Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X"
http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/The Fire Brigades Union
No. 10 Region
Reply to:
Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA
Date 17th May 1999
Dear Miss Davies,
Thank you for your letter dated 14th May 1999, and the confirmation to receipt of the witness list.
I am a little concerned that your current responsibility goes beyond ACFO Seager’s description of your role in his letter 13th May 1999,
….‘but for her as the Clerk to the hearing.’
I also not your quote,
‘it appears to me that your list of proposed witnesses is stretching the definition of witnesses of relevant facts a little far.’
However, these matters detract from the thrust of your letter to which I now turn. We have no problem in providing you with the further particulars you require which we accept is perfectly proper and common to normal legal method.
Let me start by saying your refusal to call the CFO, DCFO, ACFO and DO Hodge as defence witnesses is unacceptable to both Ff Hyde and myself. Paragraph 7 of annex D of the guidance notes does make clear that those witnesses called are ‘witnesses to relevant facts.’ However, it also states ‘whom he may desire should give evidence.’
The exclusion of the witnesses required will clearly prejudice the defence case.
In the case of the CFO he already has prior knowledge of matters which have a bearing and are pertinent to Ff Hyde’s case. He is personally involved. That is based on fact, it is reasonable to expect he would be barred from hearing the case were he a witness or not. On this point I refer you to HYDE v ALCOCK LO900036. The associated summons was addressed and served to Mr Alcock and to which liability is admitted. Matters raised in LO900036 and the discipline prosecution are inextricably linked. We require the CFO as witness to aid and clarify facts relevant to the case for the benefit of the presiding officer in the making of his/her final conclusion.
Bearing in mind all that is made out above I believe it would be extremely unwise for the CFO to sit as presiding officer on this case. It would no doubt be a breach of natural justice. To restate ACFO Seager again 13th May page 1,
‘Considerable effort is devoted to ensuring that the presiding officer comes to the hearing unfettered y prior knowledge of the particular events surrounding the charge.’
Mr Alcock is clearly involved.
Moving on to the DCFO, without any shadow of a doubt he too is also clearly involved. It is a fact that the DCFO has intervened in Ff hyde’s grievance, testimony to the relevance of the grievance is given by the relevant documents served by ACFO Seager, it has a relevant connection to the discipline case. Questions surrounding the grievance and the issues it raises, along with its departure from normal practice are vital to the defence case. The DCFO as number two in the Brigade will be able to give authoritative expert opinion to the grievance procedure and explain why in this case he has sanctioned its departure from normal practice. We also have relevant documentary evidence attributed to the DCFO, which is relevant to this case. It is vital that the DCFO confirms his authorship to these documents as a witness and clarifies the apparent contradictions within. Again the non-appearance of the DCFO would be prejudicial to the defence.
In the case of ACFO Seager we require him to establish, for the benefit of the presiding officer that the "test of reasonableness" has been satisfied in the light of the circumstances of the case. I am sure you will agree this concept has significant bearing and is pertinent. ACFO Seager the appointed Investigating Officer who has total responsibility for this case is crucial to the issue.
As for DO Hodge he has been party to the grievance procedure which to re-iterate, is significant and central to this case. It is noted he was formally and unequivocally involved on 29th January 1999. DO Hodge intended to interview Ff Hyde at 10.30 hrs 2nd February 1999. Once more I stress the prosecution relies on documents centred on the grievance procedure. We claim the same right to draw on documents, events and persons directly involved in the grievance process. I contend the four officers you seek to protect from the hearing are all highly relevant to Ff Hyde’s discipline case.
I have been as brief and general as possible, I am sure you will agree it would not be right to conduct trail by correspondence to the extent that I inform you my precise questions. To this I respectfully point out you can have no way of knowing what questions we may wish to ask and therefore cannot prejudge whether the answers will be relevant or not.
If you insist on the case going ahead without those witnesses whom Ff Hyde requires, then in our opinion the rules of natural justice cannot apply. Decisions about whether the questions asked by the defence and offered by witnesses must be made by the presiding officer.
Like you we would like this case to be dealt with as soon as possible. We would be happy to allow the hearing to go before a panel of the Fire Authority who are to the best of my knowledge not personally involved nor witnesses to the relevant facts in this case.
To close we must insist that we are allowed to call all the witnesses that we consider have relevant information to the defence.
I look forward to hearing from you on all the points raised.
Yours faithfully
A Wigglesworth BSc, MBA, G.I.Fire.E.
