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

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.

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.

Papers in Support of

A Request

For

JUDICIAL REVIEW

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

	

								       18th July 2005
The Administrative Court Office
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please find enclosed four copies of claim forms for Judicial Review, an original set of papers for review, a copy of those papers and a cheque for the sum of £50 made out to the  HM Paymaster General as requested.

Yours sincerely,

********

								       15th August 2005
The Administrative Court Office
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Dear Sir / Madam,

Thank you for the return of my papers requesting a Judicial Review of my case.

I am afraid that I took advice in respect to the papers included and that advice suggested that the letter to me dated 13 June 2005 from the Legal Officer to the Commissioner was the decision triggering the request for Judicial Review.
That letter followed my request that the Commissioner set aside her decision because she had relied on misleading information. That request had been supported by a copy of a recent blood tests that had confirmed beyond doubt that my medical team had been 100% correct in their diagnosis ever since they first diagnosed poisoning.
My GPs, the treating specialist, and others, have always declared that there is no psychiatric factor in the symptoms presented but their professional opinion has been consistently ignored and undermined by those who have been involved in promoting the “somatisation syndrome” nonsense supported by the Tribunal and Commissioner and which is subject to this call for Judicial Review. 

I therefore do not agree that my request is “out of time” but the failure to include the Commissioner’s report was an unfortunate oversight caused by sheer exhaustion in compiling the papers. However the decision was made on false information and I do not think it was correct to deny admission of the papers because of its absence.

Please find enclosed the modified papers, including the letter of 26th April 2005 and the Commissioner’s decision of 25th April 2005, together with modified forms, including the completed section 7 for extension of time and a cheque for £50.
Incidentally a solicitor viewed the papers before they were sent to the Court and assured me that all was in order and that I had complied with the requirements.

Yours sincerely,

***********

      30th August 2005
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
						       
The Administrative Court Office
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please find enclosed a Certificate of Service for the Judicial Review papers as dispatched to the Treasury Solicitors and to the Department for Work and Pensions by first class post this morning.
Please note that your letter, which was dated 24th August 2005, enclosing the two sealed Judicial Review Claim Forms (not the four as supplied to the Court) arrived here on Saturday 27th August 2005, too late to take any action.   
I refer you to the enclosed copies of correspondence and have been advised to bring your attention to the fact that the papers in support of the claim for Judicial Review were received by the Court within the time limits and that those papers were returned to me in error, thus delaying the sealing of the claim form.
At all times the papers requested have been provided at the earliest possible opportunity, a task made all the more difficult by my physical condition, which is itself the subject of the review process.
Sadly the Bank Holiday weekend has also taken a large part of the allotted 7 days but the papers will still be with the Department of Works and Pensions lawyers within the time limit as stated in your most recent letter. 

Yours sincerely, 

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

								       30th August 2005

Department of Work and Pensions
c/o SOL Litigation
Room 511
New Court
48 Carey Street
London. WC2A 2LS

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please find enclosed the papers for a request for Judicial Review, a Claim form sealed by the Court, copies of correspondence relating to the unavoidable delay in serving these documents and accepted time limits for service, and, for your convenience, an Acknowledgement of Service form.

I would be grateful if you would give this matter your careful attention.

Yours sincerely,

cc. Treasury Solicitors.  

***********

								       30th August 2005

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
c/o The Treasury Solicitor
Queen Anne’s Chambers
28 Broadway
London. SW1H 9JS

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please find enclosed the papers for a request for Judicial Review, a Claim form sealed by the Court, copies of correspondence relating to the unavoidable delay in serving these documents and accepted time limits for service, and, for your convenience, an Acknowledgement of Service form.

I would be grateful if you would give this matter your careful attention.

Yours sincerely,

cc. Treasury Solicitors.

***********

								       19th September 2005
Your Ref: LJR/05573/DWP
Our Ref: AM/CO/6520/2005

Department of Work and Pensions
Litigation Division
New Court, Room 511
New Court, 48 Carey Street
London. WC2A 2LS

Dear Ms Mihailovic,

Your letter dated 15th September 2005 together with your Acknowledgement of Service form and Summary Grounds contesting the Judicial Review claim were received with a letter of the same date from Osa Orobator on Friday.

I have been advised to ask you to clarify the reasons why you consider that the Secretary of State is wrongly named as a defendant given that all decisions made on such matters are made as if the person making them was the Secretary of State.

I would be grateful if you would also confirm in writing that staff at SOL Litigation approached the Treasury Solicitor’s office and requested their copy of the papers served on them, as representatives of the Commissioners, on the grounds that your offices wished to have total control over the matter.

I am intrigued at the suggestion that my claim is out of time and that there is no supporting evidence since your own definitions support my claim and you are not fully aware of the situation, but I understand that this is not the time to raise these matters.

Please clarify the issues raised in paragraphs two and three of this letter as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

*********

      21st September 2005
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
						       
The Administrative Court Office
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Dear Sir / Madam,

Re BRUCE v SS FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

Further to the request from C Pilbin for the Court Manager for a list of papers for essential reading by the Court I enclose the following:

1.	A copy of the Index pages for the file of evidence, all of which supports the request for Judicial Review of the decisions, which erred in law.

2. 	A review of those pages indicating why they should be read by the Court.

In attempts to limit costs and Court time the papers supplied were restricted to the bare minimum required to support the request. 
Some pages are representative of more detailed evidence in support of the claim which can be made available on granting of the request for Judicial Review and when full legal representation is obtained.

Repeated requests have been made to the Secretary of State for vital evidence, which would support the need for Judicial Review, but to date access has been denied.

All of the evidence in the papers submitted to the Court and the detail contained therein are relevant and many pages merely précis the relevant regulations and laws to which the Secretary of State should have adhered during the decision making process. It was the failure to follow correct process and the refusal to recognise the supporting evidence that triggered the request for Judicial Review.

I trust that the enclosed fulfil the request of your letter of 16th September 2005.

Yours sincerely,

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

  

 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.

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

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

      26th September 2005
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
						       
The Administrative Court Office
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Dear Sir / Madam,

Re BRUCE v SS FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

There is a need for clarification in this case as those upon whom the papers for the claim for Judicial Review were served are providing conflicting information.

The Treasury Solicitor’s office telephoned on 1st September 2005 to inform me that those representing the Department of Work and Pensions had requested that the Treasury Solicitors passed their copy of the papers to SOL Litigation as the latter considered themselves to be representing the defendants in the case. 
When I reminded the Treasury Solicitor’s office that a Commissioner decision had also been involved they informed me that their “D4” department would be informed.
I heard no more.

Acknowledgement of service was received from SOL Litigation in which they suggest that I had served the papers on the wrong defendant and that they consider the Secretary of State merely as an interested party. In my view this cannot possibly be the case given the Carltona principle since all involved act for, and as if they are, the Secretary of State in all matters regarding benefit claims. It is also clear that the Commissioners depend entirely on information, and the truth of such statements, as given by DWP staff and it is those details that triggered the need for Judicial Review.

