Papers in Support of

A Request

For

JUDICIAL REVIEW

In respect to Tribunal U/03/203/2004/01054

 Documents Relied Upon

Claimant : *****************             NINo: ************	                         Age 55

DOCUMENT					DOCUMENT				   	   DATED
		Page
A (i) – (ii)	5-6	Letters informing of intent to request Judicial Review		08.07.05	

A1		7	Legal Officer to Commissioner suggesting Judicial Review  	13.06.05

A2 - 8	           8-14	Form OSSC1 requesting leave to Appeal				19.03.05

A9 		15	Appeals Service refusing permission to Appeal			24.02.05

A10		16	Appeals Service letter re statement of reasons			12.01.05

A11 		17	Appeals Service denying the diagnosis of poisoning			11.01.05

A12 – 24      18-30	Appeals Service Statement of Reasons				11.01.05
			NOTE that there are errors in almost every paragraph

A25 – 38       31-44	Detailed report on the errors of fact claimed as true in the	Undated
Tribunal Statement of Reasons

A39 – 40       45-46	Blood Test result confirming neurological and brain damage	26.05.05
			- Note that this supports all those who gave a confirmed diagnosis
			of chronic organophosphorus poisoning and is irrefutable evidence
			against the implied “somatisation syndrome” and “mind set” accusations.

A41		47	Reasons for the Appeal to the Commissioners			Undated	

A42-44       152-154 	Commissioner refusal to allow the appeal with the false claim	25.04.05
			that there was no evidence confirming the reported false evidence
and statements in the files. Plus letter accompanying.		26.04.05

And additional evidence listed on separate sheets as 			

B1 to B11      48-58

C1 to C14      59-72   and 

D1 to D79    73-151

Claimant : **************             NINo:************	                         Age 55

DOCUMENT					DOCUMENT				   	   DATED
	    Page
B1	       48		The definition of PD C3						1992

B2	       49 	Report by Professor Vyvyan Howard on the toxic potential		10.12.01 
			of chemical mixtures involving organophosphates.

B3 – 5	      50-52	Statement to the High Court by Ivan Vince on chemistry 		18.01.02	
			- note the doubts over defendant’s chemical claims were later
			proven to be correct by a simple scientific analysis

B6	       53		Chemical analysis proving prolonged activity in just one of		02.07.04
			the chemicals involved in this case when diluted in water		

B7	       54 	Parliamentary written answers confirming the protection of		Feb. 2005
			the active ingredients in pesticide formulations

B8	       55		Official confirmation recognising the exposure as an accident	26.02.02

B9	       56		Internal Health and Safety Executive communication indicating      Dec. 1994
			Deliberate incitement to pervert the course of justice 

B10	        57	Internal Health and safety Executive communication indicating 	May 1994
			Pressure brought to bear on Doctor, now, Prof. Murray

B11	        58	Law Centre stating that they could find no representation with 	03.11.04
			Sufficient competence for the November 2004 tribunal

REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE CASE

C1	        59	Procedural Fairness	(See also Human Rights C14)		Undated

C2 – 8	     60-66	Decision Maker Regulations not complied with fully		Undated

C9 – 12     67-70	Maladministration – definition and remedies				Undated

C13	        71	Presumption Rules							Undated

C14 	        72	Human Rights issues 							Undated

MEDICAL EVIDENCE provided to the Tribunal of 19th November 2004  

Claimant : ***************            NINo: ************	                         Age 55

DOCUMENT					DOCUMENT				   	   DATED

   Supporting Medical opinion which is confirmed beyond doubt by the 2005 results  26.05.05
	      Page
D 1-2	     73-74	Initial report by Dr V Murray						21.09.92

D 3	        75	Confirmation on phone by Dr V Murray				31.10.92

D 4	        76	Reference to symptom consistency with OP poisoning as a	07.06.93
			requirement for eligibility for expensive testing.
			Without symptom consistency there would have been no testing

D 5-6	     77-78	Reference to further tests for OP patients like the claimant	01.06.94

D 7	       79		Letter from Prof. V Murray offering assistance			14.11.04

D 8-13      80-85	Report from Dr Viner confirming all symptoms had a 		21.09.93	
			physical cause and probable diagnosis of OP poisoning - see D12 & D13

D 14-17     86-89	Report from Dr McKenna on cognitive deficits 			28.07.93

D 18	        90	Letter from Dr Chia confirming symptom consistency		22.12.93

D 19 	        91	Form from Dr Glyn Volans confirming PD C3 eligibility		06.12.94

D 20-21    92-93	Letter from Glyn Volans stating no alternative diagnosis 		02.12.94

D 22-25    94-97	Dr Reid Diagnosis of Chronic OP Poisoning			1994-95

D 26-30    98-102	Dr Reid letters supporting the PD C3 claim   	  07.09.94  &   01.05.95

D 31	       103	Dr White diagnosis of Chronic OP poisoning			04.09.96

D 32-34   104-106	Dr Walker diagnosis of Chronic OP poisoning			1995-04

D 35	       107	Dr Walker letter supporting the PD C3 claim			16.08.97
			
D 36	       108	Dr Walker MED 4 forms giving diagnosis of OP poisoning   1996 & 20.09.04
			and stating that there is no alternative diagnosis

