The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 177 Lowestoft Fire Risk Plans

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

A Wigglesworth Esq
Lowestoft Fire Station
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA

KES/DISC/Hyde
ACFO Seager
(01473) 588939

13th May 1999

By Recorded Delivery

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,

Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations, 1985

Thank you for your further letter and enclosure dated 12th May 1999.

I feel I must make my position absolutely clear. Having said in my letter of 21 April that I would not enter into any further correspondence with you prior to the hearing of the charge against Mr. Hyde, I find myself compelled out of necessity to write in response to your tactic of sending me so-called "case evidence" in sealed envelopes marked for the attention of the presiding officer.

Until now, I have been content to refer these envelopes to the Finance Officer for safekeeping in the safe at Headquarters until the day of the hearing itself (yet to be arranged for reasons I will refer to later). My intention was that on the day of the hearing itself, these envelopes would be returned to you unopened, for you to open them in the presence of the presiding officer and present the evidence therein in Mr. Hyde’s defence in the normal way. However, I am mystified by this most recent envelope, marked with an encircled 3 and dated 10 May 1999, which you indicate in your covering letter requires "immediate attention"

My dilemma is this. The guidance to the Regulations makes it clear that there should have been no opportunity in advance of the hearing for the disciplinary body (i.e. the presiding officer in this case) to have conferred with either party. Considerable effort is devoted to ensuring that the presiding officer comes to the hearing unfettered by prior knowledge of the particular events surrounding the charge, so that his judgement can be based solely on the evidence which is presented at the hearing itself. You have enough knowledge of the legal system to know that this is perfectly proper. In that case then, how can it be that case evidence ( your words) is considered by the presiding officer in advance of the hearing, as the words "requires immediate attention" in your covering letter dictate? Such an action would, in my view, render the presiding officer incapable of hearing the case thereafter on the grounds that he had been tainted by prior knowledge. I am simply at a loss to understand the purpose of submitting evidence in this manner.

For the sake of absolute clarity, the issue of whom Mr. Hyde will call as a witness in his defence is an entirely separate matter. It is essential that Miss Davies is told, without further delay, whom Mr. Hyde intends to call in order that she can make the necessary arrangements for the hearing. I reiterate again: it is not in Mr. Hyde’s interests to delay proceedings any longer than necessary. I believe a reasonable period of time has been given for him (or you) to advise Miss davies of his witnesses. I have written to him to advise him that this information is required within the next 7 days, otherwise I shall have to consider making arrangements for a hearing notwithstanding. If any of these envelopes contains this information, then that is NOT a matter for the presiding officer, but for her as the clerk to the hearing. With this single exception, all other matters to do with Mr Hyde’s defence must be properly put by him, or his representative, before the presiding officer within the hearing itself and certainly not beforehand.

Quite why this case has departed from the established practices of the past is beyond me. Ordinarily, once a charge sheet has been properly issued, and once the documents on which the brigade’s case is based have been made available to the accused, my part in proceedings is done, and the case is passed to the Personnel Manager for the necessary arrangements to be made. All evidence for the defence, whether based on fact or process, has then been presented at the hearing, and the presiding officer has weighed this evidence, together with all other evidence presented, when determining his judgement.

I can see no legitimate reason why this case should be dealt with in any other way than that I have just described. For this reason, I am returning your envelopes unopened, and I would ask you to desist from forwarding further documents 9other than details of Mr. Hyde’s witnesses) hereafter.

Yours sincerely

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