I am concerned that I have had no acknowledgement of service from the Treasury Solicitors and claims made by SOL Litigation appear to be adding to the confusion.

I feel that I should register my concerns and seek from the court a clarification of the position given the copy of the letter attached from SOL Litigation who now appear to be claiming that they did not make the approach to the Treasury Solicitors as mentioned above and reported by telephone by David Wilson on 0207 210 3318. 

Yours sincerely,

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

      3rd October 2005
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005	
Your Ref: C1/1011/2005

*********
Legal Officer to the Commissioner
The Commissioner’s Office
3rd Floor, Procession House
55 Ludgate Hill, London.  EC4M 7JW	

Dear *********,

Thank you for your letter of 26 September and the copy of your letter for the attention of the Court of the same date.
I am sure that you would not intentionally mislead the Court but there are errors in your letters to which I should draw your attention, not least my address – see above.

I have asked the Court for clarification of the matter of whether or not the defendant is the correct one. Please consider the Carltona Principle in your deliberations, as I am sure you will discover that all decisions taken on these matters are made as if the Secretary of State made them in person. As the controlling Minister the Secretary of State would therefore appear to be the correct defendant, as advised. 
Nor can the application be “out of time” as you suggest because the papers were returned to me by the Court despite them having been checked by a solicitor as being complete and complying with the requirements. The Court allowed the papers to be resubmitted.
The letter dated 13 June 2005 (Page 7 in the bundle), reporting the decision to ignore scientific evidence proving that all doctors supporting the claim were correct, was written by a Legal Officer to the Commissioner, and was the decision that triggered the request for Judicial Review because it demonstrated that the Commissioners ignored any evidence that opposed the dishonest reports made by the Tribunal and Medical Services.

I am sure that you would agree that it is important to see that the laws of this country are upheld and that Justice is seen to be done. The decisions taken in this case have ignored the “Balance of Probability” requirements and are not those that any reasonable person would make given the evidence, especially as the Presumption Rules have not been applied. 
I am sure that no decision based on false information should be allowed to stand.
You have the advantage of me in that you are presumably in good health and you are also trained in the law. However, the law demands compliance and it is an offence to introduce false evidence into proceedings. With the greatest respect I suggest that you request written statements accompanied by signed Statements of Truth from all the 19th November 2004 Tribunal members and Drs W S Ringer and Huw Rees upon whom they relied.
I have requested this information and all involved are understandably reluctant to comply.

Yours sincerely,

*********

      3rd October 2005
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
						       
The Administrative Court Office
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Dear Sir / Madam,

Re BRUCE v SS FOR WORK AND PENSIONS  - For the Attention of the Court

Please find enclosed a copy of my response to the latest submission to the Court from the Department of Constitutional Affairs.

I should notify the Court that I have repeatedly informed the Department of Work and Pensions staff that there is further conclusive evidence to support my reports of maladministration and deception in this case, gathered over some 11 years.
For my personal protection I am unable to release that evidence until I have full legal representation and currently there are no solicitors permitted to act in this matter.

The expectations raised by the Chairman of the 19th November 2004 Tribunal  indicated that the Court would be saved all of this time and expense when he stated to the solicitor witness at the Tribunal that they would probably confirm the PD C3 but leave the level of disability at 30%.  The Tribunal members then left leaving me in a state of undress because I was too ill and weak to finish dressing myself after the nurse draped my clothes around me. There are witnesses to that effect.

The Secretary of State was asked to provide the statements requested in the enclosed letter in March 2005 and has failed to provide the supporting evidence for their case.
All this cost and trauma to my body, mind, and to my family could have been avoided had the department been competent and honest in its handling of this case.
The Appeal and Tribunal systems have been compromised, the Commissioners have been misled, and now there is a need to ensure that the Court system is not abused.
I hope that this clarifies the situation and that urgent action will be taken to avoid further damage to the reputation of the legal system in this country.

Yours sincerely,

********

      20th October 2005
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005	
Your Ref: C1/1011/2005

********
Legal Officer to the Commissioner
The Commissioner’s Office
3rd Floor, Procession House
55 Ludgate Hill, London.  EC4M 7JW	

Dear *********,

Thank you for your letter of 20th October 2005. 
Surely it is the duty of the Department of Constitutional Affairs and the Commissioners to uphold the law in all its aspects and not to choose which laws and regulations to ignore?
The Court Service informed me some time ago that Perjury and attempts to Pervert the Course of Justice are still serious offences and I assume that you would agree.

In my efforts to avoid additional expense for the taxpayer and to avoid wasting court time I have ensured that I have reported to the various authorities, in writing, that doctors and Tribunal members acting on behalf of the Secretary of State have deliberately introduced false evidence into this case. The specific intent appears to be to ensure that the diagnosis of poisoning in this case remains unrecognised in the official documentation.
At the present time it is not clear if these individuals were acting on instruction or if they are a rogue element within the DWP but the evidence is clear.

No matter what the supposed time limits for Judicial Review of this matter there is sufficient documentation and evidence released under the DPA to prove that this case has been deliberately brought to this point by reliance on that false information. 
The problem began with the false statements given to all interested parties by my former employer and his staff and has developed into ever more serious deception as time goes by.
Now that the Appeals and Tribunal Services, and the Commissioners, have ignored my considerable evidence there is the very real danger that the Courts will now also be provided directly with those false statements and opinions.
I did not make my suggestion that you seek statements accompanied by Statements of Truth lightly. This is a very serious matter and the Department of Constitutional Affairs must not mislead the Court into ignoring the malpractice involved in this case.
Unfortunately I am advised that I should not release the evidence I have at this time and it is possible that criminal offences may have to be addressed at some time in the future but I can assure you that I can support everything I report and I urge you to be cautious.

Yours sincerely,

********

      10th November 2005
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005	
Your Ref: C1/1011/2005

*********
Legal Officer to the Commissioner
The Commissioner’s Office
3rd Floor, Procession House
55 Ludgate Hill, London.  EC4M 7JW	

Dear *******,

Thank you for your further letter dated 7 November.

Do you think that this is an appropriate response given that the case is before the court and that you are aware that the papers contain statements that you know to be false?

The rules of conduct for solicitors state quite clearly that lawyers must not knowingly give false or misleading information to the courts. (Annex 10B 4.4 in “The Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors”, 8th Edition)
The chairman of the November 2004 Tribunal introduced himself as a lawyer and the record of the proceedings taken by the solicitor show that the Tribunal was aware that the information they relied upon was false and misleading.
Now you are representing the State and you are also aware, like the Tribunal and Commissioners before you, that the information relied upon is false and misleading.