D 37	       109	Dr Kenyon confirmed diagnosis of chemical poisoning		23.09.94	

D 38 	       110	Dr Kenyon confirmed diagnosis and ongoing spray effects		30.04.96

D 39 	       111	Dr Kenyon questioning 2003 Department’s decision on diagnosis 	06.01.04
			Confirming poisoning and denying any psychological involvement

D 40	        112	Dr Kenyon confirming organophosphorus poisoning		03.12.01 
			- mentioning peripheral neuropathy	
	      Page
D 41	       113	Dr Kenyon confirming organophosphorus poisoning		24.01.02

D 42-47    114-119	Dr Jamal Confirming symptom consistency with poisoning by	07.11.95
			Organophosphates and solvents as in pesticides and PD C3

D 48-66    120-138	Dr Myhill medico/legal report for High Court			19.10.99
			Confirming poisoning based on available medical records and reports

D 67	       139	Dr Myhill letter regarding dangers of chemical exposures		30.09.00

D 68	       140	Dr Myhill letter regarding the effects of the illegal mixture		13.03.02
			- note chronic fatigue and multiple chemical sensitivity are
			recognised results of organophosphorus poisoning

D 69-70    141-142	1997 Tribunal Unanimous decision by three members who		13.06.97 
			Recognised obvious neurological symptoms and ordered a 
Domiciliary hearing with all papers in order

D 71	       143	Dr Berrange Confirmed that PD C3 criteria fulfilled 		25.03.02
		
D 72	       144	Dr Ringer confirmed that PD C3 criteria fulfilled and confirmed	27.01.03	 
the recognised sequela of peripheral neuropathy as present

D 73 	       145	Dr Martin admission after scrutinising the file that the		15.06.98	 
Benefits Agency was “on a losing wicket” 
– in other words PD C3 applied – it does not refer to other benefits as suggested

D 74-75    146-147	National Health Service Funding for treatment for			10.07.00
Poisoning and confirming NHS Prescriptions			29.01.01
			Still current and ongoing well into 2005

D 76	        148	Notification that accident was recognised 				26.02.02
			- note that the accident was the exposure to OPs
			and triggered the disease diagnosed as OP poisoning

D 77-78    149-150	Leigh Day & Co letter reporting that Guy’s admitted symptom	23.01.95
			consistency with poisoning 
			- note Drs Murray and Moore made the initial statement on 21.12.93 

D 79	       151	Note that the original file was “lost” by Dr Ringer			08.11.02
			His earlier involvement in the case is of concern.

NOTE:  All opinions prior to 2002 were given without knowledge of the illegal chemical mixture   
             Symptoms of PD C3 were also recorded in reports of medical examiners by the department.

The Definition of the Industrial Injury known as Prescribed Disease C3

              PRESCRIBED DISEASE C3 is one of a number of Conditions due to Chemical Agents. 

Prescribed Disease C3 is defined as poisoning by phosphorus or an inorganic compound of 
  	phosphorus or poisoning due to anti-cholinesterase or pseudo anti-cholinesterase action of 
  	organic phosphorus compounds.

The chemicals recognised as the cause of PDC3 under “Causative Agent 4” are referred to as  Organophosphorus pesticides, and may involve one or more chemicals from a large group.
Pesticide formulations include toxic impurities and solvents in addition to the active ingredients and those substances are also known to cause adverse health effects.

The chemicals involved in this case were in the class “organophosphorus compounds” but they were illegally mixed and therefore there is no knowledge of the true nature of the toxic potential of that specific mixture of organophosphates and their solvents.
Both chemicals are anti-cholinesterase in action and the solvents in the respective formulations may have enhanced their toxicity.

Peripheral neuropathy is a recognised sequela of exposure to these chemicals. 
Cardio-respiratory, digestive system, vision, bone, neurological and brain damage are commonly reported effects of exposure. Chemical sensitivity is also a recognised effect of exposure.

The Presumption Rule applies in Prescribed Disease C3 cases.
Only when the presumption rule does not apply should the balance of probabilities be considered.
Firm evidence of an alternative diagnosis is required if the presumption rule is to be ignored.

In this case there is no substantiated evidence of any alternative diagnosis.

The diagnosis for PD C3 and in this case is “Chronic Organophosphorus Poisoning”
That is the only medically and scientifically supported diagnosis and has been since 1994.

Claimant : *************            NINo: *************	                         Age 55

DOCUMENT					DOCUMENT				   	   DATED
	    Page
B1	       48		The definition of PD C3						1992

B2	       49 	Report by Professor Vyvyan Howard on the toxic potential		10.12.01 
			of chemical mixtures involving organophosphates.

