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.
17th May 2000
For the Personal Attention of Master Miller
Queen's Bench Division
Royal Courts of Justice
Dear Master Miller,
I understand that you are the presiding Judge in the Group OP Action currently before the Court and I feel I should draw your attention to an apparent contempt of Court.
This information has only just come to my attention which is unfortunate but it is clear that the experts presenting evidence directly to the Court should have been fully aware of the facts.
The Health & Safety Executive is responsible for advising those who seek information on chemical safety matters and would also advise Government Agencies such as the Department of Social Security. The definitive paper produced by the HSE for Guidance on the Medical aspects of work-related exposures to organophosphates is HSE Guidance note MS17 and the most recent version was published this year.
Section 89 states that general practitioners should be responsible for diagnosis and management of chronic OP poisoning and that specialist opinion may be needed only in some cases.
I must ask therefore why the opinions of the GP Dr Sarah Myhill, who has shown special interest in the science of OPs, were disallowed by the Court even when those opinions are backed by specialist opinion? It is clear from MS17 that GPs are perfectly capable of diagnosing chronic OP poisoning presumably on the basis of presented symptoms and exposure history.
There is also no doubt that the new rules under the Civil Justice reforms gives guidance to experts who provide evidence to the Court and states that expert evidence is restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings and that the experts must help the court irrespective of whether they be there to represent the plaintiff or defendant.
Clearly there are serious problems here with OP cases currently before the Court, including my own for which there is ample evidence that pertinent facts have been withheld form the Court.
Currently the senior partner at Hodge, Jones & Allen is looking into matters raised in respect to misleading information given to counsel by his own staff which resulted in the failure to properly inform the court as to the facts in my case and the subsequent discharge of the Legal Aid Certificate on spurious grounds which is now subject to review.
Every effort on my part has failed to convince my legal representatives of the dire need to obtain the full medical records, the detailed information on the chemical involved or to challenge the false statements introduced by the defendant.
All these are serious matters.
Furthermore I understand that the DSS Tribunal service is controlled by the High Court and that all matters relating to such Tribunals are matters of Law and subject to the same rules.
Currently the actions of the latest Tribunal in my own case are now under investigation for "errors of law both in constitution and conduct" which also involves the deliberate manipulation of evidence and the introduction of false information on the case.
Clearly the defendants are backed by powerful forces but this is all the more reason why the Court should ensure that the evidence presented before it is both accurate and truthful. There has been much criticism of official documents purporting to show little scientific evidence of long-term damage but it is clear that evidence which does exist has been ignored or hidden. The cost to the taxpayer is enormous.
Could you kindly advise me as to the current state of my own case given the above information?
Yours sincerely,
19th August 2000
For the Personal Attention of Master Miller
Queen's Bench Division
Royal Courts of Justice
Dear Master Miller,
I thank you for responding to my letter of 17th May 2000 and for your invitation to raise my concerns if I remained unhappy following the 31st July case management conference.
Although I wanted to reply sooner I feared compromising your position but I really think we have a serious problem of which you should be aware.
You may know that my Legal Aid Certificate was reinstated for the third time after I provided information showing that my own solicitors gave misleading evidence to the Legal Services Commission.
I understand that you have set a deadline for medical evidence of causation to be set before the Court but it would seem that the Government is classed as a defendant in some of the cases and it is clear that the refusal to release medical records to my legal representatives may be in efforts to protect Government employees.
There are special regulations relating to grain store chemicals which are very relevant in my negligence case but which do not appear to have been raised by my representatives.
There are also many recognised actions of organophosphate chemicals in the body which are unrelated to cholinesterase or NTE inhibition and this also does not appear to have been raised.
This does however mean that neurologist reports can only be part of a much more complex appraisal of health effects induced by these substances and I would respectfully suggest that the defendants will be far ahead in the study and utilisation of those effects that the plaintiffs or their representatives can ever be.
The plaintiffs are unable to have access to commercially confidential information or the independent scientific expertise able to confirm or contradict claims made by the defendants but despite this it is clear, certainly in my own case, that the defendants have had need to resort to withholding evidence and misinformation.
These actions have so far apparently gone unchallenged by my own representatives who only now claim to be attempting to obtain the evidence of harm found in the medical records withheld by the National Poisons Unit.
Instead they have sought a new neurological report which will, even if a truly independent expert is consulted, only serve to inform the court that the problems are ongoing. It cannot be used to support causation since that is already admitted by the NPU and others. This simply increases the cost of the action.
Is it possible to obtain transcripts of the Benzodiazipine litigation and the Hill case?
Diazepam, a benzodiazipine, is used to control some of the symptoms induced by OPs and this litigation may well give an indication of the wider actions of OPs since Diazepam acts on the GABA system and not the cholinesterase enzyme system. Like the majority of the life giving systems in the body, from the energy giving oxygen transport mechanisms to hormones, naturally occurring phosphorus compounds play vital and complex roles and it is dangerous to inhibit these processes with man-made OPs.