If I had introduced false statements I am sure that you would waste no time in taking action against me and therefore, in the interests of justice and equality, it seems that you should notify the court of the serious problems with the evidence used in your rebuttal of my claim.
In fact I understand that you should decline to act further in the case unless your client “agrees fully to disclose his or her conduct to the court” in relation to the fact that they have “misled the court in any material matter”.  (21.13)

Simply stating that there is nothing you can usefully add because that false information is before the court will only make the situation worse for all concerned. 

Yours sincerely,

***********

The Decision is based on false and misleading Information introduced by the defendants
		- see letter dated 10 November 2005 forwarded to the Court by the DCA.

The Decision is incompatible with European Law.

The Decision regarding Judicial Review is incompatible with Social Security legislation.

That Decision cannot stand because it is founded on false information and abuse of process

If this request for Judicial Review is denied then a request is made for reference to the European Court of Justice so that the lawfulness of the process can be determined.

*******

      23rd January 2006
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
						       
To the Master of the Crown Office
The Administrative Court Office
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please find enclosed form 86B, the renewal claim for my request for Judicial Review.

Currently I am unrepresented because there is no provision for legal aid until the Judicial review is granted but the Request for Judicial Review included a request for legal aid and the denial of that request leaves me disadvantaged.

I am officially classed as disabled and in need of a carer and this process is itself debilitating. The system is discriminating against me as a result.
The evidence relied upon in this case is corrupted by false and misleading information deliberately introduced in order to deny justice.

If this renewal request for Judicial Review is not granted I request further that all parties return the papers of this case to me and that reference is made to the European Court of Justice so that it can be determined if the actions taken on this matter have been lawful.

Yours sincerely,

**********

      23rd January 2006

Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005	
Your Ref: C1/1011/2005

*********
Legal Officer to the Commissioner
The Commissioner’s Office
3rd Floor, Procession House
55 Ludgate Hill, London.  EC4M 7JW	

Dear *********,

Please find attached form 86B, the renewal claim for my request for Judicial Review.

I must say that I am surprised to see that the date of the Judges Decision on this matter is given as the 18th October 2005 and that you made no mention of it in your correspondence of 20th October and 14th November of that year.

It would appear that the false information has now formed part of the legal process and that it now represents evidence of a serious criminal offence.
What action will now be taken?

Yours sincerely,

********

								       23rd January 2006

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
c/o The Treasury Solicitor
Queen Anne’s Chambers
28 Broadway
London. SW1H 9JS

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please find attached form 86B, the renewal claim for my request for Judicial Review.

I must say that I am surprised to see that the date of the Judge’s Decision on this matter is given as the 18th October 2005 and that no mention of it was made in correspondence of 20th October and 14th November of that year.

It would appear that the false information has now formed part of the legal process and that it now represents evidence of a serious criminal offence.
What action will now be taken?

Yours sincerely,

*********

								       23rd January 2006

Department of Work and Pensions
c/o SOL Litigation
Room 511
New Court
48 Carey Street
London. WC2A 2LS

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please find attached form 86B, the renewal claim for my request for Judicial Review.

I must say that I am surprised to see that the date of the Judge’s Decision on this matter is given as the 18th October 2005 and that no mention of it was made in correspondence of 20th October and 14th November of that year.

It would appear that the false information has now formed part of the legal process and that it now represents evidence of a serious criminal offence.
What action will now be taken?

Yours sincerely,

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

      3rd May 2006
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
						       
The Administrative Court Office
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Dear ****,

Thank you for speaking to me yesterday and I hope that this fax provides the information you need. I have to report that a member of the House of Lords requested that I made an application for Judicial Review in this matter because of the obvious dishonesty of those making key decisions in the matters to be reviewed.
Mark McGhee of the firm Linder Myers in Manchester (Tel: 0161 837 6815) was recommended to me and promised full support.  He said that I would have to do the initial application on my own but that he would check the papers to ensure they were correct before they were sent to the court. This was done.
Despite the evidence and the support from those who knew the full story my application for Judicial Review was refused and a hearing was requested.
For this I needed professional legal representation but Legal Aid was refused.
To gain legal aid the solicitor needed a barrister’s opinion but it seems that he failed to provide the barrister with the full details of the case, or to inform her of how much evidence was available. As a result there was a complete failure to report on the perjury and unlawful actions involved in this case and many of the points used to dismiss the likelihood of success were based on that false information.
The solicitor has now refused to correct the errors in the appraisal and has recommended that I notify the court that the claim for Judicial Review must now be withdrawn. If I take this action I would be a party to the criminal act of misleading the Court by condoning the perjury and the now successful actions to pervert the course of justice. I am therefore unable to take that action.

The court is aware that the Decisions for which I requested Judicial Review are based on the false and misleading reports by Dr Ringer, influenced as he was by the dishonest Dr Volans, and on the false information presented by the November 2004 Tribunal, which also relied on those false statements.
I am sure that the Court is unwilling to believe my reports but I can assure the Court that I took the necessary steps to ensure that there is evidence to support them.
Every opportunity has been given to those involved to retract their false statements but they have declined. Unfortunately, those who wish to protect themselves from the truth have made certain threats to me, and reportedly to witnesses, and all my efforts to ensure that the lies are exposed have been thwarted by further dishonesty. 
I am happy to give the Court the evidence provided that it is used to prevent further abuse of power by those officials and doctors involved and to bring those who have perjured themselves before the court. However I am not prepared to release it if the court condones the perjury that has destroyed my attempts to have those officials recognise the only diagnosis of my condition that has been recognised by the National Health Service and independent experts over the last 14 years.
The major players involved were also responsible for the false statements that undermined my civil case regarding the negligent and unlawful actions that led to my permanent illness and disability in the first instance. 

This case exemplifies the way in which initially small lies made by individuals who wish to protect themselves from criticism or prosecution can be allowed to corrupt higher processes, even to the level of the High Court itself. My employer who, with his staff, has misled all the officials involved began the whole sorry mess in 1992.
Officials who failed to spot the lies and failed to act on my reported facts then compounded the problem and, as is seen in the papers before the court, were encouraged to derail the civil action to which this matter is inextricably linked.
The employer has repeatedly misled those whose task it was to determine the cause of my illness, which has had no alternative, medically supported, diagnosis to that of organophosphorus poisoning since the investigations were completed between 1992 and 1994. Despite that diagnosis medical evidence has been ignored and suppressed unlawful throughout the intervening years to the detriment of the legal process.
I have ensured that all interested parties have been informed of the dishonesty throughout that time and took steps to be able to support what I reported.
The Police, the Law Society, the General Medical Council, and the Courts have been informed of the dishonesty involved in this case but all refuse to investigate.
I do not believe that it is my task to protect the court system from the harm done by perjurers and those who would deliberately pervert the course of justice and I cannot do so without legal representation given my serious disabilities.
The Legal Services Commission have not only denied Legal Aid despite being informed of the dishonesty but they have also paid lawyers despite reports that they failed to properly represent cases such as this and they also refused to investigate the fraudulent abuse of legal aid or to correspond further on the matter. 
Much as I would like to represent myself I am afraid that my health prevents it.
If the Court still regards perjury and perversion of the course of justice as serious criminal offences then I am sure that action will be taken to protect the reputation of the court.   I refer the court to my letter and fax to the Master on 23rd January 2006.

