N.B At this time ALL the parties to the litigation with the exception of the plaintiff himself were aware of the true nature of the illegal mix that triggered the incident and the serving of the writ for negligence leading to permanent ill-health and disability.
5th April 2000
Anne Pinks
Area Manager
Legal Aid Board
Reading
Dear Ms Pinks,
Unfortunately we appear to be re-visiting old ground which makes me even more concerned that Government Legal Aid funds are being misappropriated by certain firms of lawyers.
I am somewhat surprised to find myself in this situation on this occasion, especially because I understand that the senior partner in Hodge Jones and Allen is, or at least was, the Vice-Chairman of the Legal Aid Board with close links to both the Prime Minister and his wife.
However this may also go some way towards explaining my current predicament since there appear to be other connections so far not so well reported.
I received a letter from Antonia Southern who was given the task of forwarding my case by the firm who were given Legal Aid specifically to obtain medical evidence to support the case.
As you will be aware from past correspondence through absolutely no fault of my own this is the third firm of solicitors who have handled my case and all have been specifically instructed to obtain the full medical records from all the hospitals I have visited. They were also instructed from the earliest times to obtain a written statement from the defendants giving firm confirmation of their verbal naming of the chemical involved. To date none of those firms have done so and yet each has claimed considerable payments from the Legal Aid funds for work done on a case which requires this basic evidence if it is to proceed.
In March I faxed the solicitor twice regarding this missing evidence and the threats to close the case based on erroneous points which could be defeated by that evidence. I have raised this issue with them on many occasions. The letters were ignored as usual and so I telephoned and received the promise that if I stood by the phone for 48 hours she would get back to me and we would compare the medical records in my possession with what they had - I obviously have considerably more than my solicitors have managed to get with Legal Aid Funding. I had suggested that since we have evidence that the defendant has more of my own records than I have been allowed to see that they should approach the defendant's representatives but I was told that this could not be done and that the hospital would have destroyed those papers which they had not already obtained. My suggestion that destroying evidence was a criminal act was ignored. The phone call never came.
Yesterday I received a letter telling me that she had approached the Board requesting that my certificate be discharged. That letter was accompanied by papers submitted to the Court which once again are littered with factual errors and false statements accepted as true. I have the evidence to prove what I am reporting to you - as you will be aware from past correspondence.
This is a disgraceful situation. The more so since with further medical opinion supporting my case this firm put in a claim to the Courts for compensation of some £880,000. This was reduced recently to the already proven to be false "offer" of £2,500 invented by the first firm of solicitors.
I suspect that political pressure has been put on the firm to stop the case.
If they succeed then I fear the entire system will be exposed as fraudulent and I would not like to see such damage done to the reputation of the British Legal System upon which we all depend.
You will, I hope, understand why I have brought this matter to your attention.
Yours sincerely,
12th April 2000
Mr Arkless
Legal Aid Board
Reading
Dear Mr Arkless,
Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to put the facts to the Legal Aid Board.
As mentioned in the telephone call this morning my problem appears to be the result of my own solicitors deliberately putting false information before the Courts. I realise the seriousness of such charges and would not put them before the Board if I did not have the evidence to support what I write.
As I reported this morning I contacted the solicitors on the 4th April 2000 requesting that they explain their actions. I heard nothing and phoned them on 7th April to be told that they had two senior members of staff examining the files. On Monday 10th April 2000 I received a fax from the solicitors giving confirmation of that action and thanking me for my patience on the matter.
This enabled me to fax them with details of further breaches of pesticide safety regulations by the defendant's staff which had occurred that very morning. I simply received a further fax identical to the earlier one.
I have serious questions to ask the Legal Aid Board.
Do you have copies of the correspondence between us between 1996 and 1997 which resulted in the reinstatement of my certificate when this happened before?
Do you believe me when I report that I have the evidence required to support what I write?
Are you aware that the DSS decision quoted as evidence against me by Counsel is still awaiting appeal on the grounds that they also falsified the evidence and operated unlawful proceedings at a Tribunal?
Are you aware that the decision of the DSS itself is unlawful since the opinion they expressed regarding the suggestion that symptoms following exposure were of psychological origin was defeated as a reason for dismissing a negligence case by the House of Lords in 1995 (Rylands v Fletcher)
There are too many reasons why this case should proceed to list here but the case requires the honest support of a solicitor who both understands the science ( I am involved deeply with scientists working in this field) and will not continually present to the Court evidence which is known to be false.
If you can recommend any legal firm that can be trusted in this way I would be grateful.
Thank you once again for allowing me to send you this information.
Yours sincerely,
Reply to show cause.
I fear my writing is not very good as the result of my illness.
The following is the printed version of the reasons why the certificate should remain in force.
"My Legal Aid certificate should continue because the initial reasons why the certificate was issued have not yet been fulfilled i.e. obtaining medical evidence as found in the medical records and supporting scientific evidence.
Clearly Counsel was not given the evidence required in order for him to make a correct judgement on the case.
Supporting evidence which I have been able to present has been ignored and yet much is found on official Government documents - including admissions from the defendant.
To discharge this certificate would be to sanction serious negligence in the workplace and in the medical and legal professions and would send a dangerous signal to others involved in this type of litigation.
Furthermore, to discharge at this stage will deny individuals such as myself their right to protection from the actions of negligent employers in the workplace since Legal Aid for such actions has now been withdrawn.
It is some 8 years and 3 months since the incident which left me officially regarded as permanently disabled.
Only lawyers have gained from this action and yet they have failed to obtain basic facts requested in the initial stages.
There is ample evidence to support this case. All that is lacking is the will to proceed and present that evidence in Court.
The reasons why this should be so can only be surmised.
Please see correspondence 1996-1997 plus faxes of 5th and 12th April 2000.
29th July 2000
Ms Anita Rosenak
Legal Services Commission
Southern Region, Reading
Dear Ms Rosinak,
Thank you for your response to my letter of 7th July 2000. I am afraid I have not received the requested breakdown of the calculations used to determine the level of my contributions or any explanation as to how it was claimed that I paid income tax when I have no Income tax code number due to Incapacity benefit payments. Neither have I had an explanation as to how the calculations show disposable income when that disposable income is already accounted for at local level in order to determine means tested housing and council tax benefits. Why did our contributions rise when our financial situation has worsened? As in the past I fear I must ask again for this information.
