The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 209 Suffolk College Student Welfare Officer

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X" http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA

Date 3rd June 1999

Dear Miss Davies,

Thank you for your letter dated 24th May 1999.

I am most disappointed by the contents and intent to deny witnesses relevant to Firefighter Hydes case.
With respect, your assertion that the hearing will be conducted congruent to natural justice seems hollow and stultified by your action.

Once more I can assure you that the four disputed officers are implicated by responsibility to "relevant facts" in the case. The literal interpretation being:

Relevant; Bearing or pertinent to the matter in hand, Oxford English Dictionary.

Fact; What happened, Holland & Webb 1996.

Relevance and Admissibility; A fact will be relevant if it enables the court to reach a conclusion on the issues before it, Holland & Webb 1996.

Circuitous as it may be I also refer you back to para 7 annex D of the relevant guidance note. This clearly states the application for witnesses is to the disciplinary body. The situation so far seems to indicate it is you that currently holds this position. Can you clarify if this is correct?

Moving through the relevant paragraph the choice of words used connote a subjective test. It is for the member t decide which witnesses to call based on what he/she believes are the relevant facts. He/she then informs the disciplinary body. At first sight this may suggest an open invitation to vexatious practice. As may be, the regulations (surprisingly) require the member to make no justification for his witnesses being relevant other than his/her desire.

As such it is abundantly clear the member has a statutory right to the witnesses he/she desires as relevant. This reason should not be interfered with without good reason.

The defence notified you of the required witnesses in more than reasonable time. At the same time we have responded positively to your demand for further information as to the relevance of the disputed witnesses. Bearing in mind that you requested such information without statutory authority, we have surpassed the mark of reasonableness.

I would be pleased if you could reciprocate our reasonable position and demonstrate good faith by providing the relevant desired witnesses.

Once more may I express my concern on the extent of your involvement in this case. I note Mrs Campbell is prima facie now the clerk to the hearing. To reiterate, I would be grateful if you can confirm your current role. Given that it is you who is screening witnesses I sense you have assumed a role compatible with that commonly referred to as Investigating officer/convening officer.

Finally we are advised that your intervention and the actions associated merit the initiation and application of further formal grievances. Unfortunately such action is costly in resources for both parties especially, in terms of time and administration. Most certainly we do not wish to pursue further grievances unless it is absolutely necessary. For this reason and to retain a reasonable position Ff Hyde and myself will refrain from this action until your response is received. We hope it is reasonable to assume that will incur little delay.

I look forward to your reply on all the points raised above.

Yours faithfully


A Wigglesworth BSc, MBA, G.I.Fire.E.