Yours sincerely,

************
 
      28th October 2006
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
						       
The Administrative Court Office
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Dear *********,

Thanks very much for your phone call this morning.
I really do wish that I could enable a date for the hearing. Believe me I have tried.
I am disabled and am especially unwell at the moment and so things are difficult.
Because of my condition I am unable to travel without risk to my health and life and so am unable to represent myself. This means that I require legal representation but without sufficient funds to obtain legal support my hands are tied.

I would very much appreciate an investigation into this whole matter. I have reported the dishonesty involved in this matter to the Courts, to all parties in the action and to the Master of the Crown Office in my letter dated 23rd January 2006.
When the solicitor who persuaded me to apply for Judicial Review visited me this week I was informed that I should accept that the law allows officials to give false evidence and that this is how things are in the legal system now.
The Courts have however informed me in writing in the past that perjury and perversion of the course of justice are still regarded as serious crimes and I am sure that if I were the party giving false statements then those same officials would waste no time in bringing charges against me. 

Unfortunately I am too ill to take this matter further without assistance. I have tried to get help from the Public Law Project and from Liberty but I am told that they will not act unless I have legal assistance and yet local advice centres, such as the Law Centres and solicitors are too afraid to get involved. 
I believe that a Police investigation into these matters is required but the Police refuse to act unless ordered to do so by the Court. I respectfully request an investigation and for the hearing date to be postponed pending the findings. 

Yours sincerely,

***********

      23rd January 2006
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
						       
To the Master of the Crown Office
The Administrative Court Office
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please find enclosed form 86B, the renewal claim for my request for Judicial Review.

Currently I am unrepresented because there is no provision for legal aid until the Judicial review is granted but the Request for Judicial Review included a request for legal aid and the denial of that request leaves me disadvantaged.

I am officially classed as disabled and in need of a carer and this process is itself debilitating. The system is discriminating against me as a result.
The evidence relied upon in this case is corrupted by false and misleading information deliberately introduced in order to deny justice.

If this renewal request for Judicial Review is not granted I request further that all parties return the papers of this case to me and that reference is made to the European Court of Justice so that it can be determined if the actions taken on this matter have been lawful.

Yours sincerely,

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

								       23rd January 2006

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
c/o The Treasury Solicitor
Queen Anne’s Chambers
28 Broadway
London. SW1H 9JS

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please find attached form 86B, the renewal claim for my request for Judicial Review.

I must say that I am surprised to see that the date of the Judge’s Decision on this matter is given as the 18th October 2005 and that no mention of it was made in correspondence of 20th October and 14th November of that year.

It would appear that the false information has now formed part of the legal process and that it now represents evidence of a serious criminal offence.
What action will now be taken?

Yours sincerely,

************
								       23rd January 2006

Department of Work and Pensions
c/o SOL Litigation
Room 511
New Court
48 Carey Street
London. WC2A 2LS

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please find attached form 86B, the renewal claim for my request for Judicial Review.

I must say that I am surprised to see that the date of the Judge’s Decision on this matter is given as the 18th October 2005 and that no mention of it was made in correspondence of 20th October and 14th November of that year.

It would appear that the false information has now formed part of the legal process and that it now represents evidence of a serious criminal offence.
What action will now be taken?

Yours sincerely,

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

By fax on request to 0207 947 6330 

      3rd May 2006
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
						       
The Administrative Court Office
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Dear ********,

Thank you for speaking to me yesterday and I hope that this fax provides the information you need. I have to report that a member of the House of Lords requested that I made an application for Judicial Review in this matter because of the obvious dishonesty of those making key decisions in the matters to be reviewed.
Mark McGhee of the firm Linder Myers in Manchester (Tel: 0161 837 6815) was recommended to me and promised full support.  He said that I would have to do the initial application on my own but that he would check the papers to ensure they were correct before they were sent to the court. This was done.
Despite the evidence and the support from those who knew the full story my application for Judicial Review was refused and a hearing was requested.
For this I needed professional legal representation but Legal Aid was refused.
To gain legal aid the solicitor needed a barrister’s opinion but it seems that he failed to provide the barrister with the full details of the case, or to inform her of how much evidence was available. As a result there was a complete failure to report on the perjury and unlawful actions involved in this case and many of the points used to dismiss the likelihood of success were based on that false information.
The solicitor has now refused to correct the errors in the appraisal and has recommended that I notify the court that the claim for Judicial Review must now be withdrawn. If I take this action I would be a party to the criminal act of misleading the Court by condoning the perjury and the now successful actions to pervert the course of justice. I am therefore unable to take that action.

The court is aware that the Decisions for which I requested Judicial Review are based on the false and misleading reports by Dr Ringer, influenced as he was by the dishonest Dr Volans, and on the false information presented by the November 2004 Tribunal, which also relied on those false statements.
I am sure that the Court is unwilling to believe my reports but I can assure the Court that I took the necessary steps to ensure that there is evidence to support them.
Every opportunity has been given to those involved to retract their false statements but they have declined. Unfortunately, those who wish to protect themselves from the truth have made certain threats to me, and reportedly to witnesses, and all my efforts to ensure that the lies are exposed have been thwarted by further dishonesty. 
I am happy to give the Court the evidence provided that it is used to prevent further abuse of power by those officials and doctors involved and to bring those who have perjured themselves before the court. However I am not prepared to release it if the court condones the perjury that has destroyed my attempts to have those officials recognise the only diagnosis of my condition that has been recognised by the National Health Service and independent experts over the last 14 years.
The major players involved were also responsible for the false statements that undermined my civil case regarding the negligent and unlawful actions that led to my permanent illness and disability in the first instance. 

This case exemplifies the way in which initially small lies made by individuals who wish to protect themselves from criticism or prosecution can be allowed to corrupt higher processes, even to the level of the High Court itself. My employer who, with his staff, has misled all the officials involved began the whole sorry mess in 1992.
Officials who failed to spot the lies and failed to act on my reported facts then compounded the problem and, as is seen in the papers before the court, were encouraged to derail the civil action to which this matter is inextricably linked.
The employer has repeatedly misled those whose task it was to determine the cause of my illness, which has had no alternative, medically supported, diagnosis to that of organophosphorus poisoning since the investigations were completed between 1992 and 1994. Despite that diagnosis medical evidence has been ignored and suppressed unlawful throughout the intervening years to the detriment of the legal process.
I have ensured that all interested parties have been informed of the dishonesty throughout that time and took steps to be able to support what I reported.
The Police, the Law Society, the General Medical Council, and the Courts have been informed of the dishonesty involved in this case but all refuse to investigate.
I do not believe that it is my task to protect the court system from the harm done by perjurers and those who would deliberately pervert the course of justice and I cannot do so without legal representation given my serious disabilities.
The Legal Services Commission have not only denied Legal Aid despite being informed of the dishonesty but they have also paid lawyers despite reports that they failed to properly represent cases such as this and they also refused to investigate the fraudulent abuse of legal aid or to correspond further on the matter. 
Much as I would like to represent myself I am afraid that my health prevents it.
If the Court still regards perjury and perversion of the course of justice as serious criminal offences then I am sure that action will be taken to protect the reputation of the court.   I refer the court to my letter and fax to the Master on 23rd January 2006.