On the matter of the "Generic" work I am afraid that there seems to be some confusion. In most other cases there is direct action concerning the safety of the chemical which would indeed involve great costs since the chemical companies are prepared to mass a weighty campaign to defend the indefensible. The Government itself has, after all, recognised the dangers we are trying to prove for most of the last century.
My case however involves the exposure to chemical which was stored contrary to the rules set out by MAFF and the chemical companies themselves and this is proven both in the legislation and by admissions.
Furthermore it is recognised by all parties that my current disabled state is time related to the incident(s) in question and there is hard evidence of harm done from a variety of sources.
I suggest that the costs involved in this case have been inflated due to the combination of false denials by the defendants representatives and an inability to understand pesticides, their use and related regulations on the part of those who are supposed to be acting on my behalf. This is compounded by the fact that when I have requested actions I have been informed that the Legal Aid Board would not sanction them which results in further inflated costs and time delays.
However it would seem that the Legal Services Commission has decided that if my case is removed from the group action then they will refuse to allow my case to go forward despite the evidence and the costs already claimed which could be reclaimed by the Board from the defendants.
I am not happy about the Generic costs since people like myself have actually provided much of the scientific evidence which those costs cover either by providing scientific references or our bodies for tests.
In my own case any evidence obtained would not help the group action since the chemical in question was abused and may have actually increased in toxicity as the result of the inappropriate storage.
This brings me to the firms of solicitors. I would have thought that if the Legal Aid Board had wanted successful cases they would have ensured that the work was given to a firm qualified to take on the work and then ensured that qualified personnel controlled the cases. This was certainly not the case at Leigh Day & Co where Alan Care attempted to have the original certificate removed by making false claims about an offer supposedly refused by me but which was never made by the defendant as confirmed by Dawbarns.
Complaints to Martyn Day were ignored and I understand that he too has been rewarded by a position in which he oversees complaints about other solicitors.
From the earliest days I made two requests of all the solicitors involved. The first was to obtain written confirmation from the defendant specifically naming the actual commercial name of the chemical involved so that we did not have to rely on verbal confirmation. The second was to obtain full and complete copies the Medical records which offer proof of the harm done as also recommended by the Health Service Ombudsman.
I wrote to Hodge Jones & Allen when the Dawbarns cases moved to their firm and were then deserted by the staff that I was unsure as to whether the delays were caused by Dawbarns themselves or by pressure upon them from external forces. To date none of the firms can explain the inflated costs for no result.
None of those firms has obtained those essential facts and only this week we received a damaged and opened parcel in the post purporting to be the full records obtained by Hodge Jones & Allen from Guy's Hospital.
On examination I discovered that most were copies of papers which I had sent to the firm myself and included one sheet from another case. This is a clear breach of the Data Protection Acts to whom I have reported.
In short therefore it is clear that the defendants have been in contempt of court for issuing false statements and for attempting to hide evidence while my own legal team have not acted in my best interest.
The information supporting these comments is already held by the Legal Services Commission.
Yours sincerely,
18th August 2000
Ms Helen Keith
Legal Services Commission
Southern Region, Reading
Dear Ms Keith,
Thank you for responding to my letter of 29th July to Anita Rosenak.
Thank you also for asking for the papers requested in respect to the means calculations to be sent to me as I can assure you that even if the files state that this has been "Done" I have not received the explanations.
I do not understand what is happening at Hodge Jones & Allen.
Yesterday they sent a fax declaring that I should travel to Bristol for examination by a Consultant Neurological Physician because they say the defendants will ask for the case to be struck out on the grounds of medical causation if I do not do so, despite my obvious health problems and risks when travelling.
They already have evidence to show that two weeks of tests as an in-patient in Guy's under examination by the National Poisons Unit could not find any alternative diagnosis that that of poisoning. In addition it is clear that after examination by Dr Jamal he stated that it was his firm belief that my symptoms were the result of exposure to the OPs and their solvents. Further supporting evidence comes from Dr Kenyon who has been attempting to help my GP to stabilise the symptoms. My GP has been supported by the local area Health Authority who have made me a "special case" in order to enable me to continue with that treatment.
Further supporting evidence is found in the DSS sick notes signed by no less than 3 different GPs in the practice as stating that the reason for my continued ill-health is Chronic OP poisoning.
All this is backed up by the views of Dr Myhill who has a special interest in this subject and has also seen some of the results from Guy's Hospital. Master Miller dismissed her reports under pressure from the defendants but it later came to light that the Health & Safety Executive and the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Psychiatrists all agree that GPs such as Dr Myhill and those at my practice are responsible for both diagnosis and management of chronic OP poisoning. This in effect means that the Myhill reports are admissible as evidence of causation.
There is therefore no need for me to risk my life to see yet another expert for his opinion and yet the threat appears to be that if I do not do so then they will allow the application by the defendants, who also erroneously had the Myhill reports dismissed, to have my case thrown out for lack of medical evidence.
Last month HJ&A wanted me to travel to Exeter to see a neurologist who we discovered has not treated victims well and who has apparently had past links with St Thomas' Hospital which has helped hide evidence in my case. This week HJ&A want me to travel to Bristol to see a neurological physician with apparent past links to Wellcome but they do not say where, when, or even what tests will be done by him - if any.
In the meantime HJ&A have today faxed me yet another consent form for access to the medical records of Guy's National Poisons Unit. This should all have been done years ago and the necessary consent forms for all the hospitals and doctors seen were signed and returned in June 1998 when HJ&A first took over the case.
This failure and the disgraceful actions last month, with the false claim that they were sending me records obtained from Guy's when they were actually those I had supplied to them myself, sets the case back years but the deadline for medical evidence for the Court action is apparently next week.
I may be wrong but I am convinced that this is a deliberate ploy to prevent this case being heard in Court.
