SUBMISSION OF MR COLIN REVELL
RE:INJUNCTION HEARING 7/12/06
Your Honour,
Mr Revell’s case is this:
1. The Council is a service provider, which is not in dispute.
2. They are charged with providing a Social Care Plan and structure for Mr
Revell as a disabled person. These are not forthcoming.
3. The Council is also charged with the health and safety of their own
employees and to serve the public of the East Ridings without prejudice.
4. The employees of ERYC have a choice of whether to serve the public or
not.
5. Mr Revell does not have a choice as to when his disabilities will
manifest themselves. They are not always in evidence in all his dealings
with the ERYC or his attendances at County Hall.
6. If the Council provided Mr Revell with care to an appropriate level and
permanent accommodation he would have no reason to attend the County Hall or
the Customer Service Centres to attempt to get his needs met.
7. An injunction is not the only solution to this problem nor the only
protection afforded to staff of the ERYC. Protection would come in the form
of proper care for Mr Revell and thus no need for complaints or attendance.
A solution would come in the form of Autism, Asperger’s and other
‘invisible’ disabilities training and awareness.
8. The crux of the matter is the process of Mr Revell accessing this service
as entitled to him after assessment as disabled under the NHS and Community
Care act 1990
(2) If at any time during the assessment of the needs of any person under
subsection (1)(a) above it appears to a local authority that he is a
disabled person, the authority—
(a) shall proceed to make such a decision as to the services he requires as
is mentioned in section 4 of the [1986 c. 33.] Disabled Persons (Services,
Consultation and Representation) Act 1986* without his requesting them to do
so under that section; and
(b) shall inform him that they will be doing so and of his rights under that
Act.
*The Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation & Representation) Act 1986.
Section 4: Places a duty on authorities to assess disabled people for
services and facilitate provision.
9. It is interesting to note that Mr Revell had to complain to the ERYC
repeatedly over a number of years for them to assess him fully and correctly
to find the diagnoses of his conditions despite the duty obligated on the
Council by the above Acts. The associated care plan has still not been
implemented.
10. The current system of managing Mr Revell’s visits invokes Section 21 of
the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as it currently makes it much more
difficult for him to get an appointment or even get a response than it would
an able bodied person or a person of visible disability.
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 - Section 21. - (1) Where a provider of
services has a practice, policy or procedure which makes it impossible or
unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to make use of a service which
he provides, or is prepared to provide, to other members of the public, it
is his duty to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances
of the case, for him to have to take in order to change that practice,
policy or procedure so that it no longer has that effect.
11. Mr Revell has to apply in writing for an appointment when it has been
stated in every assessment that he finds writing painful and should be
offered computer assistance and advocacy (Jo Todd March 04, Dr Shah Jan 01
etc).
12. Social Services refuse to answer his calls, which they would not do to
someone who was similarly suicidal or distressed but without Mr Revell’s
particular manifestations of disability or his history.
13. When Mr Revell is unable to contact anyone involved in his care directly
and is concerned, then follows general council guidelines on access, (after
trying to ring his allotted contact, then Connie Young) via the CSCs, he is
then directed back to the County Hall (p38) by the Customer Service Centre
(entrapment or incompetence?).
14. Either that or he is ignored then evicted by remit from the Directors of
the Council, but never listened to sympathetically or assisted in
co-ordinating his questions or concerns by East Ridings employees unless
forced to by the presence of an advocate or other escort (p35 Mr Randerson
writes down Mr Revell’s questions only due to being requested to do so by
Christine Breakey after having told Mr Revell ‘I was no longer willing
to…communicate with him.’ He does not note any other requests.)
15. In all of these cases the Council have made it impossible or
unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to make use of a service he
provides and this is not justified by any reason other than the
manifestation of his disability and inappropriate responses by ERYC
employees, which equates to discrimination under the Act.
16. Mr Revell’s normal access to his social care is through the Social
Service Department of the ERYC, which is housed at the Beverley County Hall.
As such County Hall is understood by Mr Revell to be where his Social
Workers work when they are not with him.
17. The ERYC have allocated one person to be his point of contact. This
person is named as Nigel Gardiner in the evidence but he no longer works
with Mr Revell. Since Mr Gardiner there have been other Social Workers
assigned to Mr Revell.