Yours sincerely,

*********

By fax on request to 0207 947 6330 for the attention of 

Tel: 01983 760827						Hill Place Cottage,
	        								Thorley, 
Yarmouth,
 									Isle of Wight. 
PO41 0SS
      28th October 2006
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
						       
The Administrative Court Office
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Dear *********,

Thanks very much for your phone call this morning.
I really do wish that I could enable a date for the hearing. Believe me I have tried.
I am disabled and am especially unwell at the moment and so things are difficult.
Because of my condition I am unable to travel without risk to my health and life and so am unable to represent myself. This means that I require legal representation but without sufficient funds to obtain legal support my hands are tied.

I would very much appreciate an investigation into this whole matter. I have reported the dishonesty involved in this matter to the Courts, to all parties in the action and to the Master of the Crown Office in my letter dated 23rd January 2006.
When the solicitor who persuaded me to apply for Judicial Review visited me this week I was informed that I should accept that the law allows officials to give false evidence and that this is how things are in the legal system now.
The Courts have however informed me in writing in the past that perjury and perversion of the course of justice are still regarded as serious crimes and I am sure that if I were the party giving false statements then those same officials would waste no time in bringing charges against me. 

Unfortunately I am too ill to take this matter further without assistance. I have tried to get help from the Public Law Project and from Liberty but I am told that they will not act unless I have legal assistance and yet local advice centres, such as the Law Centres and solicitors are too afraid to get involved. 
I believe that a Police investigation into these matters is required but the Police refuse to act unless ordered to do so by the Court. I respectfully request an investigation and for the hearing date to be postponed pending the findings. 

Yours sincerely,

*********

By fax on request to 0207 947 6330 for the attention of the Customer Service Officer
 And by Post							
      4th December 2006
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
						       
The Administrative Court Office
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Dear Sir / Madam,

I have been advised to write to you to seek clarification regarding the advice given by members of the Court staff that I should request an investigation into this matter.
Mr Christopher Marcus of the Listings office telephoned me this morning suggesting that it might be possible to arrange a video link for the proposed hearing but when I suggested that the false information should first be removed from the case history before it once again corrupted the decision making process he sought advice.
The recommendation was that I should obtain a PF 244 form and make a formal application for said investigation.  Miss O’Neil later informed me that this advice was wrong.  At this point I should say that I have approached the Police already on a civil matter in which the same false information was employed against me and they wrote suggesting that although some twelve potential criminal offences may have been involved they could not investigate without permission from the Courts due to funding restraints. Court staff wrote suggesting that Perjury and Perversion of Justice were still considered serious criminal offences but that no investigation could be instigated unless ordered by a judge.

I am therefore at a loss to know how to proceed given that the solicitors who were advising me have the evidence needed to prove the falsification of statements relied upon by the DWP but seems reluctant to protect me, advise me, or to act in my best interests. It would appear that he fears sanctions should he support me.
It should be remembered that those who gave false statements actually threatened me directly and through the advising solicitor with charges of contempt of court for daring to obtain evidence of the dishonesty. This despite the fact that a recent court ruling has apparently confirmed in a similar case that the solicitor’s advice to record the proceedings was in fact completely lawful.  

The first Tribunal in this case took place in 1997 and the Tribunal members unanimously declared that I was obviously suffering severe neurological effects.
Dishonest practices were then employed to introduce false evidence into the case and it is unfortunate that at every hearing since that time the same false evidence is resurrected to my detriment and to the advantage of those who are trying to escape censure and possible criminal charges.  

Until that information is removed from the records of this case I fear that any new hearing will also be corrupted by that intentional perversion of justice.
I have requested that those involved support the false statements with statements of truth but those requests have been repeatedly denied – unsurprisingly as those involved would have to refuse those requests or admit to having committed perjury.
Every avenue open to me has been tried and found blocked and my condition makes this process extremely stressful and difficult as even talking is hard at times, as I am sure that your staff have noticed. 

It would seem that the individuals involved in the deception are being protected to the detriment of my health and finances and this process is corrupting the court process at every level. I do not have the power to stop the deception and this is presumably why I was advised to seek an investigation. 

Could you please confirm that an investigation, as requested on advice in my fax of 28th October 2006, will take place into the matters I have reported or at the very least allow me to know the steps that must be taken in order to instigate that process. 
I would also be grateful if you would confirm that the Master of the Crown Office had sight of my letter dated 23rd January 2006 in which I explained about the detrimental effects of the false information on the case and requested referral to the European Court of Justice if my request for Judicial Review of the unlawful procedures and the provision of Legal Aid was denied. 
That letter also reported my officially recognised disability and need for carer.
I understand that decisions based on false evidence should not be permitted to stand and, although this process is undoubtedly causing me further harm, it is important for other claimants that those who dishonestly corrupt case hearings should be exposed and prevented from acting similarly in other cases.
I understand that this is why a member of the House of Lords requested that I applied for Judicial Review in this case.

Grateful thanks for your time and I hope for a full investigation in the near future.

Yours sincerely,

********

By fax to 0207 947 6330 for the attention of the Customer Service Officer

 And by Post							
      12th December 2006
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
						       
The Administrative Court Office
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Dear ********,

Thank you for your letter of 8 December 2006 in which you recommend that I make a formal application to the Court using form PF244.
I wonder if you would be kind enough to provide a copy of that form and any advice notes for completing the form for the purpose of instigating an investigation. 

I should add that prior to any of the Tribunals involved in this case I made repeated requests to those responsible that the false statements be removed from the file.
All requests were ignored with the implication that I would not be able to offer any evidence to show that the statements were indeed false. That assumption is wrong but there will no protection for me unless I am properly represented.
Those involved are extremely powerful and obviously consider themselves to be above the law. Perhaps they are correct, as the Courts seem reluctant to instigate a full investigation, preferring instead to leave that to a disabled member of the public.

At every stage I have documented the progress of this case and the comments made so that both myself and other interested parties can match those statements against the known facts. The deception involved is plain to see but I am not at all sure that requesting the simple removal of false statements will solve this problem.
It is rather too late for that because, despite the warnings given, those involved were determined to present their false statements as evidence before the High Court, and on numerous occasions. The crime is committed. Simply withdrawing the falsehoods will not now be sufficient to protect the good name of the Court. 