The immense stress this is placing on my family is hard to bear both financially and emotionally but this has become a test for the justice system. The presence of the chemical at the time of the incident proves negligence because of the special rules applying to grain store chemicals.
There is ample medical supporting opinion and there have been admissions from the defendant who has also permitted false statements to be put before the court.
I believe HJ&A are failing in their duty to myself and to the Court and I do indeed give my permission to copy my letter of 29th July to them so that they may explain their actions to the Legal Services Commission.
Yours sincerely,
29th August 2000
Mr Neil Tyson
Policy and Legal Dept
Legal Services Commission Head Office
85 Gray's Inn Road.London. WC1X 8AA
Dear Mr Tyson,
Ms Jane Pearson of the Southern Region, Reading, Offices asked me to write to you.
I must say that I do not understand why I have been made to jump through so many hoops and obstacles given my state of health but it is important to have the situation clarified.
A mistake was made last week when the Commission wrote to both myself and the legal firm supposedly representing my interests suggesting that because I was in arrears on payments then the funding should cease with no further work permitted. It was an error but the point is that the error would have been avoided had the Commission staff acted on requests in written correspondence and in telephone conversations.
Had Commission staff noted my concerns that the new payment slips were issued with the wrong initials and reissued them in the correct name I do not believe the confusion would have arisen and the additional costs incurred in trying to sort out the mess would not have been involved.
This is not the only problem however.
My wife and I manage to survive, just, on means tested benefits and my understanding is that those on means tested benefits should not pay contributions for Legal Aid. I am quite prepared to pay my way when I can but because of dishonest practices now under investigation in other departments of Government I am denied some benefit entitlement. That is OK as we are dealing with that, although delaying tactics are being employed.
What I need to know is how it can be that our contributions have risen after reassessment due to a reduction in assets and real-term benefit income value? Housing and council tax benefits are calculated on a means test basis and the minimum allowable level of disposable income remains after those calculations. My understanding is that Incapacity Benefit is not subject to Income Tax because it is not earned Income which is why we are not permitted private pension schemes.
Having said that the Legal Services Commission suggest that I do pay tax even though I have no issued code number because my income is a non-taxable benefit. Despite this additional allowance my contributions were raised which must mean that some rules have changed. It is common for the Government to raise benefit levels whilst at the same time fixing or even lowering the levels at which other benefits are triggered. This is why the real-term value of the benefit has fallen over the years.
The figures upon which allowances are made as provided on the forms do not report the source of the official figures. I need to know the legal basis for those figures and how it can be that our contributions were raised despite our worsening financial situation.
I would also like to know why it is that information given to the Commission, and to the Legal Aid Board which preceded it, on the inexplicable actions of the legal firms supposedly representing me has been ignored? As a public funded body I would have thought that the Commission had a duty to ensure that those to whom public money is given work to the highest standards.
To have my Certificate revoked once by lawyers giving false information is bad enough but to have this done repeatedly demands closer investigation. To have the Legal Services Commission also threaten to revoke the Certificate yet again on false grounds was quite a shock. I understand that the Government is a defendant in some of the cases which which my own case has been linked.
My own case however began as just a simple employer negligence case which could have been resolved years ago with proper representation since there have been admissions, deliberate misrepresentations and the hiding of supporting evidence.
This would not appear to be a sequence of accidental errors and it deserves closer investigation.
I hope that you can supply at least some of the information requested.
Yours sincerely,
18th October 2000
Miss Anne Pinks
Legal Services Commission
Southern Region
Reading
Dear Miss Pinks,
Please find enclosed letters written to the Court in respect to my case.
You may be aware that the members of the Group Action are under threat from the lawyers and being pressurised to stop the action despite the fact that inaccurate evidence has been presented to the Court. You will no doubt recall our correspondence in regard to this matter in which I drew your attention to the fact that Hodge Jones & Allen had made no attempt to obtain or introduce that existing evidence as instructed.
I have sent information directly to the Judge which supports the qualifying conditions set for the case. i.e that a diagnosis has been obtained by conventionally trained medical personel, who can be classified as experts, by a process of elimination. Those letters were dispatched to the Judge on the 25th September 2000, 14th October 2000 and in the enclosed letter of 18th October 2000 in which I also enclosed a copy of my letter to Stephen Irwin QC but I had written in confidence to the Judge on the 17th May 2000 and 19th August 2000 to ensure that he was aware of the growing concerns.
I spoke to him on one occasion and he confirmed that I was right to inform him.
There is considerable concern amongst the Group about the way this issue has been handled but my concerns are increased by the fact that evidence in the case has been misrepresented by both sides and that there seems to be no way that I am able to counter the stream of misinformation.
However, I have at least kept the Legal Services Commission appraised on those concerns and it is my hope that the truth will out eventually and that I can find proper representation soon.
I have been offered the services of another firm of solicitors and am hopeful that the Legal services Commission will permit me to transfer the case in due course.
I enclose for your records copies of my letters to the Judge and Stephen Irwine.
If you require any further copies of correspondence please let me know.
Yours sincerely,
30th October 2000
Miss Anne Pinks
Legal Services Commission
Southern Region, Reading
Dear Miss Pinks,
Thank you for your letter of 26th October suggesting that I must once again give reasons why the certificate should not be discharged under "special rules". I refer you to the considerable correspondence on this matter, including my letter of 18th October which you have also ignored.
There is ample evidence why this case should continue - which is why the certificate has been renewed so many times after attempts by several dishonest individuals to have it removed.
This is a test for the Justice system which has so far failed to uphold my rights either in law or as a human being and has persistently refused to acknowledge the true facts of this case.
The letter from Helen Keith, with whom I have had direct correspondence in the past, also ignores the factual evidence provided by myself at great expense to the Legal services Commission, and simply repeats the false opinions of the defence and the barristers who have also been contacted directly because Hodge Jones & Allen have persistently refused to present the supporting evidence to the Court, and who have deliberately misrepresented the facts. Conflict of interest is suspected and direct approaches to the firm have failed to gain any sort of response to date. The
facts, given directly to the Judge but so far ignored are that.