B3 – 5	      50-52	Statement to the High Court by Ivan Vince on chemistry 		18.01.02	
			- note the doubts over defendant’s chemical claims were later
			proven to be correct by a simple scientific analysis

B6	       53		Chemical analysis proving prolonged activity in just one of		02.07.04
			the chemicals involved in this case when diluted in water		

B7	       54 	Parliamentary written answers confirming the protection of		Feb. 2005
			the active ingredients in pesticide formulations

B8	       55		Official confirmation recognising the exposure as an accident	26.02.02

B9	       56		Internal Health and Safety Executive communication indicating      Dec. 1994
			Deliberate incitement to pervert the course of justice 

B10	        57	Internal Health and safety Executive communication indicating 	May 1994
			Pressure brought to bear on Doctor, now, Prof. Murray

B11	        58	Law Centre stating that they could find no representation with 	03.11.04
			Sufficient competence for the November 2004 tribunal

REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE CASE

C1	        59	Procedural Fairness	(See also Human Rights C14)		Undated

C2 – 8	     60-66	Decision Maker Regulations not complied with fully		Undated

C9 – 12     67-70	Maladministration – definition and remedies				Undated

C13	        71	Presumption Rules							Undated

C14 	        72	Human Rights issues 							Undated

HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES

The Human Rights act 1998 specifically applies to issues in this case.

Article 6 (1) protects the rights to a fair hearing, to impartiality, to disclosure and the right to adduce new evidence, to freedom or bias, due process, and equality of arms with the right to obtain proper legal representation.

The documentation is evidence that shows that all these rights have been ignored and throughout the case the appeal process has involved individuals who had earlier involvement and showed considerable bias.
Despite every effort it was not possible to obtain legal representation for the Tribunal and a solicitor only appeared as a witness. The tribunal was aware of the difficulties in obtaining essential documents and has since refused to supply those requested as evidence for Judicial Review.
There could be no fair hearing when false evidence is kept on file despite repeated protests.

Article 2 ensures the right to life and gives the State an obligation to protect life. To that end it is essential to obtain a proper diagnosis and treatment. It is also essential to ensure personal and economic protection from harm done by the State, in no matter what form that harm takes. 

In this case the diagnositic process has been deliberately seeded with false evidence and access to vital records has been denied in order to prevent official recognition of the only lawful diagnosis.
That process has resulted in life-threatening occurrences, including inappropriate drug use, and subjection to difficult and stressful situations, which could easily have been avoided had the truth not been systematically and intentionally suppressed. 

Article 3 refers to torture and inhumane or degrading treatment. 

When an individual is known to suffer adverse reactions to perfumes and officials force that individual to be examined by people wearing perfumed products that is a form of torture because the reaction is akin to administering life-threatening drugs. To then treat the sufferer with indifference, despite obvious suffering, and then to make false accusations about the weakness of his character is degrading.
It is also degrading to try to imply that a person who is reporting facts is acting irrationally in attempts to imply mental illness, especially when those making such accusations have evidence to the contrary. 
That is exactly how the Tribunal of November 2004 behaved despite having in their possession legal reports stating how such chemicals posed a risk to life and evidence supporting the reported facts.

Article 14 prohibits discrimination. 

The tribunal was asked how many other claimants had been forced to provide such a mass of scientific and medical evidence merely to support a claim and they were referred to two cases that had been granted the diagnosis on far weaker medical evidence.
The bias in the Tribunal was obvious and the medical examiner had reportedly already published a report in which he questioned the effects of similar chemicals as were involved in this case. He may also have been involved in an earlier dismissal of the case but the information provided is vague.
Despite written evidence demonstrating duplicitous opinions the Tribunal still tried to ridicule the reports of dishonesty faced by the claimant.

This is a specialist area of law and Article 6 provides the right to obtain specialist legal advice, so far denied, therefore amendments to these comments may be required at a later date.

IN THE MATTER OF ********************
AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS
AND
THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONERS

CO/6520/2005
*          *         *         *          *          *          *
SUMMARY OF PAPERS FOR ESSENTIAL READING BY THE COURT
*          *         *         *          *          *          *
1.  All the papers and the information contained therein should be regarded as essential evidence  
     for the Court and should therefore be read as part of the decision process in compliance with the 
     Human Rights Act under Article 6 to avoid unfairness or substantial disadvantage.
     Pages with perhaps greater importance are listed in the index with bold type in the text.

2.   It should be noted that pages (31-44) demonstrate that the Statement of Reasons (18-30) by the 
      Tribunal of 19th November 2004 was in fact grossly inaccurate and detrimental to the claim.
      There were witnesses to the proceedings and the corrective comments can be supported. 

3.  Page 144 is a Statement containing direct quotes from Dr Ringer during his examination.
     Those quotes can be supported and they demonstrate that the claim was unlawfully denied.

4.   Page 48 defines the definition of PD C3 and the Causative Agent admitted to be the agent  
      causing the condition subject to the claim in 1994 see page 91.  Attention should be given to 
      the fact that Dr Volans supported the PD C3 claim and introduced Causative Agent 4 in the diagnosis 
      required for the claim. An earlier Tribunal also regarded him as a supporting opinion in 1999.  
      Only Dr Volans will be able to explain his actions and the deception involved.

