Re The Queen on the application of *********** versus SS FOR WORK AND PENSIONS
I make this written statement as a precaution should my unpredictable condition cause me to be unable to give a comprehensive verbal statement during the video-linked hearing set for the 14th September 2007.
The request for Judicial Review was made at the insistence of those
who are aware of the true nature of this case and of the actions of
those who have brought us to this point. The very fact that those who
have seen the evidence requested that I refer the case to Judicial
Review indicates that the decisions made do not comply with the
expectations for fair and unbiased hearings.
For my part I would rather not risk my health further by this action but I understand that although many have been treated similarly my case is one of the few in which there is sufficient evidence.
I have not brought this case lightly and it is not simply about a
dispute over diagnosis.
I am satisfied that my GPs and specialists have arrived at the correct diagnosis and although the refusal by the Tribunal Service to recognise that diagnosis is bewildering it does not endanger my life or those of others, unlike the false information held by other parts of the DWP, such as the Health and Safety Executive, or by the Department of Health. Action is required to prevent similar duplicity in other cases.
The request for Judicial Review is to raise the issue that officials
and medical examiners have deliberately fabricated evidence and hidden
supporting evidence in order to achieve their chosen outcome to the
disadvantage of claimants, as reported to the National Audit Office.
It is clear that the medical examiners were in breach of PROTOCOL No. 4 (18.02.2000) Hearings where a physical examination may be carried out under Regulation 52 of the Decision Making and Appeal Regulations 1999, and PROTOCOL No 10 (02.08.2001, revised 13.05.2003) medical reports which give cause for serious concern.
My first duty is to protect my family, to ensure that no harm is done to them, and to protect my sanity in the face of so many lies. I took steps to ensure that at every stage I would be able to support everything I reported. That is why so much is in writing to ensure that at every stage the facts were on record.
Diagnosis of chronic organophosphorus poisoning is not easy and it requires skill and specialist tests and equipment not available to medical examiners employed by the Department at tribunals
Occupational poisoning is admitted to be easier to diagnose than other
cases and there is said to be a priority in dealing with cases
involving the illegal use of pesticides. It is surprising therefore
that I have encountered such difficulty with what is, or should have
been, a very simple and straightforward case.
It is also surprising that the Department has confirmed other cases with far less evidence.
I became aware that efforts were being made to ensure that poisoning was not recognised in my case at an early stage. What I did not know at the time was that deliberately false statements prepared by my employer, his insurers, and staff, had triggered those efforts. The supporting evidence is available.
Even the Police have identified a dozen potential criminal offences in this case but they, like the Court Service, suggest that they do not have the power to act unless instructed to do so by a Judge.
My doctor and his chosen specialists established the poisoning diagnosis only after extensive and very expensive tests by numerous hospitals had exhausted all other causes and confirmed the diagnosis.
There have been numerous reasons given by the medical examiners and
tribunals for denying the diagnosis and all of them have proved to be
The accident has been confirmed as having caused the disability for life and was exposure to an illegal chemical mixture of unknown toxicity. Scientific analysis confirms the chemicals involved remain active and toxic for years in dilution. Chronic fatigue syndrome cannot be diagnosed if poisoning is a feature and the "alternative" suggestion of Coxsackie B viral cause was unfounded, as admitted by Dr Ringer.
Claims that there was no evidence of exposure are disproved by the serial cholinesterase test results which showed 35% depression even 6 months after the incident. This forms part of the medical evidence that was withheld from me but which was available to Dr Volans and the Department.
Exposure and the damage caused are also confirmed by the tests performed under the control of my GP and the NHS by Professor Abou-Donia, and others, therefore the accusations regarding a "mind-set" and"somatisation" are disproved by both the above and by the medical evidence provided to the tribunal.
In addition the Medical examiners and the Tribunals cannot claim that they did not have the necessary information as from the outset I have provided "warts and all" written statements which have reported all events in great detail. When false information has been inserted I have detailed why the information is false, what the truth was, and when and why suggested alternative illnesses were officially discounted.
In 1996 senior hospital officials informed my GP of the political
reasons for withdrawing the diagnosis.
Political pressure and the close relationship between influential officials have corrupted the process.
As also requested from the tribunal I ask the court why it is that officials can insert false information without the need to justify their comments with evidence and yet the claimant has to prove every single point to a scientific standard of proof, even though that standard is not legally required.
Both parties should in theory be working to establish the facts and come to a just and fair decision.
In reality the Department has an interest in denying the diagnosis and it is interesting that the Health and Safety Executive, which influenced the withdrawal by Dr Volans on the basis of the false employer statements, has refused to remove the false information on its files unless ordered to do so by a Judge.
The Department's own examiners have found symptoms and signs, which they then either ignore or fail to properly account for in their deliberations. Opposing opinions in reports deny those given verbally.
From 1995 when I was first examined for the PD C3 claim medical examiners have reported sensory loss, neurological problems, varying degrees of peripheral neuropathy etc. They have seen medical records and medico-legal reports referring to those medical records that demonstrate clearly that the known and recognised symptoms of organophosphorus poisoning are present and officially recorded.