1. Special rules apply to grain store chemicals such that the admitted presence of the chemical which caused my illness is itself an admission of negligence.
2. No warnings were given and no protection supplied.
3. The reports of the dangers were ignored.
4. No action was taken to protect those present from harm.
5. The incident report was destroyed and no incident report was ever officially provided to the authorities by the defendant or his representatives.
6. The requests to name the chemical involved were refused - contrary to regulations.
7. The process of elimination for diagnosis is proven and is confirmed by legally binding opinions.
8. Specialist opinion supports the diagnosis of poisoning. There is no need for further expense.
9. Full access to medical records has been refused to me but permitted to the defendants.
10. Data Protection Regulations have been breached.
11. False statements have been placed before the court in attempts to pervert the course of Justice.
12. The chemical has been proven in the Hill v Tomkins case to cause long-term health effects.
13. False information on chemical breakdown has been presented before the court.
14. False and misleading medical opinion has been presented before the court.
15. Hodge Jones & Allen have failed to properly represent this case and have therefore failed in their duty to their clients and to the Legal Services Commission.
16. Supporting medical opinion is found in the reports from Dr Jamal, Dr Volans, Dr Murray, Dr Chia, Dr Myhill, Dr Kenyon, Dr Walker, Dr Reid and Dr White but the only "evidence" used against the case is the unsubstantiated claim for a "Coxsackie B infection" for which the evidence is weak and for which there is no temporal relationship with the onset of symptoms whatsoever.
17. Additionally the Area Health Authority recognises my illness as a "special case" and continues to fund my treatment through the National Health Service by Dr Kenyon for Chronic OP poisoning.
With all this evidence against the defendant(s) I suggest that it is no surprise that they wish to stop it reaching the Court but the Legal Services Commission has a duty to uphold the law and it would be quite wrong and a breach of my Human Rights to discriminate against me Article 14, given the similarities with the Hill case, or to deny my right to Justice as under Article 6, especially when relying on false evidence.
I refer the Legal Services Commission to the mass of previous correspondence on this case which has supporting evidence, including medical records which Hodge Jones & Allen did not present to the Court.
Yours sincerely,
30th October 2000
Mr Neil Tyson
Policy and Legal Dept
Legal Services Commission Head Office
85 Gray's Inn Road.London. WC1X 8AA
Dear Mr Tyson,
I received a communication from your offices dated 31st August ref. BRU/110876 in which I was promised a response to my letter of 30th August 2000 to which I refer your attention.
This morning I have received yet another demand from the Legal Services Commission, Reading to explain why my Organophosphorus Poisoning, employer negligence, case should continue to be publicly funded.
Once again Hodge Jones & Allen have attempted to have the case destroyed by refusing to obtain or introduce the supporting medical evidence. Once again the Legal Services Commission ignore the abuse of Legal Aid funding and show a willingness to accept what amounts to misfeasance by the solicitors they fund.
Once again they ask for evidence as to why the case should continue when that evidence is clearly already in their possession. How can this state of affairs be tolerated in this new "open" system of government?
If this were not enough the promised response to the letter mentioned above has never been received and my wife and I continue to struggle to pay Legal aid Contributions which, we have been told, we should not be making because of the means tested benefits. Still we have had no breakdown of the full calculations as requested back in October1997 and again this year.
Something is very wrong here.
It would appear that there is a serious series of conflicts of interests involved in this case which involve senior members of our society but that is no excuse for breaches of the law or for allowing such breaches to go unchecked. Several of the members of the Group Action have expressed their concerns about Hodge Jones & Allen and their links to both Government and chemical companies but concerns have also been raised in respect to the barristers that they chose to use after parting company from the original barrister and the experts who worked with him. It is easy to see how such conflicts of interest could adversely effect these cases.
My case has apparently incurred costs due to the link with the Group Action even though I had medical evidence supporting my case long before the group was established and I had been refused access to the series of tests funded by that Group - tests which incidentally were bound to fail due to the scientific issues raised.
I have today dispatched the Appeal forms yet again. This is a waste of Legal Services Commission resources and my time and money but it also adds unnecessarily to the stress of an already difficult situation.
The Legal services Commission has a duty to protect the Public Funds but it also has a duty to protect the clients who should be properly represented by funded solicitors and barristers.
We are forever reminded that Legal Aid is a "Loan" and loans are expensive. Clients have a right to see that their money is properly spent and that the solicitors should act in their best interests since I have no doubt that if I had lied to the Courts then the Legal Services Commission would waste no time in charging me with any offence they found applicable.
Could I please have a complete breakdown of the calculations for contributions and the source of each figure.
Could the Legal Services Commission please ensure that lawyers acting for us abide by the rules.
Finally. Could I please have the promised answer to my letter of 30th August 2000.
Yours sincerely,
8th November 2000
Ms Helen Keith
Legal Services Commission
Southern Region, Reading
Dear Ms Keith,
Thank you for your letter of 6th November, received today. I am at a loss to understand why the Legal Services Commission cannot see that there are serious concerns in respect to the actions of Hodge Jones & Allen and their chosen Counsels. Many questions have been asked and answers and explanations must be given.
The Neill Committee inform me that members of public organisations have a duty to uphold, and act according to, the "Seven Principles of Public Life" which include honesty, integrity, openness, accountability and objectivity but it is clear that public figures involved in the OP litigation do not adhere to those principles.
You refer to the opinion of Charles Pugh upon which the Legal Services Commission and Hodge Jones & Allen appear to rely. My case has direct comparisons with the Hill case but is more directly supported by the law.
The same chemical was involved and both cases involve employer responsibility for negligence.
However it was not possible for me to know the risks to which I was being exposed since I was unaware of the contents of the sprayer which should not even have been present had regulations been properly observed.
Mr Hill did know and was actually in control of his exposures. I was not.