I understand that the Hill case raised serious questions in respect to OP testing and safety. My own information, provided to various Government departments, has also shown that we have been misled.
The defendants have access to information which is not available to us and it is clear that these properties of OPs and their co-formulants are utilised to great effect in both drugs and pesticides but also in other products.
I have little doubt that if my legal representatives do not put the evidence they have before the court then the attempts by the defendant to have the case struck out will succeed. This would be dangerous. A spokesman for the Guy's & St Thomas Trust apparently told my GP some years ago that "If the men in white wigs get hold of this there will be all Hell to pay". I am sure they would not have made such comments for no reason.
I must say that I have little confidence that the defendants will allow the truth to be told as it would be too dangerous for them but I do hope that Justice will be seen to be done.
At least when David battled with the lone Goliath it was a fair and straight-fought fight.
Yours sincerely,
25th September 2000
For the Personal Attention of Master Miller
Queen's Bench Division
Royal Courts of Justice
Dear Master Miller,
I must thank you for the advice you gave in your phone call and although I had no intention of writing to you again I felt that you should be aware of a problem which may draw you into an investigation into miscarriage of justice at a later date if no action is taken now.
As I said during our call I have repeatedly requested that Hodge Jones & Allen properly conduct my case and information supporting my view has been passed directly to the Legal Services Commission on many occasions. I believe an investigation is already under way in respect to several cases.
Getting response from HJ&A is almost impossible since they ignore letters and phone calls are not returned.
In fact I spoke to one of the solicitors by phone to her office and within minutes she then sent a fax to which I immediately responded with a phone call only to have the secretary claim that the solicitor had not attended work at all that day. Very strange.
Last week I received from them a copy of a statement by Nigel Montgomery of the opposing camp in which he refers to a medical report on my case prepared by a Dr A J Frew who has never seen me or spoken to me.
It is clear that Dr Frew has had access to my Medical records from Guy's Poisons Unit but has not had sight of the Health Service Ombudsman's report which criticised the actions of all involved in my case.
HJ&A have persistently refused my repeated requests to them to obtain the medical records from Guy's upon which the defence appear to rely. Nor do they appear to wish to obtain or introduce the evidence from tests done at several hospitals around the country. The Montgomery statement refers to my having been part of the OP Pilot study. This is not true since the Legal Aid Board refused to allow me to take part because my case did not concern OP sheep dip.
Furthermore it would seem that both sides are proceeding on the basis of the unproven Evan Owen Jones case which has no relevance to my own since my case involves Actellic D which has been proven to cause such harm in the Hill case. In fact the existence of the chemical proved negligence.
An interesting phrase used by Mr Montgomery is that the case is to be judged on a process of "proof by elimination and sufficient contemporaneity between exposure and symptoms".
For your interest and as an illustration of the failure of both sides to establish the full facts of this case I enclose a copy of a letter written by the director of the National Poisons Unit in December 1994 about my case. It should be noted that I had undergone a full two weeks of neurological, psychological and physical tests and procedures in 1993 and more until early 1994 and that the results of those tests were in the hands of the Director when he wrote the letter.
It is clear that the defendant's team have the records but I only have part of them since Guy's have refused to release much of the detail to me.
You will see that Dr Volans not only confirms the link between exposure and onset of symptoms but he also states that by a process of elimination they could find no alternative diagnosis to that of poisoning.
Interestingly when knowledge of the issue of the writ became public he also wrote withdrawing the opinion of symptom consistency despite the mass of confirming evidence but he later again confirmed poisoning on an official document.
I cannot understand why HJ&A are not pursuing this matter more rigorously.
I enclose my last fax to them for your interest. The fax has also been ignored.
I have no doubt that there will be a full investigation into this matter at a later date and this letter is simply a small effort on my part to protect you from any repercussions should the attempts to stop the case succeed.
I really am truly sorry that I have been forced to write to you again but I am sure you will realise that to go through the Law Society as you suggest would take too long and it is clear that the Court is being deceived.
Yours sincerely,
14th October 2000
URGENT
For the Personal Attention of Master Miller
Queen's Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice
Dear Master Miller,
I refer you to my previous communications. I have received the report put before the court by Stephen Irwin on behalf of the group action and a copy of the application by the defendants to strike out the case under the Part 24 Application.
Hodge Jones & Allen have failed to notify me as to the date when you will consider these applications but I urge you to refuse this application on the grounds that the evidence presented by the defence cannot be substantiated in law. When examined closely the Irwin report actually strengthens my case.
Furthermore in my letter of the 25th September 2000 I included supporting conventional medical opinion for both the temporal relationship between the exposure and the onset of symptoms and the very process of elimination used for diagnosis expected by the Court.
