursue your enquiries further, you may wish to seek independent legal advice, perhaps from your local Citizen's Advice Bureau or law centre.
Yours Sincerely
Eve Thompson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eve Thompson
Eileen Chubb
The Department of Trade and Industry
11 th March 2004
Dear Ms Thompson
In your previous letter to me dated 20 th February 04, you suggest that if I wish these concerns addressed, that I should write to The Department for Constitutional Affairs as the issues raised fall under their remit, I am well aware of this fact as I have been informed of the same by senior officials at The Employment Tribunal Service and your own Department on no less than thirty occasions, I fully agree that the concerns raised are the responsibility of Lord Falconer, however, Lord Falconer chooses to ignore this fact.
With regard to the other points you have raised in response to my questions on the legal jurisdiction of Employment Tribunals Service to judge criminal matters, I am at a loss as to why you think such issues should be addressed by The Citizens Advice Bureau.
Eileen Chubb
For and On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Right Hon. Lord Falconer Eileen Chubb
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
11 th March 2004
Dear Lord Falconer
Further to my eighty earlier letters, I enclose my recent response to The Department of Trade and Industry for you information.
Firstly, I ask for the following documentation to be forwarded, the remit and responsibilities of both The Department for Constitutional Affairs and the office of Lord Chancellor.
Secondly, I ask for a copy of the complaints procedure as the numerous and detailed complaints I have made previously have been consistently ignored and I therefore need to know if the stance you have taken is one of procedure or just your personal preference.
As you will see from the enclosed letter, we have been advised yet again that the issues we have raised are you Department's responsibility, I am in full agreement though it is extremely unfortunate that I have to raise concerns regarding the law's failure to protect whistleblowers with a Lord Chancellor whose own conduct toward a whistleblower has been called into question.
Eileen Chubb
For and On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
22 nd March 2004
Dear Ms Chubb
Please find enclosed a copy of the Judicial Complaints Protocol, as requested.
HJR Hochfelder
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Lord Falconer
I write in response to you letter of 22 nd March 04, and I acknowledge receipt of the enclosed Judicial Complaints Protocol, however, I requested several other documents which have not been provided.
I am unable to comment on the final position you have taken in your letter to John Horam MP of January 26 th 2004, not only because you have consistently changed your position from the outset but due to the fact the letter you refer to has either not been posted or has never been written, perhaps you can provide me with a copy as I would be, of course, interested to know what your latest position is in this matter.
Eileen Chubb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
1 st April 2004
The Lord Chancellor's position in this matter is unambiguous and final. Accordingly, I regret that officials here are unable to be of further assistance to you.
Yours Sincerely
Henry Hochfelder
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lord Falconer
Eileen Chubb
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
16 th May 2004
I make repeated requests for a copy of your department's remit and responsibilities, finally I receive a response that no such document exists and am provided with pages from your website, your last annual budget was three billion pounds and yet you cannot list your responsibilities.
So I am supplied with a complaints procedure you can't use to complain and a mission statement totaling thirty words, which states your aim is “to provide accessible and effective justice for all”, although it is quite clear following our correspondence and your reply's the exception is, when true justice would bring disrepute on Government Ministers and Judiciary itself.
Yours Sincerely
Eileen Chubb
On behalf of the BUPA Seven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Hochfelder
Eileen Chubb
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
21 st May 2003
Dear Mr Hochfelder
In response to your updated letter received today, I address each of your comments separately:
You state that “I have been in continual contact with your Department since August 2000, complaining about the Tribunal verdict”
Response, part of what you describe as my unreasonable complaint is that the detailed evidence bundle submitted in support of our complaint has neither been examined nor addressed, your department fully deny this and yet had this evidence been examined then you would be aware that we did not receive the Tribunal verdict until July 2001.
You state that “I have caused your Department to expend considerable resources”
Response, I find this statement incredible given the fact that you have a three billion pound budget and no responsibilities. I can only recommend that you take on extra staff to cope with the major inconvenience that has been caused by the injustice of our case.
You state “Lord Falconer himself has even answered the multiplicity of correspondence from members of parliament”
Response, you have neglected to mention that Lord Falconer gave differing responses ranging from the inept to the downright untruthful, however each excuse for failing to act has been addressed in full.
You state “We have told you again and again that Lord Falconer cannot intervene on judicial matters”
Response, I have told you again and again that I do not want Lord Falconer to intervene only acknowledge that the issues raised warrant an independent inquiry and grant that which is within his power.
You state “We have also complained about the proceedings of our case in The Employment Appeal Tribunal”
Response, again even a cursory examination of the evidence that upholds our concerns would have resulted in you being aware of the fact that our case has never had proceedings in The Employment Appeal Tribunal, due to the fact that this court has no jurisdiction to hear our case, this fact maybe of no consequence to you but I assure you the right to legal remedy is at the centre of all the recognized laws of justice and if Lord Falconer has decided to re-write these laws then we should be given a copy of his policy, failing that, acknowledgement that we have been denied a fundamental right.
You state “I have recently turned my attention to complaining about the way my complaint has been handled, constantly requesting data and statistics”
Response, given the fact that none of the concerns raised have ever been addressed nor the evidence that upholds them in full even examined and that I have made this clear in all my correspondence from the outset, I can only suggest that you read the correspondence which clearly details this. The date and statistics you say I constantly requested gives the impression that I have asked for numerous documents, I have asked you for three documents and had to repeat the request on numerous occasions, you also give the impression that the documents I requested were of no importance, this is also clearly untrue.
SUMMERY
I quote from your website “Our aim is embed basic rights, which need to be seen not only as guarantees of basic fairness and a proper relationship between the citizen and the state, rights do not exist in a vacuum and require a sense of personal responsibility and respect for the rights of others as well as entitlement”.
I agree that the law should work both ways in that we should abide by the law and the law will abide by us, fine words, but the reality is a brick wall of denial, it is small wonder people are driven to climbing buildings dressed as Batman and Robin. However, I abide by the law and will not be deterred from ensuring Lord Falconer does no less, which the “no comment” course of action you intend to pursue hardly fulfils by any stretch of the imagination.
Eileen Chubb
On behalf of the BUPA Seven..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Downing Street
From the Direct Communications Unit
8 th July 2004
Ms Eileen Chubb
Dear Ms Chubb
I am writing on the Prime Minister's behalf in reply to your letter 26 June and I am sorry that you are unhappy with the Department's response.
As you letter was referred to the Department for Constitutional Affairs I have passed this further letter to them and asked them to ensure a reply is sent to you as soon as possible. Meanwhile, if you wish to contact the department direct you should write to the following address: Selbourne House, 54-60 Victoria Street , London SW1E 6QW .
Yours Sincerely
John O'Connell