I very much look forward to seeing the advice on completing the PF244 form so that it will be possible to see if this situation is covered by the rules.

Yours sincerely,

***********

By fax to 0207 947 6802 for the attention of ******

 And by Post							
      19th December 2006
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
						       
The Administrative Court Office Issue section
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Dear *******,

In the response to my letter to you dated 12th December 2006 you kindly supplied the forms PF 244 and wrote on 13th December that you were enclosing a leaflet for a free legal advice service.
Unfortunately that advice leaflet was not enclosed and I would be grateful if you could supply same as it seems to me that the form does not give the option to request officially the suggested\ investigation into the dishonesty in this case.

As stated in my letter the offences have already been committed and there should in theory be no escape for the perpetrators once the details are officially filed in the court papers, although reference to those criminal actions were contained in the bundle of papers provided in the request for Judicial Review.
Our government repeatedly informs us that our justice system should protect the innocent against criminal actions by those who would harm us and that laws are there to provide that protection. In this case the system has failed and there is a need to demonstrate why that has happened and to prevent reoccurrence in other cases.

Could you please advice me as to the correct procedure required to instigate an official investigation into the conduct of those who have used dishonest means to hide the truth and to defraud us of our rights and remedies?
I would also be grateful for the details regarding the legal advice as above.

Yours sincerely,

*************
By fax to 0207 947 6330 for the attention of **********
					Page 1 of 3

      1st February 2007
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
						       
Joanne Dickson
Case Lawyer
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Dear ********,

Michael Rice of the listings department suggested that I write to you in order to request a delay in listing this case hearing but as I have pointed out the situation is not as simple as it would appear.

I have written on numerous occasions to the court requesting an investigation into this case because any hearing will be corrupted by the false information deliberately introduced into the case buy the officials involved.
I have written at every stage to those involved giving them the opportunity to withdraw false statements and to provide the evidence supporting those statements and at every stage those offers have been rejected.
I am currently in direct correspondence with the management of the Industrial Injuries section of the Department for Work and Pensions and with the Department of Health and have requested that they comply with the Data Protection Act and with European Law and ensure that the false information is either corrected or removed from the case files. So far they have been reluctant even to admit that the information therein is incorrect but there is ample evidence available if required by the court.
Sadly the introduction of that false information has perverted the course of justice but in addition it has prevented me from obtaining the legal representation that is vital both for the proper conduct of the hearing and for my protection.
A combination of my disability and the political nature of the issues involved, compounded by the fact that officials and not simply members of the public have perjured themselves in order to achieve the chosen outcome, has resulted in my inability to obtain legal representation.
My disability is such that it is most unlikely that I would be able to represent myself, especially if attendance in a court room contaminated with polishes, perfumes or clothing washed in certain products, is involved.

					Page 2 of 3

The court staff very kindly recommended a pro bono contact at the Inns of Court Law School but as with other legal representatives it would seem that once the true facts of the case are known then they all run away from the case as fast as possible.
The initial lawyer recommended to me by a member of the House of Lords was the person responsible for wrongly advising me regarding the paperwork required for Judicial Review and has since, as with all others contacted, refused to assist.
It would seem that there is a fear of the consequences of taking on the case because of the potential to lose lucrative legal aid contracts. Similar problems were found in the actions of lawyers in the civil action, which incidentally was also damaged by the very same individuals who have perverted this case.

In efforts to move this case forward I have contacted the Department of Constitutional Affairs directly but Mr Lyon simply passed the matter back to the very people who had themselves perverted Justice and no further action has been taken to ensure a fair hearing. In addition vital evidence is being withheld and without legal representation that issue cannot be resolved. Even with legal representation during the civil case numerous attempts to obtain the full medical records were unsuccessful, presumably because those involved could face charges.

In desperation I contacted the Treasury Solicitors directly to see if they would be able to assist the court to come to a true and just decision, as is their duty.
There has as yet been no response from them but a copy of my letter follows.

In the interests of public safety and public confidence in the Judicial process this case should be heard but I confess that I have no idea how to proceed when every avenue is blocked to me by the very people responsible for the situation we now face. 
I am informed that perjury and perversion of the course of justice are still regarded as very serious offences but it would seem that the perpetrators are protected.

I have absolutely no idea if you will be able to offer any advice but so far I am unable even to discover if the advice to fill out a PF244 form is the correct advice in these circumstances or even the requirements for completing and submitting that form.
This is obviously an unusual situation but I do know that many other people have suffered similarly at the hands of these people even if they have not managed to obtain the evidence needed to take their cases this far.
There must be a way forward and a procedure for such circumstances but at the present time I have no idea what it is. All I do know is that if the hearing goes ahead with the false information in the file there is no way that any Judge could come to the correct conclusion – unless the evidence available can be submitted and for that I will require legal representation and protection, both of which are denied to me. 
If you are unable to assist I apologise for wasting your time.

Yours sincerely, 

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

					Page 3 of 3

By fax to 020 7210 3152 for the attention of the Head of Division 

                                                                             3rd January 2007
								
Dear Mr Kent,

This was sent to your email address Kent@tsol.gsi.gov.uk as reported 
on the web pages but was apparently undeliverable.
I wonder if you would be kind enough to provide me with contact 
details for your expert in industrial diseases and misfeasance in 
public office.

I have reported to the Court on numerous occasions that there has been 
deliberate and planned perjury and perversion of the course of Justice 
but, being disabled by the industrial injury central to the matter, I 
am having considerable difficulty in getting these offences 
investigated. All lawyers and advice centres soon find themselves out 
of their depth or apparently in fear for their future contracts with 
the LSC and refuse to assist.....

This leaves me at a considerable disadvantage despite incontrovertible 
evidence in support of what I report.

I understand from the publication "The Judge over your Shoulder" that 
there is a duty on the part of the defendants to assist those acting 
in person and I wondered if you could advise me on the best path to 
take to have the deliberately inserted false statements removed from 
court papers.

My requests to the officials involved directly over many years have 
been blatantly ignored, which appears to be contrary to the rules of 
alternative dispute resolution and merely adds to the unnecessary 
costs for both sides.

Yours sincerely,

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

By fax to 0207 947 6330 for the attention of **********
      8th March 2007
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
						       
*********
Case Lawyer
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London. WC2A 2LL

Dear *********,

Given that the Court itself requested that I wrote to you I am surprised that there has been no response to my fax of 1st February 2007.
In the meantime I have been sent the case files from my civil action and it is clear that there was also deliberate perversion of justice in that case.
It would appear that there is some confusion in respect to the standards of proof required in these cases and that scientific levels of proof have been required instead of the balance of probabilities. In cases such as these where the Presumption Rules apply the scientific standard of proof should apply only to those who claim that there is an alternative diagnosis because, as Lord Denning stated, the benefit of any doubt should be in the claimant’s favour.
Medical records offering supporting evidence were deliberately withheld not only from myself as the claimant but also from my legal teams and the proof of that is found in correspondence in the files for the civil case. Despite repeated requests the important cholinesterase blood test results, which triggered the initial diagnosis of poisoning, were also withheld. I now have them and my letter to the manager of the Industrial Injuries department of the DWP follows. He refuses to act on the information. This is typical of the responses I have had when trying to resolve these serious issues by all alternative dispute resolution pathways.