18. The current incumbent of 3 months is Jayne Walker, an agency worker, as
the ERYC, as explained to me by Connie Young on 16/10/06, do not have any
human resources in this area of expertise.
19. Mrs Walker is employed for 24 hours a week but is not supported by any
other Social Service worker, thus all of Mr Revell’s problems and
communications fall on her shoulders.
20. This is not an ideal care situation as she requires the ‘back-up’ of a
designated support worker and Mr Revell requires basic assistance for
everyday activities for which Mrs Walker is essentially over qualified.
21. A support worker would take that day-to-day responsibility off her and
allow her to do her job, which is co-ordinating and applying Mr Revell’s
care plan and finding him a place to live. A support worker is common in all
other cases for those at the same level of Social Service care as Mr Revell.
22. Mrs Walker has only been given the increased hours of 24 per week in the
past 3 weeks, thus Ms Scott’s submission that this has been the case
throughout the situations detailed in the evidence is untrue.
23. In addition, the statement that the Council considered these hours to be
the only reasonable adjustment to make, other than that of making Mr Revell
change his approach to contacting the council as opposed to them changing
their policies and procedures as advised in the DDA and DED, shows the lack
of imagination spent in caring for his welfare and the ignorance of the many
assistive and clinical reports that the Council itself has commissioned into
Mr Revell’s care.
23a. As Mrs Walker is paid for only one day (24hrs) out of a 7-day week and
there is no other care or support in place, it is inevitable that Mr Revell
will require assistance when she is not being employed. The default plan is
that Mr Revell contacts Connie Young in the Social Services department via
telephone or email.
Unfortunately this is where many of the situations witnessed at the County
Hall start.
24. Connie Young is frequently away from her desk, as was true on 25th
October 06 as reported in evidence in court. She is also prone to not
responding to messages relating to Mr Revell, as experienced by Mrs Walker,
Ms Moore and Mr Revell’s Circle of Friends/Support, which obviously causes
Mr Revell anxiety.
Mrs Walker frequently turns to Ms Moore or Mrs Sochovsky, a voluntary expert
on Asperger’s and Autism, as she cannot contact her own Line Manager.
25. In her absence there is no one available or willing to deal with Mr
Revell and it is usually at this point, when the system appears to have
broken down, that he informs whoever has answered the phone at Social
Services (if at all) that he intends attending County Hall to make an
appointment or wait for the council officer he needs to see as that is where
their offices are and his care is; or the Customer Service centres who
invite all citizens of the East Ridings to attend if they need Social Care
(from the ERYC CSC web page).
26. Please note that his intention is not to enter the County Hall to cause
harassment, nuisance or distress to Messrs Randerson and Heath.
27. It is his intention to talk to those in Social Services or the
complaints procedure to clarify his position and status.
28. Mr Revell clearly does not want to be anywhere near Mr Randerson, and
appears scared and intimidated by him rather than the other way round, as
shown by his insistence that Mr Randerson stays away from him and that an
injunction is in progress to keep him away from him (p59 pt 4).
29. Sometimes Mr Revell is not contacting the Social Services because he is
complaining, but when he is suicidal or depressed or scared or lonely and
his symptoms are causing him problems or other people are causing him
problems. In these situations it is essential that someone at the Social
Services takes responsibility for his welfare. Unfortunately they do not
appear to have done so and use his complaints as reason to provide
substandard service.
30. At no point in Mr Randerson’s written evidence or spoken testimony is
contact able to be made with Mr Revell’s designated ERYC contact as
proscribed by the letters from the Directors and Chief Executive, or those
he wishes to make an appointment with. They are either on holiday (p11) or
there is no answer (p14, 15 (NG, PT and CB), 36, 58, 60, 61, 64). This
causes Mr Revell much anxiety and frustration, which manifests itself in his
demeanour.
31. On the 25th October, as written in her unheard evidence, Ms Moore tried
to contact Mr Revell’s social worker, the Social Service Department, Connie
Young, the Emergency Mental Health Team and the Police in addition to
various charitable foundations to try to find Mr Revell some assistance and
protection from arrest and potential abuse and received no response from
anyone except the Police who then did not attend her complaint nor take any
witnesses details to follow up.