5.   Page 47 indicates the errors in law enacted by the Tribunal and reported to the Commissioners.
      There was sufficient information provided to the Commissioners to indicate that serious breaches of       
      regulations and laws of evidence had taken place but the information was apparently ignored.
      A limited extract of the relevant regulations breached is found on pages 60-66.
      It is an error in law to knowingly accept false evidence as admissible and the Tribunal and the 
      Commissioners were informed that their medical experts were intentionally misleading them.

6.    Pages 73-151 demonstrate the long-standing support, by expert medical professionals and the 
       National Health Service, of the diagnosis which was then denied by the Commissioner and the 
       Tribunal. It should be noted that the regulations state that when a presumption applies (see page 71) 
       then those denying a diagnosis must be able to provide conclusive evidence to prove that the 
       diagnosis is not valid. 
       They have failed to do so and cannot scientifically or medically support their conclusions. 

7.    Page 55 demonstrates that the authorities recognised that the exposure to the chemicals was 
       confirmed as an accident. That accident is confirmed to have caused the disability for life and the 
       accident was exposure to the organophosphorus chemicals as required for the claim. 
       Dr Volans confirmed that the illness began with those exposures – see page 92.

8.   Pages 59 and 72 relate to the rules of procedural fairness and breaches of the Human Rights Act.
      These breaches are clear in that false statements were used deliberately to undermine the claim,   
       supporting evidence was ignored or deliberately misinterpreted in order to deny the claim, and the 
       actions of the Tribunal and the medical examiners demonstrated bias and failure to follow due 
       process or to take account of the evidence available. The Commissioner failed to recognise the facts 
      of this case or perhaps was given more false information by the Secretary of State or representatives.

9.  Page 7 is a copy of the letter from the Commissioner’s legal representative following their refusal to 
     accept scientific proof (pages  45-46) that all those doctors giving supporting opinion in pages 73-151
     were absolutely correct in their diagnosis and that the Tribunal and commissioners were wrong.
     It is important to note that this evidence was not required for the Commissioner to reach the correct 
     decision and over-turn the Tribunal. There was sufficient evidence of wrong-doing by the Tribunal and 
      its medical advisers before this scientific validation of the diagnosis but it was all ignored.
    It was the letter of 13.6.2005 (page 7) that triggered the legal advice to apply for Judicial Review.

10.  Diagnosis is a process and that process takes time and requires considerable information. 
       Despite requirements in law on the employer and others to provide information to affected persons 
       vital information was withheld during the years following the poisoning and this made the diagnostic 
       process more difficult for the medical team who stood firm throughout and have been vindicated. 
       None of those doctors were aware of the nature of the chemicals in the illegal mix and they were 
       further confused by those who provided false scientific information.
       However the Tribunal and the Commissioner were in full knowledge of the illegal mix, the prolonged 
       activity of the chemicals and the lack of scientific knowledge in regard to the toxicity of that mix.
       Pages 49-54 offer scientific evidence available to the Tribunal and therefore to the Commissioner and 
       they both erred in law when the importance of that information was dismissed.

11.  Pages 56 and 57 provide evidence that unlawful practices were employed against this claim by staff 
       within the Department of Work and Pensions.

12. Page 58 indicates that it was not possible to achieve equality of arms at the November 2004 Tribunal.
      A solicitor examined the papers for this claim, realised that gross deception had taken place 
      throughout the processing of this case, and offered to act as a witness at the tribunal. 
      The solicitor was not permitted in law to represent my case at the Tribunal and was merely present as 
      a witness. A nurse was also present and witnessed the examination and assisted with undressing and 
      with walking across the room. When full legal representation is obtained evidence can be provided 
      that conclusively counters the claims made by the Tribunal and supported by the Commissioner.

13.  Page 47 gives the reasons why an appeal was made to the Commissioners, all of which can be 
       supported by evidence.

14.  Pages 152-154  represent the Commissioner’s refusal to recognise the facts of the case and the 
       support given to the Tribunal despite the conclusive evidence demonstrating gross maladministration.
       Required actions to be taken when maladministration has taken place are outlined on pages 67-70 and 
       the Court is urged to give due consideration to the consequences to society if such blatant disregard 
       to the law and pertinent regulations are allowed to persist unchallenged in society.

Finally the Tribunal of 1999, ironically after deliberately misinterpreting specialist opinion in order to support their preferred outcome, quoted the late Lord Denning who decreed:

“if the evidence is so evenly balanced that the Tribunal is unable to come to a determinate conclusion one way or the other, then the man must be given the benefit of the doubt. This means that the case must be decided in favour of the man unless the evidence against him reaches the same degree of cogency as is required to discharge the burden in a civil case."