I am still unable to find legal representation. The Treasury Solicitors have failed to respond to my letter but it is clear that much activity is occurring behind the scenes in inter-departmental communications designed to prevent my access to justice.
A Member of the House of Lords is also labouring to find representation so that the true facts of this case can be presented to the court in a form that all will understand.
Unfortunately it would seem that many of those who have made decisions in this matter do not have the necessary medical, legal, or scientific knowledge.

Yours sincerely,

                          
By fax to 01843 873008 for the personal attention of  Mr D Gorrod
					
For the personal attention of Mr D Gorrod			     26th February 2007  
Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit Manager
Department for Work and Pensions
Social Security Office, 2-4 St Peters Park Road
Broadstairs, Kent.  CT10 2BP

Dear Mr Gorrod,

Further to my fax of 16th February 2007 I have some more information for you.
It seems to be a commonly held belief that Dr Volans, Dr Kennedy, Dr Ringer, and Dr Rees have been reliable witnesses in this case and that their opinions are based on medical and scientific fact.
New information is now in my possession and that of interested parties. This information was available to Dr Volans, and therefore should have been available to those who requested information from him.
For many years I requested, but was denied, full copies of my medical records, specifically identifying the initial cholinesterase test results. I now have those results and the results of follow-up tests.

It is recognised that “cholinesterase depression of 25% represents significant absorption of organophosphorus compounds.” (USA EPA) and “For anticholinesterase compounds, significant inhibition of plasma cholinesterase without overt toxicity and no depression of erythrocytic or brain cholinesterase is generally regarded as an indicator of exposure rather than toxicity. A greater than 20% depression in erythrocyte or brain cholinesterase is generally considered adverse”. (UK COT 2002).

Results from blood samples taken in July 1992 and tested by the Volans team at the then National Poisons Unit at Guy’s produced plasma cholinesterase levels of 5.86 KU/L some 26 weeks after the exposures caused by the incident reported. Results from blood tests taken in September 1992 by the same unit produced plasma cholinesterase levels of 8.2 KU/L.
Results from blood tests during admission for the expensive tests, again by the same unit, in July 1993, for which my case would not have qualified had there been no evidence of poisoning, produced blood plasma cholinesterase levels of 9.0 KU/L.
There were no pre-exposure tests to establish my individual normal level so given that cholinesterase levels can take several months to recover to their normal levels after exposure and that the tested level found by blood tests was highest over 18 months after the exposure it would be probable that the normal level in my body would be about 9.0 KU/L.  Assuming that the laboratory tests are reliable this means that the cholinesterase levels, even in July 1992, months after the exposure, remained depressed by some 35%. Even if the 8.2 KU/L, which was known to Guy’s in October 1992, were assumed by Dr Volans to be my normal level the July 1992 results still represent a 28% depression. Interestingly the figures imply a 16% fall in red cell cholinesterase levels (20.1 to 17.4) at this time, which is strange. The later claims that OP poisoning was not involved were contrary to the view expressed by the toxicologist at the time.
Dr Volans would have been well aware of this information and was therefore knowingly incorrect when he denied symptom consistency with organophosphorus exposure.
Once again I suggest that you take this matter very seriously and instigate an urgent investigation.

Yours sincerely,

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

      10th April 2007
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
						       
*************
Case Lawyer
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London. WC2A 2LL

Dear **********,

Given that the Court itself requested that I wrote to you I am surprised that there has been no response to my faxes of 1st February 2007 and 8th March 2007.

It would seem that the Fraud Act 2006 may well have a bearing on this case since it makes reference to offences already recognised under the Criminal Justice Act 1993, the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and does not affect liability or investigation of previous deception offences. The Fraud Act 2006 encompasses all the offences reported to the court that have been committed in this case and deals with false representation, including representations as to state of mind, the failure to disclose information, and the abuse of position by those who actively took part in the deception with the intent to cause me and my family loss, Possession of articles for use in fraud would include those who knowingly introduced false statements into the case with intent to deceive – an act performed after those involved were put on notice that to use them would be a criminal offence.
These offences would be in addition to those already reported, which include perjury, destruction of evidence, and the planned perversion of the course of Justice. 

I refer you to my previous correspondence and respectfully request that you respond so that we can take this matter further. Currently the perverse influence of those who wish to hide the facts of this case are preventing me from obtaining the legal representation that is required under the Human Rights Act, especially in cases where the State abuses its power over a member of the public. What has happened in this case is clearly an abuse of power and represents malfeasance by officials.
I now have a copy of a false statement produced by the employer’s insurers before any claim was contemplated and which was obviously designed to undermine my case. I should advise that the Treasury Solicitors have also failed to respond.

Yours sincerely,

***********
By fax to 0207 947 6330 for the attention of **********  (Page 1 of 7)

      14th May 2007
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
Court Listings Office           
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London. WC2A 2LL

To whom it may concern,

Further to telephone conversations of today’s date there follows faxed copies of the correspondence directed to the Case Lawyer Joanne Dickson. I find it difficult to understand how these letters did not reach the case lawyer at this number.
I confirm that all efforts to obtain representation in this matter have failed to find any lawyers who consider themselves able to properly represent the case.
The search includes efforts made by the member of the House of Lords who advised that Judicial Review of the decisions and official actions in this case was necessary. 
It is becoming obvious to me that there are serious breaches of European Community law in this matter and all approaches to officials with a duty to enforce compliance in this country are met with a refusal to investigate the matter.
Some suggest that they cannot engage in correspondence because the matter is before the Administrative Court but that is not correct because there is a duty to employ all avenues for alternative dispute resolution and simple recognition of the duplicity involved would open those avenues without the need for court proceedings.

As stated before there is a need for this matter to be heard in order to prevent such dishonest means being employed in other cases and to bring the perpetrators to justice but I am not in sufficiently good health to represent myself. As reported exposure to polishes and perfumes in court buildings and traffic fumes on the way to them can have seriously devastating effects on my health such that I can become unable to speak or even think properly. That puts me at a considerable disadvantage even if a video linked hearing at the local court was arranged, as has been suggested.
Nor is a fair and unbiased hearing possible until the false statements placed in the court by the officials involved are removed from the files. My repeated requests for this action to be taken have been persistently refused, again jeopardising my right to a fair and unbiased hearing. This is why I wrote to the Treasury Solicitor’s department and requested contact details for the officer with responsibility for misfeasance in public office. That information has not been provided.
There has been no response to any of the letters that follow.

