- CASE NO. 63640/95.....Minnow v GIANT
Please be patient - this matter will take time to unfold - it is worth waiting for as it shows how an eminent Barrister (Chairman) can get things wrong (deliberate or otherwise) by trying to be clever and getting confused with two criminal names - and the one criminal he openly criticised in Court was not involved in this case.....and I do feel this blunder lost me the case.....making it almost impossible for the panel to judge against the Police fearing they would Appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (London).....and their Appeal would have undoubtedly been successful as the Chairman severely, and wrongly, criticised Police Chief Supt. Davidson who was obviously being very truthful by saying he did not know the criminal the Chairman was referring to. Tribunal Chairman Jeremy J.L. Hargrove acted most unprofessional - somehow I was unable to get a copy of the Chairman's notes at a later date to prove my claim. The full story will follow shortly. What a great pity the press was not allowed to report proceedings....and Mr. Hargrove's farcical actions. Fortunately if his actions are ever denied there are two other panel members (Mr. T. Harvey & Mr. F. Schofield) who can verify.
Excerpts from letter dated 20th May, 1996 sent to Newcastle Tribunal Office - M.P. Quin – Northumbria Chief Constable John Stevens (re-sent to Metro. Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens on 19.12.02) and others:-
“2nd January, 1996 I took the typed and hand-written copies of Mr. F.D’s report to my Solicitor who agreed the report had been falsified, obviously to cover-up lies told by F.D.”
“2nd January, 1996 I hand a letter into the Front Office of Market Street Police Station addressed to Ch. Constable Stevens stating my concern regards officer's falsifying reports. When I phoned his office I was told the letter had not been received and I was advised to return to Market St. and get the Duty Officer to fax a copy to Headquarters which I did on the 9th January.
I am still waiting to hear from Ch. Constable Stevens.”
Now for my comments on the Tribunal procedures and the decision.
Prior to the hearing I followed the criteria laid down by the Tribunal Courts to have witness orders issued against those unwilling to attend, the first two were issued for a Mr. Gary Haynes and Miss Laura Lawrence but on 11th March, 1996 I attended an interlocutory hearing and it was decided to withdraw these orders, they did not attend personally but their wishes were granted on the production of statements which I did not see, and I do feel this was so very wrong.
My other witness orders were issued against Sgt. Atkinson and Sgt. Humphreys (the two Officers who took statements from the complainant Mr. F.D.) and these two did not bother to attend on the first day, which I feel was a contempt of the Tribunal Court. Sgt. Atkinson and Sgt. Humphreys were the two "experienced investigating Officers" that took reports from the complainant Mr. F.D. and only a slip-of-the-tongue by the Respondents Solicitor on 11th March, 1996 was I given the clue they were not to be called to give evidence at the hearing, so naturally I had to act quickly to get Witness Orders issued for them. PLEASE NOTE WELL - the Respondents did not produce their complainant Mr. F.D. (who had a criminal record of which I was unaware) and were not prepared to produce the two Officers who took reports from him. My guess is that one or all three feared being questioned under oath, and this is the only conclusion that can be made. It was also so strange that they did not call their Civilian Personnel Officer, Mr. A.E. Wilson as he had more knowledge and background than anyone of the case, being involved in every move and every meeting.
At the outset the respondents objected that a member of the press was present, and their main argument being that the procedures in the use of Police computers would be discussed and should not be heard in public. Naturally my Solicitor or I had little option but to accept the decision of the Chairman to hear the case 'in private' and personally this caused me some distress as it meant being without the moral support of my family and friends who attended, and most of all suppressing the facts/truth by barring the press. As I can recall the decision to conduct the hearing 'in private' was taken without the mention or the possibility that criminal records of individuals would be discussed, and I must strongly object to Paragraph 2 (Page 2) of the EXTENDED REASONS that refers to complainant Mr. F.D. which states "his criminal record would be revealed."
The decision to bar the press and members of the public was taken solely on Police computer procedures, with no mention of F.D. or criminal records.
In hindsight I feel that if the case had been heard in public, which is usual practice, with the press at liberty to publish all the true facts, the case may well have been extended allowing the true facts of injustice to emerge, and not allow the hearing to be brought to a premature end on Thursday, 28th March.
It is natural to assume the Chairman and panel read my Originating Application of 1st November, 1995 for unfair dismissal - and there can be little doubt the Chairman Mr. Hargrove mentally noted and remembered the name of Mr. F.D. who made the original complaint which led to my dismissal.
It must be said, without fear of contradiction, that my chances of success were destroyed completely by the wrong assumption of Chairman Mr. Hargrove, his knowledge and past judicial dealings with a certain individual with the same name as Mr. F.D. should not have been disclosed in any way at this tribunal Court or allowed to influence the outcome of the case, and on this very point I wish to protest in the strongest possible terms. As I have already stated the name with the initials F.D. or any criminal record was not mentioned to justify the decision to hear the case 'in private', but it can now be safely assumed the Chairman Mr. Hargrove had fixed his mind on a criminal of the same name (possibly the complainants Father) known to him, but unfortunately this 'learned man' should have been more cautious, as Barrister's usually are, and not assumed this F.D. was the infamous person he knew from the past. From the outset Mr. Hargrove made it very plain he knew of F.D's considerable criminal record, and throughout the hearing he continued to show and express contempt each time the name F.D. was mentioned, and indeed he personally gave Ch. Supt. Davidson a hard time under cross-examination shaking his head disbelievingly when Davidson stated he did not have any knowledge of F.D. prior to the hearing.