There is no confirmed scientific or medical evidence against this claim and much evidence of unlawful practices employed by those who wish to undermine the case.
I urge the Court to give careful consideration to all the evidence supplied in favour of this request for a Judicial Review of the erroneous decisions made by the Tribunal and the Commissioner in this case. 
21st September 2005

******************		The right to Judicial Review was denied. Papers for the appeal follow	

Supplementary information for Judicial Review Appeal Case CO/6520/2005
(In Answer to the issues raised in the Summary of Grounds by the SS)
Re The Queen on the application of ******* versus SS FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

The order of the Honourable Mr Justice Bennett refusing permission for Judicial Review was dated 18 October 2005 and the reasons given were those the Solicitor for the Department for Work and Pensions put forward on behalf of the Secretary of State in the Acknowledgement of Service.
In that acknowledgement dated 15 September 2005 the Summary of Grounds begins at Point 1 with the suggestion that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is wrongly named as the defendant but is an interested party and that the grounds are submitted on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Comment.  Point 1. 
The papers were served on the Treasury Solicitors and on the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions but the former informed me that the latter had requested all the papers on the case from them as the latter considered themselves to be acting on the matter.
All those acting on behalf of the Secretary of State and under that authority are deemed to act as if they are the Secretary of State under the Carltona Principle as confirmed by the Decisions Maker’s Guide which states that “from 5.7.99 all decisions will be made on behalf of the Secretary of State”
This matter concerns the fraudulent misrepresentation of the facts by those acting for the Secretary of State and therefore the correct defendant was named.

The permission to Appeal mentioned in point 2 was sought but was denied on the assumption that all information provided on behalf of the Secretary of State was accurate – as should be expected but which in this case is far from the truth.

Point 3 suggests that the reasons for refusal should be shown by the claimant to be improper, insufficient or lacked grounds and suggests that permission should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. There is no doubt that this case is exceptional and that the misrepresentations are themselves grounds for permission.

Point 4 demonstrates that it is the Secretary of State who is responsible for resisting the claim.

Point 5 refers to the challenge of the decision of Commissioner Jupp of 25 April refusing leave to appeal.

Comment. Point 5.
When the Commissioner’s decision was received a request was made for the matter to be looked at again because it was clear that the Commissioner was not aware of the deceptions involved.
Sadly this request was refused and we now find ourselves at this position, despite repeated written requests that those who deceived the Commissioner should provide written statements supported by Statements of Truth. Presumably they are unable to do so without committing further offences.

Point 6 confirms that the Appeal Tribunal upheld the refusal by the Secretary of State to recognise the diagnosis even though that diagnosis was established at great cost by my GP and his medical team.

Comment point 6.
 The Appeal Tribunal was informed before it sat, and on the day before and during proceedings, that the information supplied to it by representatives of the Secretary of State was false.
This was done in writing and before witnesses at the Tribunal. This information was ignored and the Tribunal then created false reports themselves to uphold the decision, which evidence suggests was pre-determined before the hearing began. 
In addition the “Presumption Rule” sets obligations that have not been complied with by the DWP.

Point 7 suggests that the Tribunal Decision was the “correct one” in the light of case law etc. that the Commissioner’s decision was the “only one open to him” and that permission for Judicial Review should therefore be refused.

Comment Point 7.
As in Point 6 the Tribunal’s decision cannot possibly have been the “correct one” because they knew that it was based on false information and that their decision was formed by ignoring all the supporting evidence presented and their own findings on medical examination. 

The Legal Framework arguments begin at Point 8 and admit that benefit should be paid to those injured at work.

Comment Point 8.
It is admitted that the case meets the prescription criteria in regards to the employment.

Point 9 describes the Industrial Disease central to this claim, PD C3, and describes the very exposure routes as reported to the representatives of the Secretary of State in this claim.

The Grounds of Legal Challenge begin at point 10 and gives the basis for the challenge as (a) error in law in the Commissioner’s refusal because of provision of false evidence, bias, inexpert opinion etc and (b) breaches of Human rights.

Point 11 suggests that the claimant has not substantiated grounds to prove that the evidence was false.

Comment point 11  
Those involved are perfectly aware of what they have done. It is extremely dangerous for society as a whole if officials can act above the law by introducing false evidence into cases in order to achieve their preferred results, especially when no independent record is permitted. The Department is well aware of the actions taken and I provided statements to that effect in the bundle of papers served (31-44 & 143-144) in addition to reporting the misrepresentations long before the Tribunal sat. In addition there are numerous published papers available to all those involved that demonstrate the erroneous comments made by DWP “experts” who would not have made them if they were sufficiently well versed in the effects of poisons. In any event I understand that the Court of Appeal has ruled that in civil proceedings, proof of an allegation of crime need only be on the basis of the balance of probabilities. Since later scientific evidence supported the poisoning diagnosis that had already been obtained through the painstaking efforts of my GP and his colleagues, who, contrary to regulations, were not approached by the Tribunal or medical examiners, that in itself provides evidence both of the false evidence, bias, and in-expertise of those involved. In addition the medical examiner Dr Rees had published a paper in 1996 suggesting that organophosphates had not caused ill health in sheep dippers and he may well therefore have had pre-conceived views on this case.

Point 12 claims that the Tribunal made all necessary findings of fact and was therefore correct in law with the additional suggestion that the commissioner was also correct in law.