32. This situation seemed to sum up the attitude of the ERYC and other
authorities, coloured by years of dealing with the problem of Mr Revell yet
never learning how to deal with him.
33. The Council’s own complaints policy states that ‘All comments,
compliments and complaints will be monitored to ensure that the Council
learns from this feedback.’
34. There is no evidence of the Council having learnt anything from Mr
Revell’s complaints and experiences.
35. Indeed, the current lack of available training again illustrates this
point as does Mr Randerson’s own statement in his file notes dated 3rd
November 05, ‘an alternative plan of action, that works, to tackle these
situations must be sought immediately’ (p36) and the Chief Executive’s
response of 26th August 05, ‘Staff at Beverley Library have responded to
your potentially disruptive behaviour by sensitive and individual responses
demonstrating their highly inclusive and positive approach to all people
with disabilities.’(p22 point 7)
36. If this alternative plan of action performed by those at the Beverley
Library had been identified by the Chief Executive as being beneficial to
all involved by its diffusion of potential conflict, then why was it not
implemented at all points of contact with Mr Revell, specifically the
Customer Service Centres and the County Hall?
37. The Chief Executive’s letter is dated 26th August 05, some 2 months
before the injunction proceedings were initiated.
The Beverley Library example is indicative of ‘an alternative plan of
action’ and belies Mr Randerson’s mantra of ‘I had no choice but to call the
Police’.
38. It is not the place of the court or the ERYC receptionists to use ‘fine
judgement’ to decide whether Mr Revell’s demands are reasonable or not as he
is a customer of the ERYC and as such has ‘…a right to complain if you are
not happy with the care you get’ (CSCI guidelines 06).
39. Mr Revell is clearly not happy with the care he has got and thus has
complained on more than one occasion about one or more breaches in the
ERYC’s duty of care to him as a registered disabled person.
40. This act of complaint or complaints should not be used as a reason for
exclusion of the complainant as stated in Section 55 of the Disability
Discrimination Act and yet appears to be a major factor in the initiation of
this injunction.
41. It is not in question that it is Mr Revell’s actions against the Council
and assorted employees, as heard in this court in October but issued as
counter claims to the ERYCs initiation of court proceedings
(ASBO/injunction), have meant that they (ERYC) wished to class him as a
vexatious complainant. It is not disputed that his entering the County Hall
and Service Centres is usually to do with these complaints and their
progress, in addition to concern for his care plan. Thus the injunction is
directly related to subsection a (i)(ii)(iv) and subsection b of Section 55
and thus could be classed as discrimination or victimisation under the Act.
55. - (1) For the purposes of Part II or Part III, a person ("A")
discriminates against another person ("B") if-
(a) he treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons
whose circumstances are the same as B's; and
(b) he does so for a reason mentioned in subsection (2).
(2) The reasons are that-
(a) B has-
(i) brought proceedings against A or any other person under this Act; or
(ii) given evidence or information in connection with such proceedings
brought by any person; or
(iii) otherwise done anything under this Act in relation to A or any other
person; or
(iv) alleged that A or any other person has (whether or not the allegation
so states) contravened this Act; or
(b) A believes or suspects that B has done or intends to do any of those
things.
42. There is a question as to whether the treatment of Mr Revell is
justified due to his disruption of normal working practice in the County
Hall. Normal working practice is to serve the public and not close the
service for any reason. Mr Revell’s appearance seems to trigger a desire to
shirk responsibility and a refusal of service to a member of the public,
with special needs that have not been met by the ERYC in their Customer
Service Centres or the County Hall.
The disruptions are caused by Mr Revell’s and the Council employees’
frustration.
43. Mr Revell not receiving a response from the lead care agency, Social
Services, fuels his anxiety and not getting the answers he wants at County
Hall leads to stress and distress, amplified within his Autistic spectrum.
44. This manifests itself in tone of voice and loud statements of complex
legalities and accusations of lack of care and gross discrimination as well
as a perceived aggression.
45. This perceived aggression never manifests itself in violence - Mr
Randerson p65 pt 13, ‘in all the incidents I had been involved in, Mr Revell
had never physically threatened me, but the other staff and I were very
concerned in case in might escalate to violence.’
46. This was in October 06, 18 months after the problem allegedly started
and still Mr Revell had not resorted to violence against the man he was
allegedly harassing and attempting to intimidate.
