Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/
or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/
POINTS OF INTEREST DOC 217?
Regrettably we do not have a copy of the letter Bill Rampling sent to Assistant Chief Fire Officer Seager 18th June 1999.
‘First, on the matter of witnesses, the paragraph from the guidance to the discipline regulations you quote in your letter, relates to the duties imposed on the disciplinary body for securing the attendance of witnesses on behalf of the accused. The guidance note is quite specific that that duty extends to “..any witnesses to relevant facts” (my italics) – a point you choose not to emphasis by the use of capital letters in your letter.’
We do not think there is any dispute in the term “witnesses to relevant facts”. The dispute is one of who is the arbiter as to what the relevant facts are in the fact. In this case it seems that ACFO Seager and his confederates have decided it is them who will decide and restrict the boundaries of relevant facts. Indeed, to the extent that ACFO Seager will also decide and control the whole remit of defence strategy. In effect ACFO will decide and select the defence witnesses. It is argued that such action is non-compliant with the right to a fair trail under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (article 6.1). As too, is conflicting role of ACFO Seager as investigator, convening officer and prosecutor.
‘The emphasis you suggest is quite different, and your interpretation would appear to be that anyone named by the accused as a witness must be ordered to attend whether or not they have been witnesses to relevant facts. I disagree. To follow your argument to a logical conclusion, an accused member would be able to name every serving member of the Brigade as a witness, without any justification as to his or her relevance and each would have to be ordered to attend. This would present us with an impossible administrative burden and would have the effect of frustrating the course of natural justice rather than promoting it. Common sense must prevail, surely? Indeed, you seem to accept as mush by referring in your letter to the need to keep a sense of proportion. If so, I entirely agree with you.’
But let’s not forget the accused is not asking the whole brigade to attend. The specified witness list 12th May 1999 (Doc 166) consisted of 12 named individuals, all uniformed officers of Suffolk Fire Service. In consequence it is argued there is little merit in ACFO Seagers plea above.
‘In recent cases where an attempt has been made to introduce witnesses for the defence that do not appear to be witnesses to relevant facts, the accused has been given the opportunity to justify the need for the Brigade to order those witnesses to attend.’
In reality such quality control judgements are the behest of the presiding officer during the course of the hearing.
Where a satisfactory justification has been given, the witness has been ordered to attend. In each case, the accused’s right to independently seek the co-operation of the witness has not been compromised.
In essence such a demand results in the defence being forced to reveal strategy and intended conduct to the prosecutor ACFO Seager. Another flagrant breach of article 6.1 ECHR.
I have to say that my experiences in this regard have shown that most of those so named have been equally puzzled as to their relevance and have declined to attend.
I do not believe that decisions made in recent cases not to order the attendance of named witnesses have materially disadvantaged the defence of the charge, or charges, faced. I also firmly believe that the requirements of natural justice have been fully met.
ACFO Seager seems to be saying that his decisions in this case are driven by actions and events connected with previous cases!
On your second point, I agree that it is unusual to appoint an assessor at a summary hearing.
A more precise term would be unique or precedent.
I have to say that my decision to do so is based upon my dealings to date with the accused friend in this specific case, who has barraged me and others with correspondence since the outset, much of which is confusing and written in a way that is difficult to understand. He has raised numerous queries with me about the process of the investigation and the issue of the charge sheet, my involvement, the integrity of officers and other matters.
Well this is the first time ACFO has revealed his reasoning. It’s all the fault of the accused friend. Well I suppose that makes it alright for ACFO Seager to commit the offence of “Abuse of Authority” by acting outside the legitimate powers of the Fire Service (discipline) Regulations 1985 does it?
Well we must also bear in mind that the case was originally scheduled to be heard at Lowestoft Fire Station 7th June 1999. Same presiding Officer DO Peter Ludford. No attendance of the assessor Suffolk Council Solicitor Mr Chris Jackson. May we conclude that some event/s occurred on or around 7th June 1999 (give or take a few days) to motivate ACFO K Seager to appoint an assessor? The actual record of the appointment of an assessor is 14th June 1999 (Doc 222). Perhaps it was the receipt, by DO Smith, of the defence bundle of documents on 2nd June 1999? Funny how the hearing scheduled for 7th June 1999 was so hurriedly cancelled in the wake of the defence’s bundle of documents arriving at Colchester Road wasn’t it?
Finally, on this point. Miss Davies also adds the legal advice plea for the assessor appointment in Doc 258.
I believe that these are matters over which the Presiding Officer must exercise judgement within the hearing and I am concerned that the Presiding Officer may want some legal advice during the hearing. I believe the only proper way of providing such advice is to do so openly within the hearing in the presence of the accused himself, hence my decision to invite the Assistant County Solicitor to be an assessor. I do not forsee the need to follow this course of action as the norm unless in future cases, unless I am faced with similar circumstances.
The Presiding Officer a senior and trained Fire Service Officer merely needs to make his decisions based on his own knowledge. And most importantly in good faith
‘Finally, you question the involvement of Miss Davies in the discipline process. It remains the case that after the charge sheet has been issued, arrangements for the hearing are placed in the hands of the Personnel manager. My role as Investigating officer is, by definition, over once the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been issued.’
At another time and in another blog (Sub Officer X) I think it will be found that ACFO Seager contradicts himself on this statement. Is he lying or just spinning? Is their a difference?
Furthermore, since I have been named as a witness by the accused in the case you cite I felt it was improper to involve myself in the decision as to the legitimacy or otherwise of the other witnesses named by the accused.
Is this ACFO Seager saying it was Miss Davies who made the RULING over who was deemed as relevant witnesses? i.e. a civilian who is not herself subject to code of conduct she is administering. Nor trained in the application of the discipline regulations.
At another recent case heard by the fire Authority, you will recall that the County Director of Personnel undertook this function. It seems reasonable, therefore, for Miss Davies to do so in this internal hearing.
In closing, I would wish to point out that it is only in the very recent past that I have felt it necessary to depart from the established and hitherto accepted practices for disciplinary hearings.
In consequence an open admission by ACFO Seager of a wilful and conscious understanding that he is acting outside normal and established protocol.
Previously in my dealings with Fire brigades’ Union accused friends, I have found them (yourself included) to be reasonable people with whom I have been able to develop a mutual understanding and respect for our different positions.
So, again ACFO Seager seems to be blaming the accused friend for his own misdemeanours. He has no respect for the accused friend?
So far as my role under the Regulations goes, I have no interest at all in any matters beyond upholding what I believe to be the necessary discipline for the Service to function as a respected public emergency service, and ensuring fairness and natural justice. I therefore utterly refute any suggestion that the process has the appearance of a witch –hunt.
I apologise for the length of my reply, but I hope I have adequately addressed your concerns. As ever, I remain willing to meet you or any representative of the Fire Brigades’ Union to discuss disciplinary matters. Please contact, Sigi, my secretary to make an appointment for a meeting if you think it would help.
All in all the rhetoric and general discourse provides a valuable insight into the personality traits of a senior fire officer who encounters resistance to his absolute will.