Comment Point 12
As the 1999 Tribunal admitted (after deliberately misrepresenting a supporting expert’s opinion and ignoring others) - in Miller, Denning J said, “....the case must be decided according to the preponderance of probability. If at the end of the case the evidence turns the scale definitely one way or the other, the tribunal must decide accordingly, but if the evidence is so evenly balanced that the tribunal is unable to come to a determinate conclusion one way or the other, then the man must be given the benefit of the doubt.”  It should be noted that my advisors suggested, after failing to overturn that dubious decision and having witnessed the deception first-hand, that a new claim should be made when the evidence of the illegal mixture of chemicals involved had been obtained.
The Tribunal of 2004 could not possibly support its comment that the diagnosis issue was res judicata in relation to the period up to and including the date of the MAT decision and was not for consideration by the Tribunal. The purpose of the appeal to the Tribunal was specifically because the poisoning diagnosis had been wrongly denied and there was new evidence – and the findings of the Ringer examination were disregarded in favour of proven dishonest and conflicting opinions of Dr Volans, who was criticised by a Commissioner in 2001 and by the Health Ombudsman in 1996.

Point 13 refers to the breaches of the Human Rights Convention but they are clearly noted in the papers before the Commissioner and stand on their own merit. Even on the “Equality of Arms”, “right to disclosure”, and “Fair Hearing” points there are obvious and provable breaches.

Point 14 refers to the failure to show that the refusal was improper etc but it is clear that decisions based on false evidence deliberately introduced to prevent a just decision cannot stand.

Page 15 suggests that the claim was in any case out of time. 
Comment Point 15
It could be argued that because the decision was based in false information then criminal offences have been committed for which there are no time limits but there are many reasons why this claim is not time-barred.
I do not have legal representation but I was requested to call for a Judicial Review by a member of the House of Lords who is aware that the Department is determined to prevent the recognition of poisoning by these chemicals and that unlawful means have been used to achieve that end.
Admittedly the date of service was outside of the period from the Commissioner’s decision but that is not the complete story since there was a further request for a review on the grounds that the Commissioner had been given false information by the DWP.
It was when this request was refused that it became clear that Judicial Review was a necessity and the papers were sealed well within the time period from the date of that refusal.
I am not a well man and I had to prepare the papers myself. Initially I was advised to provide “everything” to the court but just days before the posting date I realised that several copies would be required and that it was physically and financially impossible to copy everything and provide the required consecutive numbered pages.
I therefore had to think and act quickly to reduce the number of pages and although the Court received the papers before the three month period after the date of the Commissioner’s decision they were returned to me after several weeks delay on the grounds that a letter was missing.
I corrected the error and with the permission of the Court staff the bundle was re-sent and sealed by the court 
The letter from the Commissioner refusing to address the issue of deception and false statements before the Commissioner was dated 13 June 2005. 
The Commissioner's letter refusing leave to appeal was dated 25 April 2005. 
Despite the fact that it refers to the power to "set aside refusals where there have been certain procedural slips" from the letter of 13th June they obviously considered that the deception was not such a "slip" The original papers to the court were received by the court on 19th July 2005 
The court held them but returned the papers to me because the Commissioner's letter was missing. 
I received them on 13th August. They gave me permission to re-submit the papers with those added. 
The court received the papers on 16th August 2005 - the day they were sealed. 

 I would suggest therefore that there is every reason why a Judicial Review is required.

Point 16 reaffirms the view that permission should be refused but if that decision is made then all those who have misled the Court, and the Judiciary, will escape censure and they will assume that they will be able to do so in any and every case that comes before them in the future.
I for one do not wish to live in a society where officials are permitted to act unlawfully but this is not my decision and it is not my place or duty to protect the reputation of either the Department for Work and Pensions or the Courts. I simply ask for honesty and recognition of the true facts.
 I understand that Natural Justice relates solely to procedural unfairness and that the courts assume that Natural Justice is raised by those who lose their case but the requirements for the rules of natural justice are an absence of personal bias on the part of the tribunal; an obligation to base their decision on evidence; and, whether or not there is an oral hearing, to consider fairly the contentions of all people entitled to be represented. 
Dr Ringer referred directly to Natural Justice but then produced a biased report, which not only denied the diagnosis but also ignored many of the proven signs and symptoms in order to reduce the amount awarded. The Tribunal, knowing of its inaccuracy then supported the false report.
Dr Ringer could not correctly provide evidence of an alternative diagnosis or pre-existing conditions because his chosen “expert” Dr Volans had himself written that the illness directly followed the incident and that science had been unable to establish an alternative diagnosis.
The evidence shows that my GPs, their chosen specialists, and the NHS all support the diagnosis that is denied so determinedly by the Tribunal Service and others with vested interests in hiding the truth. The presence of the nurse at the hearing shows that they accepted that my poor state of health was both serious and genuine and that the Tribunal itself could and did trigger serious and debilitating physical reactions. That the Tribunal failed to report accurately is a matter for concern for all who are involved in these decision-making processes.

