The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 225 Advice for School Visits to Leiston Fire Station

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


15th June 1999


Dear Miss Davies,

Thank you for your letters 10th and 14th June 1999.

The former was in reply to my letter 3rd June 1999. With respect you have not addresses all the issues attached. These are the same issues that have been brought to your attention on previous occasions. As such I will assume you are unable or unwilling to respond in a constructive manner to the content of my letter 3rd June 1999.

Notwithstanding, I note your comment in relation to ACFO Seager. It is clear you nominate him as the person ultimately responsible for all matters concerned.

As to the grievance nullification you interpret in respect of discipline matters. Firstly I would refer you to the mischief of the grievance procedure page 5 par 1.1. This implies an objective test. Secondly you are not embraced by the relevant regulations. There could be no reasonable justification to bar any complaint against your, or any others, administrative performance connected to a disciplinary matter. This may be the case in relation to the actual act, or incident which gives rise to the discipline matter. However, non-competent or malicious decisions by individuals, though they are connected to a discipline case would not be barred. This analysis is based on the concept of reasonableness. Quite clearly you are not a subject of the Fire Service Discipline Regulations.

Moving on to your letter 14th June 1999 and the intention to engage Mr C Jackson (Assistant County Solicitor) as an assessor. This is of considerable interest for which definitive statutory interpretation is to be found under 9 (4) of the relevant regulations.

The Chief officer (where a case falls to be heard by him) or the fire authority (where the case falls to be heard by its disciplinary tribunal) may appoint not more than 2 persons to act as assessors at the hearing.

Regulation 9 (4) is totally and unequivocally for application at full hearing. There is no statutory provision for assessors in respect of a summary hearing. Indeed, even if we apply the literal description of any would be assessor, outlined annex D 3, Mr Jackson would be incompatible.

The appointment of Mr Jackson is a serious departure from the procedures inherent to the relevant Regulations. For this reason I would be extremely pleased if you could explain your reasoning behind the appointment of Mr Jackson as an assessor. In particular, it is a fact Mr Jackson was not engaged for the earlier hearing arranged for 7th June 1999. Quite reasonably I ask you to provide me with material details as to why you now find it necessary for the attendance of Mr Jackson.

I would also be grateful if you might refer me to the relevant empowering statutory provision. Finally on this point could you please inform me who is responsible for the decision to appoint Mr Jackson.

I am sure you will appreciate the issue surrounding Mr Jackson’s appointment is worthy of detailed explanation. It is more than reasonable to expect you will be able to address these issues fully. If you are unable to respond to these specific points I will assume you are inclined to accept my own reading of the situation.

With regard to the unavailability of witnesses, those specified are required.

Finally, I would also be pleased if you could confirm you have copied in Mr C Jones at Thompsons Solicitors in all your communications regarding this case. This was agreed in writing by ACFO Seager 10th May 1999. I get the distinct impression this has not been the case of late.

I look forward to your response.




Yours faithfully



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