Yours sincerely,
 
****************
      29th May 2007
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
Court Listings Office              Please forward to the Case Lawyer ********
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London. WC2A 2LL

Dear *********,

Thank you for replying to my faxes in your letter of 24 May 2007. 
You are correct that it has been suggested that I should apply using Form PF244 but as I have stated before I do not have the information as to how to complete that form or what details must be provided with an application for reconsideration.
Perhaps you could help in that regard as no one that I have been able to contact seems to understand. In fact the only information I have been able to find for PF244 refers to its use in Asylum and Immigration Appeals.
It is also unlikely that a fee exemption would apply since Incapacity and Disability Benefits do not qualify for such help.
Could you please check the details of the “stay” that you mentioned in your letter?
I have not had any contact with Linder Myers since October 2006 when they failed to respond after requesting evidence that medical records had been refused to me.
Linder Myers failed to provide full information to the Legal Services Commission in their application for funding and have refused to put matters right.
They have not been instructed by me to make any application for a stay in 2007 since they are aware of the evidence proving that false statements have been introduced into the proceedings and have so far refused to assist unless they are aid funded.
The deliberate introduction of false statements by the defendants in my civil case has been reported to the Law Society and the Legal Services Commission.
The false statements were also used to influence witnesses in the benefit claim that is the subject of this Judicial Review request. I should also point out that my statement regarding the falsehoods introduced by medical examiners and false comments by the Tribunal already forms part of the evidence provided with the Judicial Review papers (E.g. See D72 page 144 and A25-A38 pages 31- 44 of the file). 
More evidence may be made available once I have legal protection.
I have been making every effort, despite my disability, to expose the true facts of this case for over 15 years and the evidence of deliberate deception is now clear. 
As the Tribunal was informed accepting statements knowing them to be false made the proceedings themselves unlawful – hence the request for Judicial Review.

Yours sincerely,

****************
                            
By fax to 0207 947 6330 for the attention of the Court Manager

      27th June 2007
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
Court Listings Office              
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London. WC2A 2LL

Dear Sir / Madam,

Re The Queen on the application of ******* versus SS FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

Thank you for your letter from L Brown of 26th June 2007 notifying me of a date set for oral hearing on 04/09/07.
I have reported to the court that despite all efforts by myself and by a member of the House of Lords I am unable to find any legal representation in this matter.
This is not through lack of supporting evidence but it appears to be that there is genuine fear of becoming involved in the case since many offer to help only to change their minds when they realise the issues involved.

As reported I am not in good health. I am virtually housebound and officially recognised as disabled and in need of a carer. My health is seriously adversely affected by substances such as polishes, perfumes or aftershave, as would obviously be encountered in a court setting. In addition travelling is also dangerous for me and it is unlikely that I would be in a fit enough state to properly represent the case after travelling to London and finding my way to the court.

I have requested assistance from the Treasury Solicitors and their office for misfeasance in public office but no help has been forthcoming. Had officials followed the regulations in this case there would be no need for this hearing or for me to endanger my health further. Even the Case Lawyer has failed to offer useful advice that would enable me to safely place the evidence before the court that proves the deliberate use of false statements by officials. 

Some time ago court staff suggested that a video link to our local court could be arranged. Although this would not solve the problem regarding representation or the effects on my health from chemicals in the courtroom it certainly would protect me from the risk of travelling long distances. Could you please advise me if this option is still available and the steps that need to be taken to arrange such a link.

Yours sincerely,

**********
By fax to 0207 947 6330 for the attention of the Court Manager

      15th August 2007
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
Court Listings Office              
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London. WC2A 2LL

Dear Sir / Madam,

Re The Queen on the application of ********versus SS FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

This is to confirm the information in the telephone call with Michael yesterday.
Despite every effort I have been unable to find representation for the hearing on 4th September but I have spoken with Mr Mark McGhee of Linder Myers who confirms that he would want, and is more than willing, to represent me but has no right of audience and has himself been unable to find representation.
My telephone call was to ask what arrangements would be made to allow me to present the evidence to the judge and Michael confirmed receipt of my fax dated the 27th June in which I requested confirmation that the suggested video link option would be available.
I am informed that Mr Albert Charlton will contact me and that he will be able to set up such a link but that he is away until Monday.  
It is very likely that even with this facility there will be health consequences resulting from the hearing, as has been experienced frequently in the past, and I would therefore be very grateful if a venue can be arranged as near as possible to my GPs, who understand my condition, and the safer environment of my home.
My wife is my carer and she is concerned about the responsibility she will have should the likely effects cause difficulty in travelling home.
My understanding is that the Courts in Southampton or in Newport, Isle of Wight might be options and the latter is obviously preferable to us for obvious reasons.
I understand that my concerns about the amount of time left to organise this are unfounded as only a day or so are required for the organisation of the venue.
I hope to speak with Mr Charlton on Monday next, 20th August 2007.

Yours sincerely,

**********
By fax to 0207 947 6330 for the attention of ********

      24th August 2007
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
Court Listings Office              
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London. WC2A 2LL

Dear **********,

Re The Queen on the application of ******** versus SS FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

Thank you for your telephone call this morning regarding the inability of the Court in Newport Isle of Wight to arrange a video link for the 4th September hearing.

As requested I confirm that my disability makes it dangerous for me to travel to the mainland for a hearing. The Department for Work and Pensions is well aware of that and provided a nurse to attend at the last Tribunal, which was held in my home for that very reason. My trip to see my specialist last Thursday only served to prove just how much risk to my health is involved. My GP actually suggested that a video link to my home would be more appropriate but I understand why this is not possible.
This is causing considerable stress and I raised this problem long before the September date was arranged. (See my fax of 27th June). In fact I requested that the DWP admitted to what they have done in my efforts to avoid this very scenario.

My recent experience shows that it would not be possible for me to appear in Lymington or Portsmouth without risk to my health and that there will be risks even in attending the Newport Court, as has been shown before. However, I feel that the issues involved are so serious and of such importance for the public’s health and confidence in the system that there must be a hearing and I trust that a suitable date will be found for a video link to the Court in Newport on the Isle of Wight.

I therefore request an adjournment until the Isle of Wight court can accommodate the proposed video-linked hearing.

Yours sincerely,

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

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.

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

      5th September 2007
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005		
						       
The Administrative Court Office
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Dear Sir / Madam,

Re The Queen on the application of *********versus SS FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

I have no legal representation and my health is not good at the moment so as I am unable to appear before the judge except through a video-link I thought it best to supply the information supporting my appeal that I would have been able to provide in person. Please ensure that the Judge has possession of these documents.

I therefore enclose further information sheets with explanations, my comments on the points raised by those acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, and a Statement just in case my unpredictable condition prevents me from being able to speak freely at the hearing via the video-link to Newport Isle of Wight on 14th September 2007.

Please let me know if I have to provide copies to the representatives of the Secretary of State for this appeal of the refusal to permit Judicial Review.

Yours sincerely,

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

 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.

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

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.