In the last few days it has come to my attention that "Sick Notes" provided by GPs to the DSS are legally binding statements upon the GPs who also come to form a diagnosis by the process of elimination.
GPs can face imprisonment and risk being struck off if they produce false sick notes for patients.
No less than three GPs in our practice have provided such sick notes stating "Chronic OP poisoning" as the diagnosis. This is supported by the stated belief of Dr Jamal, Dr Kenyon, Dr Myhill and Dr Volans all of whom are trained in "conventional medicine" as required by the defendant.
The defence relies upon the spurious suggested diagnosis of CFS resulting from Coxsackie B infection.
There is no proven temporal relationship with any such infection and the onset of the symptoms.
In fact the report upon which the defence relies clearly states that the infection was "recent" in July 1993, 18 months after the incident. Such infections are recognised as short lived, usually about 21 days, and Dr Jamal reported that there were no markers to support such a diagnosis. Furthermore it is recognised that much of the population carries just such antibodies with no ill-effect. The defence case cannot be supported.
This raises serious issues as to the conduct of the action on both sides. Hodge Jones & Allen have obviously failed to support the case with the required zeal. The defence are relying on easily defeated argument against which we have supporting evidence but it is clear that the scientific evidence against them is available despite their refusal to disclose the known harmful effects and the true formulation details.
It is clear that Hodge Jones & Allen have failed to obtain and introduce the vital evidence required to support this action and that having failed they now conspire against their own clients in what amounts to a demand of immunity from prosecution with menaces from the defendants despite the fact that they are themselves acting in breach of the rules of discovery of documents. (My own full medical records have been denied to my representatives and to me but are relied on, in part at least, by the defendant.)
I request that the application be refused for the above reasons. I also request more time because the actions of Hodge Jones & Allen simply do not come up to the standards expected and I must make efforts to find reliable legal representation. This will require the transfer of the Legal Aid Certificate which will take time. Experience tells me that the Legal Services Commission will attempt to stop this case on the grounds of the misleading evidence before the court and the appeal process takes time.
It is important for the public interest that this case proceeds, in the same way that the Hill case was allowed to proceed against the employer, as it involves the same chemical which was proven to cause long term illness.
Could we please have a ruling on the legality or otherwise of the Hodge Jones & Allen client letters?
Yours sincerely,
Breaches of regulation attributing to the case.
| Regulations breached | Incident
Storage of the diluted chemical contrary to regulation Medical
Failure to perform the required tests Science
Failure to provide details of formulation Legal Matters
Acting as a solicitor when unqualified (Care 1994 - 1995)
| Action Taken |
| ||
The good names of science, medicine and the law in Britain will be destroyed if all this is
ignored.
URGENT
18th October 2000
For the Personal Attention of Master Miller
Dear Master Miller,
I have just spoken to Maureen Riordan of Hodge Jones & Allen at length about the threat against the cases in the OP Group Action. I found her attitude most unhelpful as always.
However she informs me that you have contacted her and suggested that I no longer contact you direct "because you are not a litigant in person". She made a determined effort to press that point.
The duty of the Court is to truth and Justice.
You will see from the enclosed that I have also written to Stephen Irwin QC who has made his decision based on false information provided to him by Hodge Jones & Allen.
I have raised the matter of breaches of confidentiality with the Data Protection Agency as it would seem that the false opinion that my symptoms are/were due to Coxsackie B has been circulated to many of the individuals both within and outside the Group Action. There are serious issues of conflict of interest which need to be examined in respect to the access to information and advice given in this action.
The Court must be aware of this if Justice is to be properly served and this is the reason for this letter. I have sent a copy of this letter to the Legal Services Commission.
Yours sincerely,
* Under the definition that a blackmailer is one who makes menaces or improper threats to obtain a benefit for himself or another or a loss to someone else and that a menace is anything that would influence a normal person into agreeing unwillingly to do something.
Clearly there is menace in the Hodge Jones & Allen letter in that the threat is that if we do not agree to ending actions which they themselves have attempted to destroy then their clients will be liable to the full costs against them and that those costs will be held against them for the rest of their lives.
Clearly there is no doubt that many of us have medical support and are unwilling to end the cases.
Queen's Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice
It is clear that Hodge Jones & Allen and the defendants have not provided the Court with the true facts in this matter, as I am sure you will be aware from other case reports.
Knowing that Hodge Jones & Allen have provided the barristers concerned with misleading information it was my duty to ensure that the Court had access to the facts of the case in order to prevent the abuse of the law.
I have since been advised by other solicitors that I should indeed contact the Judge so that the Court is properly informed. Maureen Riordan suggests that I have no right to contact with you because I am not a direct litigant but I suspect that she is trying to maintain her unsupportable position.
I have also raised this issue in the past with the Legal Services Commission who will receive copies of this letter and the enclosure.