47. This, along with Mr Randerson’s statement that Mr Revell’s ‘presence
alarms staff’ is evidence of the prejudice and over-reaction engendered by a
lack of understanding of Mr Revell’s neurodiversity.
48. If Mr Revell were black and had attended County Hall even only 50 years
ago, he would have got the same reaction – fear, distress, misunderstanding
and presumption of innate violence.
49. The ERYC’s frustration with Mr Revell has also fuelled these encounters.
The Directors’ remit denoting official Revell/Council policy of ‘ask if he
has an appointment and if not evict him forcibly or just call the Police to
do it’ is guaranteed to create a scene due to its lack of inclusion of Mr
Revell in its process and obviously the involvement of law enforcement
officers and the force it advises to remove him.
50. This is the remit that Mr Randerson alluded to in his spoken testimony
and appears to have been ratified at the same time as the letter informing
Mr Revell to put his requests in writing and to ring up for appointments
which was apparently not served in his preferred form, another omission of
reasonable adjustments.
51. It makes Mr Randerson the conduit for apparent institutional disablism
as he continually repeats his mantra that he has no choice but to call the
Police. He does have a choice but the remit forbids him to make it.
52. The Police are reluctant to get involved in the ERYCs civil cases to act
as their security guard where no laws have been breached.
p12 CR sat peacefully; p15 ‘he wasn’t really doing anything’; p29 pt 12 ‘the
police were reluctant to remove the defendant’; p34, p52 ‘they would not be
removing CR because in there (sic) view he wasn’t causing harassment’; p58
‘they had not arrested him because there wasn’t anything they could arrest
him for’; p65 ‘unfortunately the officer did not believe Mr Revell had
committed an offence’. This shows an alarming trend towards the
institutional insistence on criminalizing Mr Revell’s disability.
52a. Ringing 999 for non-emergencies and involving the Police repeatedly in
a civil matter not involving actual criminal actions could be seen as
wasting police time if employed persistently by anyone but the claimant.
53. Mr Randerson also has a choice when it comes to either providing service
to Mr Revell and/or the other members of the public in his place of work. He
could attempt the sensitive, individual responses shown by the Beverley
Librarians or he could hide under stairs spying on a disabled complainant,
leave urgent meetings to pursue him, prejudice his staff and lock himself
and his fellow service providers in a back room thus neglecting their
obligations to the other citizens of the East Ridings until Mr Revell has
been manhandled out of the building.
54. Mr Randerson did attempt all the above with the exception of the
sensitive, individual approach.
55. The effect on customer service is not the fault of Mr Revell, as his
position is quite clearly ‘access for all’, an ideal he campaigns hard for
nationally and internationally. He has no power over opening times or
standard of service, which is the responsibility of the ERYC and its
officers.
56. The effect on customer service is due to Mr Randerson having to adhere
to a remit designed by people who do not work on the frontline of a service
provider with understanding of Autism, Asperger’s etc. and is thus
inflexible in its accommodation of spontaneous events e.g. Mr Revell finding
that he was being refused a house yet again, or there being a breakdown in
communication and care or Mr Revell needing to find his errant Social Work
manager.
57. It is also due to this remit and the excuse it gives Mr Randerson to
remove his staff from an imagined threat of violence that leads to the
hiatus in Customer Service.
58. If Mr Revell attends approximately 60 times in 18 months this means
approximately 60 times in 540 days which equals once every 9 days and as the
CSCs and County Hall are only open Monday to Friday this equates to a visit
a fortnight, or less as some visits are twice plus on the same day. This is
not an unreasonable amount of times to attend considering the general state
of Mr Revell’s welfare.
59. The health and welfare of the staff alleged affected is admittedly the
responsibility of the ERYC as their employers, especially due to the rise in
no win-no fee litigation for stress at work and other injuries, especially
within the civil service (see private eyes passim).
60. There was however no evidence towards an actual physical affect on Mr
Randerson or anyone else other than his own assertion that he had sought an
appointment with Occupational Health. It was unclear whether this had ever
been arranged.
There was also notably no evidence from the many members of the public and
ERYC staff whom Mr Randerson claimed were inconvenienced and intimidated or
distressed by Mr Revell. We are only offered hearsay accounts in his spoken
evidence.