My own "History of Illness" booklet lists all the symptoms as reported by doctors, including the "pins and needles" sensations that indicate peripheral neuropathy. Even the National Poisons Unit tests showed "delays" in the heart, heart rate abnormalities and reduced respiratory function, even though the neurological abnormalities "in the return signals" found were reported verbally but not in writing. The tribunals cannot possibly support their contention that these signs were the result of "somatisation" or "mind-set" unless they ignore the evidence before them - and that is exactly what they have done.
Dr Ringer and Dr Rees for the tribunal both found sensory
abnormalities and peripheral neuropathy on examination. They were
aware of the cardio-respiratory problems and viewed them first-hand
and yet they did not feature as supporting evidence though they are
internationally recognised signs of poisoning.
It was only after the examination by Dr Rees that I realised that he had negative response for gagging reflex etc but I was surprised that the lack of vibration sense had spread to my wrists on examination. Dr Rees made no comment at all, despite being given permission to perform his examination only if he would confirm or deny the presence of peripheral neuropathy. I was too ill to press the point at the time.
The chairman, on leaving, actually told the solicitor that they would probably confirm the PD C3.
I must report to the court that the solicitor who witnessed the tribunal of 2004 advised me to record the proceedings because she had realised that deception had taken place previously. As is on record the tribunal threatened me with Contempt of Court charges but it is also in record that the tribunal was informed it would be unlawful if it went ahead with its reliance on statements that it knew to be false.
I realise that two wrongs do not make a right but I would ask the
court; which is the greater crime?
Is it that of the professionals whose task it is to ensure the legality of vital judicial processes but deliberately introduced false information to ensure the failure of a perfectly legitimate claim? Or is it the action of the innocent victim of that deception who is forced to obtain the evidence needed to protect himself, his family and the integrity of the legal process?
In the hope that justice and truth will prevail I requested Judicial Review of the decision to refuse a re-examination of the Commissioner's decision on the grounds that false evidence was placed in the file. This was refused on the basis of the Department's claim that there is no evidence, but there is ample evidence. The officials involved have abused the system and that fact should not allow them to succeed with the deception that endangers the health of our population, and the accuracy of data held on us all.
I respectfully request that my request for Judicial Review is granted and that the actions of the individuals who caused this disgraceful situation to arise will be properly investigated at no further cost to myself.
[ Witnessed by the High Sheriff of the Isle of Wight 5/9/07 ]
Judicial Review Appeal hearing 14th September 2007
I hope that the Court has had sight of my statement of 5th September
and the supporting evidence. This case exemplifies how abuse of
position and of power can lead to complete corruption of the facts and
lead to decisions that are unsupportable.
I believe that this problem would never have arisen if there had been independent record of events and proceedings. It amazes me that the officials involved have chosen to go to these lengths in order to suppress the true facts simply to overpower a sick ex-farm worker. Admissions made before witnesses are denied in written reports and those who seek to deceive us are always at an advantage. We first have to discover the deception and are then forced to find the evidence to both prove it, and to support the true facts, by which time there is more deception to overcome and the process begins again. Those involved know only too well what they have done.
The victims are always at a disadvantage and are made to appear in the
wrong but in this case the greatest ally I have is the truth and it
cannot be suppressed forever.
These individuals have no respect for their own rules and regulations so what they have to hide must be extremely important for us all.
I understand that the Aarhus Convention to which Britain was an early
signatory establishes rights in cases with important environmental
features. (see section 9.3)
This is such a case as it involves chemicals that were, in this incident and are still, released into our environment and added to our food.
There is evidence to support my understanding of the methods used to
bring us to this difficult situation and I have unsuccessfully
requested explanations from all those involved in the deceptions that
are at the heart of the problem.
Even before I was advised to make any claim the employer, his staff and insurers, created false statements with a view to divert any investigation or prosecution.
Sadly those inventions were accepted as facts when the opposite was true. Members of the Health and Safety Executive, an agency of the Department for Work and Pensions, then used that information to influence doctors to withdraw their diagnosis and that in turn resulted in the withholding of vital medical records from me, my GPs and from my then legal teams, despite the regulations, repeated requests, and instructions to obtain them given to solicitors by a High Court Judge.
In fact the reporting of the serving of the writ for negligence against my employer saw the written encouragement to HSE staff to "Spike his guns" with direct reference to my civil action. Although explained as a "joke" subsequent actions deliberately undermined the case. The resulting false information corrupted the decision-making processes now referred for Judicial Review and was used as support by others who acted similarly not only in this case but also in other chemical poisoning cases.
Misfeasance and malfeasance are features of this case and the evidence
is irrefutable but it is also clear that there has been a deliberate
central plan to pervert justice.
As the late Lord Denning stated "Be you never so high, the law is above you" and "We have but one prejudice. That is to uphold the law"
I can only hope that this high ideal still holds firm today and I simply ask the court to examine the evidence with care and diligence and to come to a fair decision.