The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 130 Bury St Edmunds Firefighters Strike

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

A Wigglesworth Esq
Lowestoft Fire Station
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA

KES/SIS/Wigglesworth
ACFO Seager
(01473) 588939

21st April 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,

Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations, 1985 – RE FIREFIGHTER M HYDE

Thank you for your letter dated 20th April which I received by fax yesterday.

I have reviewed the letter you referred to, i.e. the one addressed to DO Smith dated 6th March 1999 and my reply dated 10th March. I remain satisfied that the reply adequately addresses the points you raised at the time.

You hint that the transcript of DO smith’s interview with Mr Hyde may not be a true record. This would be ironic if so, in that the offer to tape record the interview was made – an offer which you declined in your letter dated 9th March. I have always believed a taped record of an interview to be preferable, but regrettably my view is not shared by the Fire Brigades Union or you, it seems, on this occasion at least.

I must point out that Mr Hyde was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him when he was interviewed by Divisional Officer Smith on the 23rd March. As I see it, the questions asked were specific enough for Mr Hyde to know the nature of the allegations against him. The fact that he declined to answer a single question, even those that sought to confirm facts easily capable of proof elsewhere, causes me to doubt your contention that Mr hyde is "more than willing" to make a written response. He does, of course, have the right to make a written response at any time, and I would encourage him to do so, even at this late stage. But he must realise that any written submission would be admissible as evidence in a subsequent hearing.

On the matter of the wording of the charge, I agree with you that it could be more specific. I will ensure that a revised charge sheet is served on Mr Hyde without delay, and I shall assume that his response to the first charge sheet (which I have already received) is null and void.

So far as I am concerned, this is my final reply to the issues you raise. I will not enter into any further correspondence in the matter prior to hearing. Any further concerns you may have will, I am afraid, have to be put before the presiding officer at the hearing in order for him to determine what weight to attach to them.

Yours sincerely

K. E. Seager,
Assistant Chief Fire Officer (Technical)
Brigade Investigating Officer