You suggest that Mr Hill suffered immediate and serious physical injury but that is exactly the situation with my own case but unlike Mr Hill I was unable to return to work after a holiday post-exposure. In any event the Government itself has recognised that serious effects caused by organophosphorus pesticides may take up to a month to develop (PDC3, 1965) and that repeated low dose exposures, including the inhalation which occurred in my own case over a period of several days after the initial exposure, can lead to the same long term damage as the initial acute exposure(PDC3, MS17, 1980, HSE and MAFF advice 1975 and 1980 and the Zuckerman report 1951).
You state that Counsel relies on a competing diagnosis and yet that diagnosis can be proven to be based on unsound evidence and bad science. Dr Jamal himself stated that there are no markers to support such a conclusion and Hodge Jones & Allen were aware of the weakness of that argument before they approached Counsel.
Why did they not raise this issue - unless they were acting under instruction from central government who have reason to have the evidence against them prevented from reaching the court.
As I have pointed out many times it is clear that undeclared conflicts of interest are controlling the way in which evidence is being obtained and opinions made. It is of great interest to me that Charles Pugh has apparently been involved in several failed multi-party actions involving ICI/Zeneca/and or subsidiaries of that company and that those actions failed largely as the result of his opinion. I have no way of knowing if he was given the correct information by Hodge Jones & Allen or if he chose to be selective in his opinion for his own reasons.
What I do know is that there has been a deliberate attempt to stop this case reaching the Court and this amounts to what I believe is termed "Conspiracy to pervert the course of Justice" for which the Court is responsible for bringing charges. There is ample evidence, not only in my own case, and I cannot understand why blind eyes have been turned unless this is part of official Government policy.
In no other illness have I seen the court over-ride firm diagnosis, arrived at through lawful procedures by recognised medical professionals, without ever giving the opportunity for the true facts to be heard.
Competing diagnosis is no reason to prevent access to justice, especially when that diagnosis is unproven, unsupported by science, and produced for non-medical reasons by an individual with links to the manufacturers of the very chemical concerned in the case. Because of these hidden links it is clear that we have never been examined by experts who have no links to the defendants and it is now clear that the Government has put pressure on the Legal Services Commission in their efforts to escape censure should the cases succeed.
This may be how the country is now run - but it is not lawful or Justice in the true sense of the word.
I refer you to the mass of information supplied to the Legal Aid Board and the Legal Services Commission which successfully supported the rightful continuation of the Certificate on previous occasions.
Since nothing has changed save the further support from the Area Health Authority for my continuing treatment for Chronic OP Poisoning I suggest that it would be wrong to withdraw the certificate on this occasion also.
We all eat food containing this chemical. It has been proven to cause long term harm in the Hill case.
It is in the public interest for this case to continue since there is vital evidence which must be recognised.
Yours sincerely,
15th November 2000
Mr Malcolm Mourant
Special Cases and Multi-party Action Unit
Legal Services Commission
29-37 Red Lion Street
London. WC1R 4PP
Dear Mr Mourant,
It has come to my attention that you are responsible in person for the future of the OP Group action and that the entire future of all OP cases rests upon your decision. It must be a considerable responsibility and you must therefore be given the opportunity to be properly informed.
You may have seen the opinion on my case, most people appear to have the details despite the protection afforded by the Data Protection Act. Unfortunately the published details are incorrect since the firm of solicitors involved have failed in their duty to the Court and the defendants have also submitted false information. Such actions are unlawful and must not be ignored.
I have over the years submitted a mass of evidence to the Legal Aid Board and now the Legal Services Commission in vain attempts to have the true facts of my case recognised.
However on each of the previous occasions when the certificate has been wrongfully withdrawn I have managed by my own efforts to have it reinstated on the basis of factual evidence and not the spurious information submitted by those with a secret agenda.
It is perfectly clear to all involved in the OP litigation that there is a deliberate attempt to hide facts known to Government for 50 years and which have been proven in courts around the world.
My case represents the perfect example where the law has failed at every stage both to uphold the rights of the individual and to maintain the reputation once held for truth and Justice.
Those in authority seem only too willing to take the easy way and turn a blind eye to the obvious problems. Perhaps they are acting under instruction from those with vested interests?
Sadly with organophosphates, and in particular the chemical involved in my own case, this failure to ensure that the truth is told will leave the entire population at risk from repeated low dose exposures of chemicals known to be cumulative in nature and irreversible in effect and which have been recognised to cause poisoning even in innocent bystanders in addition to the proven long term, damage as shown in the Hill v Tomkins case.
In order to excuse the attempts to stop these cases known risks such as from inhalation and the effects on the very heart of the human metabolism are being ignored and it is of vital importance that those who deny them are brought to book. Serious errors in the safety data for these chemicals have been discovered as the result of these cases and we have been told that it is the law that must be used in order to ensure that these issues are recognised.
Hodge Jones & Allen have misrepresented these cases and misused public funds. They may even have committed offences in offering false information to the court. Copies of letters illustrating the truth of what is reported above follow. I urge you to protect the group action - and your own health.
Yours sincerely,
23rd November 2000
Mr Neil Tyson
Policy and Legal Dept
Legal Services Commission Head Office
85 Gray's Inn Road.London. WC1X 8AA
Dear Mr Tyson,
I received a communication from your offices dated 22nd November ref. BRU/110078 signed on your behalf by Ambika Lall of the Customer Services Unit.
The letter suggested that a leaflet from the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors would be enclosed but I am afraid to say that the leaflet is missing and I wonder if you would be kind enough to arrange for one to be sent to me as soon as possible. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that an official complaint about Hodge Jones and Allen will soon be necessary since they ignore letters and refuse to answer questions or to even attempt to put write their mistakes. It is not a path I would wish to take but it seems that all other efforts are ignored.
I thank you for arranging for me to have a copy of the Civil legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1989. If this is the latest and most up-to-date issue then I believe I have discovered the reason for our difficulties in respect to contributions.
The letter referred to above received this morning suggests that you have examined the calculations in my case and found that there has been no mistake. On the other hand the letter makes no mention of the report from the House of Lords that those on means tested benefits are in fact exempt from contributions for Legal Aid since we are already regarded as being at the limits set by government for minimum income via the means test.