Ch. Supt. Davidson was clearly being ridiculed unfairly by Chairman Mr. Hargrove, asking him details of his work record, time with the Police and where based, and asked to re-clarify that he had no knowledge of F.D. prior to the hearing. Ch. Supt. Davidson was truthful on that occasion, he did not know the younger F.D. (the complainant who also had a criminal record) but possibly had knowledge of the infamous older F.D. (the person wrongly assumed by Mr. Hargrove) who was not involved in this matter. Though Ch. Supt. Davidson allowed two falsified documents to be presented, and was actually caught lying under oath saying they were genuine, I still feel he was treat unfairly by Chairman Hargrove on the occasion he was truthful.
During the final stages of the proceedings Chairman Hargrove was shown a copy of F.D's antecedents from which he discovered his date of birth, and only then did he realise he had conducted this whole case, because of his rash and wrongful assumption, linking and judging the case on the character and record of another person totally unconnected with this matter. When the Chairman discovered his mistake he almost immediately indicated his decision would go against me, and my Solicitor and I were caught completely off-guard, and at the end of that day (Wednesday, 27th) we both decided there was little point in proceeding further, the two main witnesses (Sgt. Atkinson and Humphreys) were not called to give vital evidence, and as a result of my strenuous efforts to get witness orders issued for four unwilling (hostile) witnesses I was denied even one word from them in support of my claim.
There was no shred of evidence to show they made any attempt to clear my good name, or delve for the truth, and they had good reason to do so knowing F.D. had told lies and that he was a known criminal, the Respondents intentions were firmly set to put me "on the fast track to dismissal" with no stops along the way. They had the facility to check the anonymous call of 29th May, 1995 as it was possible this irate person had told F.D. to get his car taxed, as I had done, and at the same time informed him he was to be reported to the Police.
There can be no doubts I was dismissed for my strong beliefs, forthrightness and honesty - my strong beliefs that penalties imposed by our Courts should be enforced - forthrightness is a virtue I am proud to possess - honesty is openly admitting to checking a vehicle on the computer (this I did many times during the working day - and I had the undoubted authority to do so, quote from letter dated 13th October, 1995 wrote by Civilian Personnel Officer Mr. A.E. Wilson "I am unable to ascertain the exact date at this stage on which you were first given PNC authority but it is clear from our records that you had the authority prior to March, 1983" - clear proof I had the authority for more than 10 yrs. and this authority was never withdrawn) on 2nd June, 1995 not divulging details to anyone - repeat - not divulging details to anyone - with no suggestion of breaching the Data Protection Act. On page 7 (para.(m) of the decision I find it strange that the Appeal against dismissal held at the Gateshead Civic Centre on 20th October, 1995 was referred to "No issue arose during the course of the Tribunal as to the conduct or fairness of the appeal." - on pages 6, 7 and 8 of my Originating Application to the Tribunal the unfairness, and the 'rigged' formation of the panel was severely, and rightly criticised - and in fairness I feel this criticism of the 'rigged' Appeal should have been considered extremely important, as they usually are at Tribunals, this important criticism was included in my Originating Application for that very purpose. Obviously one member of the panel (who voted in my favour) noted this crucial point....but how did Chairman Barrister Hargrove miss this crucial point?
The content of my IT1 (Application to the Tribunals) was obviously read and remembered by the Chairman and panel members but I feel too much thought and importance was channelled in the wrong direction, towards the wrongly assumed infamous F.D.
My interest in F.D. not having a valid tax disc (driving a vehicle in May, 1995 bearing tax disc 9/94) should be classed as vigilant and not "obsessive" and I must take exception to the remarks on Page 10 para. 8 of the decision classing the driving of an untaxed vehicle (and most likely not insured) as a "trivial matter", bearing in mind this lawless act involved three untaxed vehicles which had been reported by letters (as stated in para. 8 of this letter) to the Police. Naturally I do feel the Chairman put himself and other panel members in a very difficult position, the choice of having either party appealing to the E.A.T. must have caused some concern, and I would guess a decision in my favour would have brought the might of the Northumbria Police Authority upon him, which he certainly did not want, and under these circumstances I feel my good name, character, and livelihood were sacrificed because of his rash and wrongful assumptions, and it was made plain on my Originating Application I did not wish to work for that regime ever again, and I did expect the decision to be reviewed on the grounds stated to save further possible actions. My application for a Review to the Tribunals was rejected without reason. THERE MAY BE MORE TO FOLLOW ON THIS SUBJECT.