In the rules for Prescribed Disease contracted by industrial accident the disease takes precedent and the decision maker should deal with claims for diseases caused by an industrial accident under the PD, and not the accident provisions, where the disease would have been prescribed for the employed earner because of the occupation being carried out at the time of the accident.
The DWP admits that the incident caused my disability for life and therefore the disease rules apply and they should have taken more note of the supporting medical evidence.

Peripheral Neuropathy is a condition resulting from Prescribed Disease C3 (sequelae) and throughout my case history since the accident signs and symptoms of that condition, have been reported by doctors and medical examiners, including Dr Ringer (e.g. pins & needles, sensation loss.)
The regulations state that  "Sequelae" is the term applied to conditions which result from PDs.  Medically they are described as symptoms or morbid conditions due to the disease which remain or supervene after the disease has run its usual course. A person suffering from such a condition is treated as suffering from the PD itself. [it continues] As far as the diagnosis question is concerned this means that if any people have suffered from a PD but have made no claim for benefit for it, and they subsequently suffer from another condition shown to be a sequela of the disease, they must be treated as if they were suffering from the PD for the purposes of determining the diagnosis question in a claim for benefit for the sequela. [and further]  There is no presumption that a particular condition results from a particular PD. This question must be determined in the light of the medical evidence of the case. 
Again unbiased opinion would confirm that a diagnosis of poisoning with the sequelae is the disease.

A presumption in the claimant's favour continues to apply unless the decision maker is able to rebut it, that is, to show that the disease was not due to the nature of the employment. To do this the decision maker must have proof sufficient to establish the point on the balance of probabilities. That is the decision maker must be satisfied that, taking into account all the relevant evidence, it is more probable that the disease was not due to the nature of the employed earner's employment than that it was.
These conditions were not satisfied since there is no evidence to counter the scientifically supported and confirmed diagnosis of poisoning – plus it is admitted that the accident caused the illness.

Regarding late applications the guide also states that these are allowable if it is "in the interests of justice" where special circumstances, which are relevant to the application, have prevented the application being made on time. Special circumstances are defined as “some other special circumstances exist which are wholly exceptional and are relevant to the application”. I suggest that deception by the officials involved in this case provides the “special circumstances” required for permission for Judicial Review in the interests of Justice and of public confidence in the system.
I believe that those involved in controlling the evidence used in this case have been guilty of Obstruction with the intent to prevent a just outcome. 
I understand that it is an offence for a person to make a statement which he knows to be false or misleading in a material particular, or recklessly to make a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular. The Tribunal was aware that false statements were in the files an their failure to address the issue when raised gave a signal of intent and confirmed my suspicion of bias.
I believe that offences of fraud are involved since there is potential for financial gain in reducing or denying benefit and for appeals. I also understand that it is an offence if fraud is being or is likely to be carried out to falsify, conceal, destroy or otherwise dispose of, or cause or permit the falsification, concealment, destruction or disposal of documents or other evidence that are known, or suspects are or would be, relevant to an investigation.
From the outset of this case information has been concealed with the intent to defraud the family of the claimant. Medical records have been withheld, vital papers have not been included in Tribunal bundles, and the entire file “was lost” when in the possession of Dr Ringer. Despite this Dr Ringer was later made the examining officer and the incorrect details from the “lost” files were then resurrected in order to prevent a successful appeal against the decision that was based on his false report.
Interestingly despite a request for transcripts and CCTV footage of the 2001 Commissioner hearing I was first informed that there were none and then that they had been destroyed.
Even in 1997 a Tribunal declared that it was a disgrace that the papers were not complete and were illegible. This was repeated at the tribunal in 1999 and again in 2004. It is unlikely to be accidental.

Threats have been made against me by DWP staff. At one stage I was informed that I would be made “worse off” if I appealed against Dr Ringer’s decision.  My GP wondered how?
The Health and Safety Executive (another part of the DWP) initially threatened me with prosecution if I did not report the accident that triggered my illness and yet the employer, whose duty it was to report and who was responsible for allowing the illegal mix, failed to do so and was not threatened or prosecuted.
The Health and Safety Executive also threatened me and another concerned individual locally with prosecution for libel – despite the reality that we were reporting the facts as proven in a later court case and in my own case by various facts and evidence which came to light as the result of my investigations.
Perhaps more seriously at the 2004 tribunal the tape was removed from the recorder by the solicitor who was then charged with keeping it safe. This tape was the property of my son-in-law but the Tribunal Service put pressure, with more threats, on the legal firm who, without my knowledge, surrendered the tape giving permission for its destruction. Given the threats in regard to prosecution this was destruction of evidence, and therefore unlawful, but having gained possession they then apparently demanded to know if there were copies, and then promptly produced a false record of proceedings.
It should be noted that the solicitor had also taken notes, which the tribunal chairman suggested was also contempt of court. This caused her to stop taking the notes and she was wrongly informed that she should not witness the examination, so preventing a full independent record of the hearing. Copies of those notes are in my possession but to release them without court protection would endanger the solicitor who had been trying to protect me from the official deception and further harm. 