Housing benefit is means tested. The form sent to me includes a section on rent, declared after housing benefit has been deducted. I suspect that this is where the problem lies.
On page 671 of the "Financial Eligibility - April 1998" section of the copy you sent it is clearly stated in Step Five that "Income includes.......all welfare benefits except housing benefit, attendance allowance, disability living allowance......."etc. This would seem to indicate that the full rent payable and not the rent payable after housing benefit should have been included in the calculations and that the housing benefit has therefore been wrongly assumed as "income" in the calculations.
Could you please clarify this point as soon as possible since this would currently exaggerate our disposable income by some £39.21 per week or £2,038.92 per year. This would have considerable bearing on the contribution calculations.
I should also add that Legal Aid for this case was originally granted in 1994 under 12/1/93/26698R and so this problem may also have occurred at that time. It is unfortunate that the solicitors involved have been allowed to misuse the funds in the way in which they have obviously done and I am surprised that the Legal Services Commission has failed to take action against them and continues to suggest, as in this letter, that they are "best qualified" to deal with the litigation. It is clear that information to the contrary has been provided by others.
I have paid good money under difficult circumstances to the Board and to the Legal Services Commission for quality service which has not been provided. The funds appear to have been used fraudulently in an effort to destroy not only my own case but those of others in the group action. An official investigation is long overdue.
I hope you can clarify the points raised above as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
13th December 2000
Miss Anne Pinks
Legal Services Commission
Southern Region, Reading,p>
Dear Miss Pinks,
I have received this morning in the post the notification of termination of the legal aid certificate as per your letter dated 7th December 2000. This is a disgraceful act on the part of the Legal Services Commission and demonstrates your complicity in the attempts to destroy the litigation.
I have on many occasions sent you evidence that Hodge Jones & Allen have presented false evidence to both the Legal Services Commission and to the Court and yet you choose to ignore that evidence.
I have also asked the Legal Services Commission to examine the way on which my contributions have been calculated and again the facts presented are ignored.
It is a criminal offence to introduce false evidence into court proceedings as is evident by the action currently being taken against Lord Archer, be he found innocent or guilty he has still been charged.
The Legal Services Commission has been notified by myself and others that similar offences have been committed with the apparent intent to pervert the course of justice in the group action and my own case.
Are you personally responsible for this decision as is indicated in your letter or would Helen Keith have advised you?
Clearly this is an attempt to protect those who have committed illegal acts and it is an affront to my Human Rights under the act since you have discriminated against me and denied me access to justice.
You may recall that in 1997 my right to Legal Aid was linked to the outcome of the Hill case which involved the same poisonous chemical and demonstrated long term harmful effects. Your staff have admitted that the Hill case was successful and Legal Aid was granted to me as a result.
The Legal Services Commission then appears to have imposed restrictions on my certificate which limited the actions available to prove the case whilst at the same time allowing the cost burden to increase disproportionately to the work carried out on my behalf. The Legal Services Commission continued to allow the lawyers involved to receive payment despite their failure to properly conduct the case and the information given to them providing evidence that the funding was being misused. The Audit Commission will eventually be informed of this misuse of public funds but I do not wish to be seen as having contributed to illegal acts.
I therefore request that all my contributions to date be refunded and that a new certificate be issued forthwith so that Gabb & Co can progress with what is a clear and proven case of negligence against my former employer. The Legal Services Commission has been over-charging my family for representation which we have not so far received and has consistently refused to give a full breakdown of the calculations.
I have been in contact with the Data Protection Registrar's office for some time and I understand that on request data users such as yourselves must release the information held on my case. I would ask therefore that you release to me all the data held on my case by the Legal Services Commission, including historical records from the Legal Aid Board, and all records of third party contacts from whom you have received or to whom you have given advice or information on my case.
Since we have a court deadline I suggest that you arrange for all the above to be implemented as soon as possible and that I receive the full information requested no later than 14th January 2001.
Someone has overstepped the line in the sand and we are now dealing with an entirely different situation to that of 1997 and earlier this year.
Yours sincerely,
19th December 2000
Mrs Coston, Complaints dept.
Legal Services Commission
Southern Region, Reading
Dear Mrs Coston,
Thank you for sending your complaints leaflet although I believe that the situation is much more serious than can be covered by the term "Complaint". However. The essence of my complaint concerns the way in which factual evidence put to the Legal Services Commission has been ignored repeatedly in favour of false representations made by others who should know better but appear to be acting against my best interests.
I have sent supporting evidence both to the Commission and to the Court but that too has been ignored.
We have now reached the position where the Legal services Commission has once again Terminated the Certificate on the basis of false evidence but this time the intention appears to be to ensure that my case never reaches the Courts because there are set deadlines for the case which will ensure its failure if the appeal process takes more than a few weeks. As I have pointed out to the Court and to the Legal Services Commission it is clear that each firm of solicitors which has supposedly represented my case has claimed for work done but failed to properly conduct the case. Hodge Jones & Allen, failed to comply with court deadlines, failed to obtain the proper medical records with which to conduct the case, and presented false and misleading information to the Court through their barristers. They now refuse to pass the file to new solicitors.
Furthermore they were aware that there was evidence to show that statements both on scientific matters and the incident itself have been accepted as factual when they were in fact falsely made in attempts to protect the defendants. I understand that this would be regarded as perjury but no action has been taken.
There is also the matter of the limitations set by the Commission on the certificate which, it is said, restricted the actions my representatives were permitted to take on my behalf and yet ensured that my case bore the additional costs of the Group OP action which I should never have been a part of since mine was a unique case against an employer whose staff had abused both the chemical and the special regulations pertaining to it.
As if all that were not enough there is the important matter of contributions which should be addressed.
My wife and I exist on means tested benefits which theoretically results in exemption from contributions towards Legal costs. Despite this our contributions, which I suspected were too high even from 1997 when I first asked for a breakdown of the calculations, were raised by about a third at the last assessment .
Despite repeated requests for the actual source of the figures used, other than those provided by myself, they were never given although claims have been repeatedly made to the contrary by Commission staff.
