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.
20th August 2000
For the Personal Attention of Lord Justice Morland
Queen's Bench Division
Royal Courts of Justice
Dear Lord Morland,
I understand that you presided over the hearings held on 31st July 2001 on the future of the Group organophosphorus action and although I do not wish to compromise your position in any way I feel that there are issues involved of which you may not have been aware.
I have asked Lis Charles of Gabb & Co to tell me exactly what information you were given on my case and was informed that you had some "28 lever arch files and ring binders" of evidence before you. It is hard to believe that you could possibly have been able to examine this information in the time but I do wonder if you were made aware of the recently discovered evidence or the true history of the case.
I understand that the reason for striking out my case was that to continue would be an "abuse of process" but I fear that the facts demonstrate that the defendants have been the culprits on that issue.
Lis Charles has evidence that the negligence was in fact an illegal act for the admitted mixture of chemicals has been confirmed as illegal by the chemical companies Syngenta and Dow Agroscience and confirmed as such by no less a body than the Pesticide Safety Directorate, all in writing.
Further evidence supporting the case is found in letters from the Food Standards Agency which state that the chemical was stable in water and would not have broken down until after the incident.
On the medical side my case is unusual in that the National Health Service funds my treatment through the Area Health Authority. That treatment is for "chronic organophosphorus poisoning immune system dysfunction" and the treatment is funded as a "special case" so there is no doubt over the diagnosis.
The confusion seems to come from the selective quotation of the Guy's medical notes by the defence who appear to have greater access to such records than I have been given and yet choose to ignore the written statements in those records which show quite clearly that there is no alternative diagnosis to that of poisoning.
The scientific statements put before the courts by the defence are also of questionable accuracy and Dr Frew upon whom they rely has never so much as spoken to me and has never seen or examined me.
I have no way of knowing if the barristers put this information before the Court on my behalf but I would suggest that any abuse of the Court process has been from the defence. I anticipated that Hodge Jones & Allen would fail to submit my supporting evidence before the due day and I therefore supplied Master Miller with copies of the relevant papers before the time limit had expired so the defence cannot rely on that either.
So here we have a case of employer negligence involving admitted unlawful acts; an illegal chemical mixture, breaches of COSHH, Pesticide and employment laws, breaches of the rules on disclosure, the placing before the court of false evidence and false statements, the disadvantage by way of refusal of information and medical records to the plaintive and the restrictions on legal aid which have prevented access for the plaintiff to truly independent scientists and yet that plaintiff has been successfully accused of "abuse of process" by the defence whose own part 24 Application was full of errors of fact.
I understand that the Human Rights Act demands a fair and independent trial and the ability for all parties to put supporting evidence before the court with one party not disadvantaged in respect to the other.
I also understand that it is a criminal offence to place false evidence before the court but am told that this will be ignored and that I will never find anyone who will investigate that aspect.
I do not expect you to act on the contents of this letter but in trying to protect you from any possible ramifications, and against the advice of Lis Charles, I thought you had the right to be aware of the true facts.
Yours sincerely,
4th February 2002
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
For the Personal Attention of Lord Justice Morland
Queen's Bench Division
Royal Courts of Justice
Dear Lord Morland,
I refer you to my letter to you of 20th August 2001, a copy of which is enclosed but which, due to my condition I unfortunately dated 2000, and to the correspondence with your colleague Master Miller.
It is my understanding that you have changed your opinion in very quick time and dismissed every single Organophosphorus case before you, including my own, and additionally ruled out any chance of appeal.
I believe that you have tried this case out of Court without having access to all the evidence.
However both of the Judges involved knew very well that there were serious problems involving unlawful actions on the part of the defence team and certain legal firms acting for the plaintiffs.
Article 6 of the Human Rights Act clearly states that the legal system must be set up in such a way that people are not excluded from the court process. The Legal Services Commission is itself linked to Government and the above mentioned legal firms and the restrictions imposed on the case has effectively tied the hands of my representatives making the ability to obtain proper and independent opinion an impossible task.
This is also in breach of the Human Rights Act. Article 6 gives us the right to present the case and evidence to the court under conditions which do not place us at a disadvantage when compared with the other party.
The defendants in my case used experts who had never so much as spoken to me and who relied on information which has been proven to be false but you have denied me the opportunity to demonstrate that in court whilst at the same time the supporting opinions of qualified individuals who have not only seen me but have also examined me have been dismissed with the false comment that there is no supporting opinion.
Article 6 also states the importance of impartiality and it is clear from reports given to me that you showed concern for the losses to date by the very wealthy defendants and their backers without considering that the delays and the considerable expense and suffering to the plaintiffs were due almost entirely to the defence themselves and their unwillingness to be open either to us or to the court.
Furthermore in my own case there was criminal negligence which is admitted in the very statements upon which the defence relies. There has also been perjury, again proven in the documentation. It is also obvious that the defence relies upon documents from Guy's Hospital which are incomplete and often shown to be inaccurate and yet they very carefully avoid using any documents from those records which destroy the one aspect of the case upon which they rely for their defence. There are clear attempts to pervert the course of justice by the introduction of false evidence and you were very much aware of that unlawful activity.
Obviously there are serious issues about the handling of my own case which must be taken further but these cases were brought in the "Public Interest" because the health of the public depends on the knowledge that such chemicals are as safe as possible and that they are used according to the law. There are also implications of costs to the tax payer for the research undertaken to date simply to prove what the defendants already know. Your decision has made it impossible for that enormous cost to be reclaimed from the defendants.
I fear that you have been misled by the defendants and that you have made a very grave mistake which will cause harm to the reputations of all involved. Your task was to see that Justice is done and that it is seen to be fair and within the law. Criminal actions have taken place and the law has protected the criminals.
I urge you to think again and to give leave for all the cases to appeal against your decision.
Yours sincerely,
In fact, unknown to the Plaintiff, he was granted the right to appeal. Once again the lawyers appear to have failed even to mention the supporting facts of the case and once again his case was dismissed.
Repeated requests to the lawyers failed to obtain details of the evidence presented to the Appeal Courts.