Denial of human right to fair trial

The request was refused by Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Dear Equality and Human Rights Commission,

I made a request under the freedom of information of information act which was referred to your commission. I think that is a very good illustration of what I am aiming to tackle. It is my experience that public bodies do not deal with members of the public in an open and honest fashion in order to avoid having to respond to matters they raise. The result is that they are being denied their human rights to a fair trial or hearing of their complaints.

It is a very simple matter for a question raised by a member of the public to become distorted by the handling of it by those charged with the responsibility to do so.

For instance I asked George Holingbery (GH) MP for West Meon why the probation service is raising charges to what they call 'beneficiaries' for the work carried out by offenders undergoing punishment under the 'Payback Scheme'which until last year was cost free but an arbitrary charge had been applied to.

I received a long letter from Crispin Blunt via GH which did not address my question but went to great lengths to justify the Payback Scheme and expressed the view that asking for contributions is quite reasonable. I do not agree with that but am deprived of any fair hearing of my complaint.

How can the Equality and Human Rights Commission ensure that Equality and Human Rights exist if Ministers and members of the civil service are free to interpret questions put to them in the most opaque manner they choose as a prelude to evading the question put to them then be free to make any biased decision they wish in dealing with matters raised?

Similarly I made a complaint against a Chief Constable for what I hold to be a dereliction of his duty as a constable in failing to act on a written report I made to him of criminal offences committed by two of his police officers who aided and abetted a group of seven people in the breaking and entry into the home of an innocent man evicting him from it without lawful authority including the theft of some of his property.

The police authority applied to the IPCC for the Chief Constable (CC) to be exonerated from any responsibility for the actions of his officers which was granted.

The Professional Standards Committee of the police force on the order of the CC investigated my complaint and found it to be substantiated.

No investigation of the Crimes has taken place and the police and CPS agreed to take no action on the alleged grounds there was insufficient evidence to justify a prosecution.

I appealed to the IPCC and the appeal was rejected. Both the innocent man and I have been denied any fair trial of our complaints on the biased. Decisions of the Police Authority, IPCC and CPS.

I have more to report on another matter.

May I ask your commission how it is members of the Public are so blatantly being deprived of their human rights by those who are appointed to serve them?

I have reported these matters to HMIC which so far has done nothing to tackle them.

Yours faithfully,

Freddy Crabbe

Freedom of Information, Equality and Human Rights Commission

Thank you for your email to the Equality Human Rights Commission, this
return email shows that we have received your correspondence.

 

The appropriate department will contact you within the next 5 working
days.

 

show quoted sections

Freedom of Information, Equality and Human Rights Commission

1 Attachment

[1]cid:image001.jpg@01CCD5C7.82164ED0

 

Mr Freddy Crabbe

Email: [2][FOI #100854 email]

 

Your Ref: NF090

 

 

19^th January 2012

 

 

Dear Mr Crabbe

 

Subject: Freedom of Information Request

 

Thank you for your email dated 18^th January 2012 to the Equality and
Human Rights Commission in regards to an issue of ‘denial of Human Rights
to a fair trial’.

 

As I explained to you in my response email dated 18^th January 2012 your
request does not fall to be dealt with under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 and this request has also been forwarded to the EHRC Helpline for
consideration.

 

Can I suggest that any issue of this type are directed to the EHRC
Helpline as they are better placed to deal with issue concerning Human
Rights and Equality Legislation. You can contact the EHRC Helpline via
email at: [3][email address]

 

Yours sincerely

 

Markus Piscapore-Caruana

Corporate Communications Officer

 

Corporate Communications Team

Equality and Human Rights Commission

3rd Floor Lancaster House

67 Newhall Street

Birmingham

B3 1NA

 

Email: [4][Equality and Human Rights Commission request email]

 

Tel: 0845 604 6610

Fax: 0845 604 6630

Text Phone: 0845 604 6620

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Equality and Human Rights Commission,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Equality and Human Rights Commission's handling of my FOI request 'Denial of human right to fair trial'.

I believe my FOI request has been dealt with improperly and in the same manner about which I have complained. That is to say it has been quite deliberately diverted from the proper course it should be taking in order to prevent my obtaining the human right I am seeking that is the right to a fair trial of my complaints by an impartial court appointed by law.

I asked a specific question which is

'On what authority does the national offender management service (NOMS) make the payment of a charge (called a contribution) a condition of providing to 'Beneficiaries' or recipients of what should be a free service under the 'Payback Scheme'?

I have asked this question many ways including through the MP of West Meon George Holingbery who received a long winded written reply from the minister Crispin Blunt which did not address it but asserted that NOMS was not wrong to make a request for a 'donation'

That places NOMS in a position which makes it free to make decisions to raise fees against those who formerly used to benefit from the 'Payback Scheme' without there being any right for the public to complain, with the support of the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) which is responsible for the proper administration of justice which is being undermined by the practice about which inter alia I am complaining.

My FOI request has been wrongly refused. Both the MOJ and NOMS were asked the question by me and evaded it.

What is being done is perverting the course of justice by policy decisions made by unaccountable people in the MOJ and NOMS with the support or connivance of the minister who signed a letter drafted for him within those bodies by the very people about whom I am complaining not dealing with the question I raised.

I have found this to be a standard practice making it impossible for members of the public to have a matter they raise as a complaint to be dealt with by any impartial body or court appointed by law. Having an internal complaints procedure simply wastes time and cannot be impartial.

That amounts to institutionalised denial of the human right to a fair trial of any and all complaints made by the public about the conduct of a public servant.