Eventually I received a copy of the regulations in which it was indicated that the reason for the increased contributions may have been another error by the Commission i.e. the inclusion of Housing Benefit in the calculations. I asked for clarification but to date have received none.
Clearly these are very serious issues but there is no time for the official complaints procedure to act.
I have therefore reported the relevant issues to the Police who I understand are responsible for investigating perjury, perverting the course of Justice, and fraudulent use of public funds. I have clearly tried all other avenues on repeated occasions and found the system wanting at every level. Perhaps reports that the defendant in my case has a brother who is a barrister may explain the way in which I have been treated but I suspect that what is more likely is that the Government, as a defendant in some cases, has given instructions.
Whatever the real reason there is evidence in my case which has a direct bearing on the health of all of the people of this country since the chemical involved is added to our food and has been proven to cause long term harm. In fact the success of the Hill case which involved the same chemical had a direct influence over the renewal of my certificate in 1997 and the evidence against the chemical has grown stronger since then with international calls for a ban. It is therefore in the Public interest that this case receives funding for a Court action and it is quite wrong that the Legal Services Commission Terminated the certificate on false grounds.
Yours sincerely,
2nd January 2001
Ms Anita Rosenak
Legal Services Commission
Southern Region, Reading
Dear Ms Rosinak,
Thank you for your letter of 28th December received this morning but I really do think it is time that the Legal Services Commission staff stopped playing games with serious issues of law.
The Certificate should never have been discharged in the first instance and there is little time to wait for the slow cogs of officialdom to process the appeal.
I suggest that it is not the place of the Legal Services Commission to determine eligibility for funding in an employer negligence case by "reconsidering any medical reports that have been obtained in the case" since the negligence is proven by the very presence of this particular chemical and there is further evidence that the defendants and or their witnesses have perjured themselves in written evidence.
Furthermore I have repeatedly requested that my Legal representatives obtain the said medical records and accurate reports based on them and it is now clear that Hodge Jones & Allen falsely claimed to have obtained those vital records.
I have sufficient to prove that harm was done to my health by the incidents in question but they are incomplete and the Legal Services Commission has apparently failed to provide sufficient funding for my representatives to force disclosure of documents.
We have evidence that the defence has full copies not available to us and that is also in breach of Court rules.
Given that they had access to that information they will have known that the grounds upon which they applied to have the case struck out were false. The list of offences by the defendants grows ever longer it seems.
I wrote direct to Malcolm Mourant and I am aware of other cases similarly treated so it is clear that he has also ignored the evidence presented to him. I contend that my case should never have been part of the group action as it can stand alone and is directly comparable with the successful Hill case as Mr Mourant will admit.
You suggest that it is not possible for contributions to be repaid but you must know that is incorrect.
I understand that if a firm of lawyers misrepresents a case they forfeit their fees. My contributions would therefore be repaid and it is clear that all the firms so far involved have misrepresented the facts of the case.
On that basis alone a refund would be entirely in order but there is also the question of assessment of means which I have raised with you before. I understand that those on means tested benefits are exempt from contributions. This caused some confusion until I was sent a copy of the rules and I realised that in determining the rent after housing benefit the full cost of housing was not included in the calculations.
Housing Benefit, as with my Disability Living Allowance, should apparently not count as income in the calculations and this would explain almost if not all of the disposable income you claim we have available.
The regulations suggest that if mistakes are made then refunds are made but I should point out that the stress this has caused my family over the years is considerable and weaker people may not have survived.
I understand that my file is now with Gabb & Co and I suggest that you deal with Mrs Charles from now on and avoid the obviously untrustworthy individuals at Hodge Jones & Allen.
Yours sincerely,
23rd February 2001
Mr Neil Tyson
Policy and Legal Dept
Legal Services Commission Head Office
85 Gray's Inn Road.London. WC1X 8AA
Dear Mr Tyson,
I am concerned to see that the time limits for release of Data under the Data Protection Act have long since expired.
Despite my repeated requests for ACCURATE explanations as to why I have been forced to pay so much in Legal Aid contributions over the years Helen Keith has suggested in her letter of 22/01/2001 that I would receive a letter requesting a further payment of £10 in order to receive copies of that information.
That letter has not materialised and nor have I received a response to my letter of 31st January 2001.
There is another, potentially more serious, reason for this letter.
Information came to me yesterday which suggests that the Legal Services Commission have been involved in secret discussions with solicitors acting for Organophosphate litigants during which it has been suggested that agreements were made to drop certain cases in exchange for support for others. I am sure that this cannot possibly be true but you should be aware of the rumours.
Furthermore, the rumour goes, agreements have also been made to protect Hodge Jones & Allen and presumably the barristers who produced the erroneous 7th Opinion.
I was in Court myself yesterday before a Commissioner and was able to report my concerns on a number of matters. His observation was that it was "obvious that I was suffering with something very nasty" and he expressed his concern at the delays in my case. those delays are almost entirely due to the dishonesty of the defendant, Government agencies, chemical companies and Hospital Trusts who, it seems, must be acting in breach of the rules of disclosure.
The Commissioner is now in possession of copies of my numerous letters seeking copies of my full medical records from the Guy's & St Thomas' Trust and their latest reply which suggests falsely that the lawyers had been supplied with the full copies. Furthermore we now have evidence that the chemical companies do not even supply the full details of ingredients, breakdown product toxicity, or even the purpose for the ingredients to the regulatory bodies.So much for the rules of disclosure.
I sincerely hope that the OP litigation will continue to receive funding from the legal services commission as this is clearly a matter of great public concern.
Failing to respond to letters does not help anyone.
Yours sincerely,
15th February 2002
Miss Anne Pinks
Legal Services Commission
Southern Region, Reading
Dear Miss Pinks,
There is ample evidence now to hand confirming that the legal firms involved in this case have conspired with the defence in order to have the case struck out. As publicly funded bodies it would seem that they have employed "Undesirable Practices" in order to fraudulently obtain those public funds.
From the earliest days in this action, under the certificate for funding awarded to Leigh Day & Co, I used my best endeavours to persuade them to obtain two vital pieces of evidence, namely the full hospital medical records and the details of the chemicals to which I was exposed.