I understand that an error of law exists if the decision was not based on evidence of probative value or the decision was based on evidence of probative value but it was not weighed in accordance with common sense. I suggest that both apply in this case especially given that the 1999 Tribunal referred to Dr Volans as supporting the diagnosis while the 2004 tribunal claimed that the opposite was the case.

I believe that the actions of the Tribunal were unlawful from the outset and that they failed to maintain the standards of fairness and demonstrate both bias and irrationality.
  CO/6520/2005                            1st  September 2007

. Statement by ******** in the matter of a Judicial Review Appeal
Case CO/6520/2005

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 unsubstantiated.
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.

5 September 2007

Additional Documents for Consideration

Claimant : *************             NINo: ************	                         Age 57

DOCUMENT					DOCUMENT				   	   DATED

E 1	       152	Letter accompanying permission refusal 				16.01.06
E 2	       153	Permission refusal							18.10.05
E 3-6          154-157	Summary of Grounds for Contesting the claim			Undated

F 1-3	       158-160  	Response to Contested points						01.09.07
F 4-5	       161-162	Additional errors in law						01.09.07
F 6-7	       163-164	Letter to Medical services re false evidence & regulations 16.03dated	10.03.04
			Note list of opinions in 165 and conclusion
F 8-9	       165-166	Letter to Appeals Service re errors in paperwork for appeal		27.06.04
			Note that Dr Ringer suggested an Appeal & the false claim re the
			long-standing diagnosis
F 10	       167	Letter to Disability Benefits Centre re false statements in papers	22.09.04
F 11	       168	Letter to Appeals Service re Dr Rees, false statements and		05.10.04
			Note report that GP Med 4 Confirmed poisoning again
F 12	        169	Letter to Chairman Appeals Service re Tribunal decision		14.01.05
			Note the report of factual errors yet again.
F 13	        170	Letter to Appeals Service re 8 weeks to receive decision		17.01.05
			Note the request to set-aside the unlawfully obtained decision	
F 14	        171	GP note suggesting that the Abou-Donia report should help the	07.07.05
			DHSS in any question of diagnosis
F 15	        172	Letter to Department for Work and Pensions re “missing” papers	18.01.07
			Note the failure to properly investigate the reports of deception
F 16-17       173-174	The signed version of the report by Professor Abou-Donia		26.05.05
			Note that results show evidence of brain damage caused by 
			OPs and solvents as found in chronic poisoning by pesticides 
F 18	        175	Letter to Department for Work and Pensions confirming errors	26.02.07
			by unreliable witnesses and cholinesterase measurements
F 19	        176	Letter to Department of Work and Pensions regarding the		16.02.07
			failure to properly investigate and the deception in both 
			the benefits claim and the civil action 	

D 39	         111	Copy of the letter already in the papers, which confirms that	06.01.04
			Dr Kenyon can make no sense of the decision to deny poisoning
			Note that the diagnosis of OP poisoning is again confirmed

F 20-21       177-178	My statement in support of my Judicial Review Appeal 05.09.07

Please note that every person who has knowledge of this case and the decisions made can understand the logic or the arguments used in denying the poisoning diagnosis in my case. PD C3 represents poisoning by “exposure to organophosphorus pesticides. This may be as a single high dose or repeated low dose exposures.”
“Normally recovery after acute poisoning is complete but in some cases there are late onset neuropathic and neuro-behavioural disorders.”
It has been admitted that I have had decades of exposure, that the chemicals I was exposed to also gave off vapours, and that the exposure resulted in my disability.
There is scientific evidence supporting the poisoning diagnosis and no proven science to support any of the suggested alternative theories.
There is no basis for the denial of the diagnosis.

*************
Prepared statement intended to be read to the court at the
 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 sction 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.

**************

The UK authorities have attempted to ensure that no person with organophosphorus poisoning can be considered as suffering from the PD C3 unless they have either Phossy Jaw or Peripheral Neuropathy. Since they falsely claim that no approved chemical can cause peripheral neuropathy the following may be of interest. Much of the science was debated in the Hill v Tomkins case and false claims were made about the potential for recovery in certain cases.

Peripheral Neuropathy

Described by the British Medical Association as

“damage to the peripheral nerves which connect the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord), to the sense organs, muscles, glands and internal organs.
Symptoms caused by neuropathies include numbness, tingling, pain, or muscle weakness, depending on the nerves affected.”

Guy’s NPU stated verbally that there was an abnormality in the return signal in the nerves and that the signal was “diffused” in some way. It was not included in any of their written reports.
In 1995 Dr Howell wrote "reduced light touch both hands (glove distribution) and medical aspect(sp) both feet, all toes, more so on right. Note "stocking and glove" sensation loss is a recognised OP syndrome
The 1997 Tribunal regarded the neurological symptoms as obvious.
Dr Kennedy describes sensory loss in the legs with no defined upper limit
The 1999 Tribunal found sensory and vibration loss but dismissed its importance.
Commissioner Henty in 2001 noted that I was “exceedingly ill”
Dr Ringer in 2003 found sensory and vibration loss and peripheral neuropathy
Dr Rees in 2004 suggests that these are “possible” findings.