This includes the complaint I made about the conduct of a Chief Constable who did not investigate crimes I reported to him in writing but on the application of the appropriate police authority was granted by the IPCC exemption from any responsibility for the matters I had complained about.

The appropriate Professional Standards Committee of the force found my report substantiated. Despite that no investigation of the crimes I reported was carried out. Instead an agreement was reached between the CPS and Police that insufficient evidence to justify a prosecution existed. Neither the victim nor any witnesses or those who committed the crime were questioned save in an attempt by a retired police officer to ask the victim to withdraw his complaint so it could be registered as having been having been locally settled by agreement which it was not.

Very many public bodies have co-operated acting in collusion to pervert the course of justice which I believe amounts to the institutionalised denial of the human right to a fair trial of complaints made by me and others.

The only exception is the professional standards committee but its report was not acted on nor was my complaint. Even that report was manipulated to make it appear the matter was less serious than it actually is. I appealed to the IPCC which rejected my complaint.

This case has been very damaging to the victim. The perpetrators of the crimes have not only not been dealt with but have profited from them to his disadvantage including from having stolen his valuable personal belongings.

I ask that this matter be accorded the degree of attention it merits. The Chief Constable concerned has not only not been required to answer for what I regard as his dereliction of duty, as a constable, he is now in a more prestigious post than the one he held at the time of these events.

It would not surprise me to learn that many if not all of the records have been destroyed by the Police force concerned.

I have recently drawn these matters to the attention of HMIC which unsurprisingly appears to have taken no action even though more than a month has passed since I did that. In common with my past experience I have found that my request for information about the action taken on my report has received no reply.

I note that the HMIC is staffed by senior people with Police backgrounds so it comes as no surprise to me that there apparently is a reluctance to investigate this matter.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/de...

Yours faithfully,

Freddy Crabbe

Freedom of Information, Equality and Human Rights Commission

Thank you for your email to the Equality Human Rights Commission, this
return email shows that we have received your correspondence.

 

The appropriate department will contact you within the next 5 working
days.

 

show quoted sections

englandhelpline, Equality and Human Rights Commission

Dear Mr Crabbe,

 

Thank you for your emails dated 18 January 2012 to the Equality and Human
Rights Commission. 

 

We have looked at both of your requests again in regards to whether they
should be dealt with under Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA 2000),
and we consider that the issues that you have raised do not fall to be
dealt with under FOIA 2000 as we consider them to be questions and
opinions. For this reason your request has been past to the EHRC
Helpline.  The Helpline’s response is given below:

 

Both of your emails regard the handling of public complaints and the
applicability of article 6.1 of the Human Rights Act (the right to a fair
trial). In your first email you specifically ask if it is in contravention
with this article for a public body to handle a complaint against it.  The
focus of your concern seems to be that, in your experience, “public bodies
do not deal with members of the public in an open and honest fashion in
order to avoid having to respond to matters they raise. The result is that
they are being denied their human rights to a fair trial or hearing of
their complaints.” 

 

Article 6 requires the state to provide fair trials for criminal and civil
legal proceedings. It does not apply to every dispute that a person may
have with a public body; it only applies to those that involve civil
rights and obligations or criminal charges.

 

Article 6 of the Human Rights Act, the right to a fair trial,  requires
the state to provide fair trials for criminal and civil legal proceedings.
A fair trial should take place within a reasonable time, be heard by an
independent and impartial judge or tribunal, be in public (although there
are circumstances when the public can be excluded) and lead to a public
judgment or decision. Administrative decisions, such as those made by the
Government or other public bodies, will not violate Article 6 if there is
a right of review or appeal to a court or tribunal which can deal with the
matter in a way that is compliant with Article 6. To argue for rights
under Article 6, or any other Article, a person must be directly affected.
This is known as the victim test. It means that the person seeking to rely
on Article 6 must be in a situation where a decision is being made about
them personally.

 

Most decisions made by public bodies will be open to a review or appeal.
For example a person who wishes to challenge information provided as a
result of an FOI request can do so via the Information Tribunal.  If there
is no other legal procedure in place an application can be made for
judicial review of the decisions of public bodies. This is a procedure by
which the High Court reviews such decisions to ensure that they have been
reached in a way that is complies with the law. For a person to bring
judicial review proceedings he or she must sufficient interest in the
decision under challenge. This is similar to the victim test under human
rights law.

 

Turning to your question about legal aid: Article 6 does not require that
an individual is given legal aid unless the case is particularly complex.

 

In response to the point you raise in your first email, the Commission has
not undertaken any work on the Pastoral Measure 1983. However, it may be
worth noting that the Human Rights Act applies only to public bodies and
for the purposes of the Act, the Church of England is not considered to be
a public body, so the Act would not apply. Should we decide to take
forward work in this area in the future, we will ensure your views are
taken into account.

 

We hope that this information is useful to you.  If you have any further
enquiries please do not hesitate to contact the Equality and Human Rights
Commission Helpline at Tel 0845 6046610 or Email
[1][email address].

 

Kind regards,

 

England Helpline

 

Equality and Human Rights Commission

 

 

0845 604 6610 - England main number

0845 604 6620 - England textphone

0845 604 6630 - England fax

 

Equality and Human Rights Commission Helpline

Freepost RRLL-GHUX-CTRX

Arndale House

Arndale Centre

Manchester

M4 3AQ

 

[2][email address]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

name removed 23 Oct 2012 (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

This seems to me to be a very curious response.