Anyone seeking redress through the Industrial Tribunal Courts are welcome to make contact with me for free advice on how to avoid the many traps and hurdles waiting for poor folk who hopefully seek justice....or perhaps these notes produced following the Tribunal hearing of March, 1996 may be of some help -
Industrial Tribunal Law
To anyone without trade union or association support, or without private means, considering redress for unfair dismissal under Industrial Law then they must first be made aware of the many problems and pitfalls awaiting them, and unless they have above average intelligence and blessed with nerves of steel then they are most certainly doomed to failure. Even if the unfortunate Appellant has financial support of a trade union or association this does not guarantee his 'day in court’ as he will be pressurised constantly to accept meagre offers of settlement before the hearing and non-acceptance could mean financial support being withdrawn. There must be many more applications withdrawn under duress than by reasonable and fair acceptable settlements. It is well worth considering the consequences even when accepting a good cash settlement. Unless the Originating Application is allowed to progress for the Tribunal to make a decision then justice can not be seen to be done and the very real stigma of being ‘sacked’ remains for all future employers to consider, and few prospective employers will overlook any form of dismissal but an ‘unfairly dismissed' decision could be treat more humanely. Legal aid is not available for Industrial Tribunal proceedings and the ‘sacked' person must consider his financial position in depth before using any part of his terminal pay on a venture along a strange road where every step can be costly, more so if he chooses a Solicitor who has not specialised in Industrial Law. An Appellant with sufficient private means may well seek out and get a highly proficient lawyer but again this will not guarantee justice – and the “wheeling and dealing” (favours on past or current cases) that usually takes place is beyond your control, and not always paramount to your benefit or needs. How many dismissed employees can compete with an employer who reaches into a bottomless pit for funds to get the best legal services available….and how many poor souls could even consider trying to prove unfair dismissal under these conditions?
Contrary to general belief top Trade Union officials and company Directors are not always in dispute and they have been known to sacrifice certain forthright members to secure Recognition & Procedural Agreements and other favours, personal perks included. Employers have been known to instruct employee witnesses to give false evidence knowing that if they are discovered all they can expect is a mild form of verbal rebuke from the Tribunal Chairman, and even though witnesses give evidence under oath they can not be prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions for perjury. The bulk of evidence given by Respondents is well rehearsed before the court date, and this means being told what and what not to say. I have good reason to believe the Appellant with no previous Tribunal experience is basically truthful and honest throughout the hearing knowing that skilled interrogators will punish any lie told. On the other hand we have the Respondents witnesses all well-rehearsed with promises of future security, and usually afraid to be truthful, facing at best a cheap Solicitor or Trade Union Area Organiser not capable of posing pertinent questions let alone conduct any form of useful Interrogation. Beware – do not expect or rely on work colleagues or friends to support your claims - you must realise that you stand exposed and alone. I am thoroughly convinced an Appellant will never ever be advised to commit perjury, nor are they ever made aware that this form of dishonesty is accepted and tolerated by Tribunals, and I do feel lacking knowledge of Tribunal procedures can unnerve the applicant making him less confident and unsure during proceedings.
Naturally a claimant who the panel decides is unanimously unfairly dismissed should reasonably expect that reinstatement will be ordered, but this is not always so, nor is compensation guaranteed. Chances are you may be unhappy with the Tribunal decision and contemplate taking the case to the Employment Appeals Tribunal in London, and although Legal Aid is available on an application to the E.A.T. such an application can only be made on a point of law or a perverse decision and processing to this level can be very costly. Unless the Appellant is well represented legally at the Tribunal he has little or no hope of distinguishing a point of law or a perverse decision. Requesting a Review of a Tribunal decisions is more often than not a complete waste of time, the applicant is in effect asking the Panel Chairman to admit he/they made a wrong decision. By the very fact that panel members consist of one legally qualified Chairman, one member from management, and the other from a Trade Union or shop floor must influence the eventual decision in favour of the employer. Tribunals are considered to be the poor man's court and invariably they dish-out poor man's justice as research has clearly shown, and anyone who is considering redress of any industrial grievance should seriously consider the costs, and the chances of success, before embarking an any set route, and with hindsight I would strongly recommend Common Law Courts in preference to inconsistent Tribunal courts.
PLEASE NOTE…..how a Tribunal Chairman can miss or deliberately ignore crucial points to favour the Respondents (Employers)…..ask yourself how Barrister Hargrove failed to note 3 full A4 pages (6 – 7 – 8) of my Originating Application to the Tribunals on how the Northumbria Police Authority “rigged” an Appeal panel to ensure I did not get a fair hearing or a sniff of justice on 20th October, 1995. By the fact this complaint was clearly outlined in my Application (for all 3 panel members to see) it must be assumed Chairman Hargrove deliberately ignored these details to deny me a successful application, and these 3 pages will be published on my website later to substantiate my claim.
The Legal Profession supports the highest bidder.
See "Embarrassing Facts" and how they craftily denied me the rights to trade union representation...which forced me to pay legal fees in excess of £1,000.
(Mr. Jim Richardson)
|