Leigh Day & Co failed to obtain that information, as did Dawbarns who contrary to my best interests, included me in the group Sheep Dip legislation. My protests fell on deaf ears.
In January 1999 a statement was prepared by the defence experts which admitted that the chemical involved was in fact an illegal and potentially deadly mixture. That statement was withheld from me until June 2001.
This was vital evidence supporting negligence and was presumably in the hands of the then solicitors Hodge, Jones & Allen because it came in the form of a statement before the Court submitted by the defence.
Hodge Jones & Allen were also requested repeatedly to obtain the full hospital records and therefore the evidence supporting the medical aspects of the case. They failed to do so but attempted to obtain medical opinion from experts who were unable to give truthful opinion without those records and chemical details.
Hodge Jones & Allen also failed to comply with Court orders giving time limits for submission of evidence.
They then asked us to sign away the right to take any action involving organophosphorus chemicals for life, or face the full costs of the defence, even though they had the evidence of the negligence and the resulting harm.
The case was then moved to Gabb & Co due to the obvious failings of the previous firms but Gabb & Co have apparently also failed to present that evidence to the court even though they knew that the defence have placed false information before the judge on numerous occasions. They refuse to provide the requested details.
Both Hodge, Jones & Allen and Gabb & Co have sought expert opinion from individuals with close links to the group defence teams and many cases in the group have been damaged by this conflict of interest.
Gabb & Co now claim that restrictions imposed by yourselves have prevented them from obtaining evidence.
As you are aware I have reported my concerns about all these firms to the Legal Aid Board and to the Legal Services Commission on numerous occasions in the past. As you will also be aware I have paid contributions for proper representation which has not been forthcoming. I have never had a satisfactory explanation as to why my contributions are so high given my financial circumstances, and the full papers relating to this case have not yet been released to me by the Legal Services Commission as requested under the conditions of the Data Protection Acts. Considerable amounts of public money were used in attempts to obtain supporting scientifiic evidence for the cases in the group action.
The actions of all the legal firms involved have made it impossible to recover that funding from the defence who were already aware of that scientific information but withheld it from the Court.
I have paid excessive amounts from our disablement benefits for representation that I have not received and therefore I claim a full refund of contributions dating from the first payment under the certificate awarded to Leigh Day & Co. I understand that the case has been closed with no option for appeal and will therefore stop payments for the legal aid until I have clarification of my position and of how you will deal with these matters.
I suggest that you recover the costs from the defence. Please advice accordingly as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
16th February 2002
Mr Martin Seel
Regional Director
Legal Services Commission
Southern Region, Reading
Dear Mr Seel,
I refer you to my letter of yesterday's date as sent by fax and which you should receive in the same post.
A copy is enclosed as are copies of correspondence with the judge and with the court. You have copies of previous correspondence with Master Miller but I also enclose copies of letters regarding the science about which unqualified people have commented to my detriment and which prove conclusively that the defendants and their representatives have been both negligent and dishonest in their dealings with the court.
I also enclose copies the section of the Industrial Disease paper PDC3 which states categorically that in those regularly exposed to organophosphates, and it is admitted by both sides that I was previously regularly exposed, only a small exposure can trigger the acute effects from which some people may never recover.
I would point out that this Act dated 1958 refers to exposures to single organophosphorus pesticides and not to dangerous and illegal mixtures as we have recently discovered were admitted in my case.
All parties except me as the plaintiff knew about these factors long ago and there is a clear conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and to hide the truth in this case.
It is the defence who are guilty at the highest degree of "abuse of the Court process" not me.
There is a clear public interest involvement in the true facts of this case being exposed since the defendant's staff used this illegal mixture to treat a grain store where wheat was stored for human consumption.
A copy of papers in support of the presence of the illegal chemical mixture is also enclosed.
That is admitted and there is evidence of perjury in statements from at least two of the farm staff involved.
Furthermore, despite the implied statements of truth with all expert witness statements before the court it is clear that the defence rely on false information put before the court by their witnesses.
The Coxsackie B accusation comes from Guy's records which were freely supplied to the defence but for which I am still attempting to obtain full copies from the Hospital. However given that the defence have the full copies they will have known that the very hospital which raised Coxsackie B as a possible alternative diagnosis in 1993 then realised their mistake and dismissed it as a cause in 1994. Challenged to say which of my symptoms could be attributed to the virus at such a late stage they were unable to support that cause.
In addition the effects of exposure on the immune system are known to make individuals vulnerable to viruses.
As you will see from the enclosed copies both Justice Morland and Master Miller were aware of all this information but chose to go along with the conspiracy of silence on the issue of perjury and the failure to introduce evidence. In fact the court apparently ordered that the new evidence could not be submitted.
That is not Justice and nor does it comply with the Human Rights Act. I suggest to you that the only reason that the merits of this case are suggested as poor is because there have been so many restrictions placed on my ability to obtain that evidence that my position has been made impossible. I have personally challenged Gabb & Co over their claims that the Legal Services Commission is entirely responsible for this but I do believe that it would seem advantageous to government if my case was quashed and that this may be the real reason for the restrictions on the certificate and the refusal to release the background papers.
There is something very wrong here and I am sure that the reason for it will become clear before too long.
The certificate should not be discharged and action should be taken against those who have so flagrantly abused the court process. It is in both my interest and the public interest that this case should be funded.
I am paying this month's contributions but expect rapid action in support of my efforts to take place soon.
Yours sincerely,
16/2/02
There is more supporting evidence for this case now than there Was when the writ was served in 1994.
The defence and their allies have themselves abused the Court Process and have presented false evidence.
I have been denied the opportunity to obtain and to present the evidence to the court. In fact this case appears to have been tried out of Court without the full evidence being available.
Evidence of perjury, contempt of Court and of conspiracy to pervert the course of Justice has been ignored.
To dismiss this claim and to refuse the legal aid required to fight the case against powerful and wealthy defendants is an abuse of my Human Rights under Article 6 and is itself an abuse of the law.