The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 271 Aldeburgh Fire Station Open Day

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/

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

B Rampling Esq
Bury St Edmunds
KES/DISC/FBU/SIS
ACFO Seager
(01473) 588939
5th July 1999



Dear Mr Rampling,

FIRE SERVICES (DISCIPLINE) REGULATIONS, 1985

Thank you for your letter dated 18th June 1999. I am sorry not to have replied to you earlier, but I believe you were aware I was away on annual leave.

You do not make it clear whether you are writing on behalf of the Brigade Committee of the Fire Brigades Union, or personally as a concerned member. I shall assume it is the former, though, and respond accordingly.

First, on the matter of witnesses, the paragraph from 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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

On your second point, I agree that it is unusual to appoint an assessor at a summary hearing. 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. 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.

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. 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. At another recent case4 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. 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 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.



Yours sincerely




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