61. This lack of sick notes or confirmation of sick days taken by Messrs
Randerson and Heath and others was qualified by Ms Scott’s use of Manchester
vs. Romano stating that if the council believes there is an endangerment to
health and safety that there is one without question despite no one being
diagnosed with a reasonable illness.
62. The ruling is slightly more revealing in full as it actually says that
as Mrs Jones was a ‘truthful and reasonably accurate witness’, had been
witnessed in her state of ‘serious suicidal depression’ in court in front of
the jury and her anti-depressant prescription was also offered as evidence;
that it is these mitigating factors in the evidence that relate to whether
or not health had been endangered rather than a blanket statement in a
Pravda style of ‘the Council says it thus it must be so’. Mr Randerson has
not claimed to be suffering from any such serious afflictions in relation to
Mr Revell.
63. It is also noted that there are no incidents reported in evidence when
Mr Randerson is not on duty, suggesting that he could be part of the problem
due to his handling of Mr Revell.
64. Mr Randerson was repeatedly shown to be an unreliable witness by Mr
Boynton, the independent witness of 25th October 06.
65. His testimony was challenged in that he denied touching Mr Revell in
attempting to remove him, when both Mr Revell and Mr Boynton are quite clear
in stating that he did.
66. He said he was on his own behind the desk yet again Mr Revell and Mr
Boynton disagree with him and state he was accompanied by at least 2 others.
67. He said that Mr Revell continually talked over him, yet Mr Boynton and
Ms Moore state that it is Mr Randerson who is talking over Mr Revell and
claiming falsely to the Police that he is being violent. He also confuses
words and claims Ms Moore said ‘bloody ridiculous’ in an attempt to blacken
her name before the hearing.
68. Mr Randerson did not think of or propose any alternatives to Mr Revell’s
treatment himself and as such can not claim that this injunction is his only
option to get ‘protection’ from a non-violent person.
69. In addition, Mr Randerson’s conviction that there is no other route
other than to call the Police, shows a lack of investigation into mediation
(requested by Mr Revell of HHJ Besford for him and ERYC) or conciliation,
which is a service offered by the Disability Rights Commission which is
designed to avoid the stresses associated with attending court by
intervening on both sides of a dispute, especially for those suffering from
similar diagnoses to Mr Revell.
70. It is also noted that Mr Randerson claims to have known Mr Revell for
only 18 months, i.e. since last May/June. It appears that it took Mr
Randerson less than 2 months (to 26th July 05 p14,15) to get sick of having
to serve Mr Revell which seems a very short amount of patience for someone
supposedly professionally trained to deal face to face with the public on a
regular basis. Mr Randerson’s contract is to serve people yet he is
withholding the service repeatedly due to Mr Revell’s disability.
71. The ERYC, as evidenced in court by the testimonies of Messrs Randerson
and Heath, do not place any obligation on their staff to be trained in
dealing with those afflicted by Autistic spectrum disorders and do not offer
any training in this field despite Mr Revell having been an acute problem
for the Council for over 30 years.
72. Mr Revell as a community educator has often sought to redress this
imbalance in disability awareness by sending educational emails and
information to the Social Services and others involved in his care and
social service, which was mistaken by Mr Randerson as ‘harassment’ (evidence
p28 sec 9).
73. Mr Revell is a respected UN researcher involved in the creation of the
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability with Dr Linda
Misek-Falkoff, who has confirmed this to HHJ Besford and the courts at
various points. Mr Randerson appears sceptical in respect of this fact on
page 8, which incites more frustration from Mr Revell who also has ‘a right
to be treated with dignity and respect.’ (CSCI guidelines 06)
74. According to Mr Simon Lowe, senior Policymaker at ERYC, there are no
disabled people employed in policymaking despite the implementation of the
DED on 4th December 2006 and the initiative ‘Partners in Policymaking’ which
aims to engender education and training and understanding of disabled rights
and expectations and the government guidelines on inclusion.
75. According to the Minister for Disability interviewed by the BBC on 4th
December 06, the Disability Equality Duty ‘is to redress the balance that –
for too long – services were often tailored to meet the needs of the
provider and not those who actually received the services’ - as is in
evidence in this case with the ERYC expecting Mr Revell to adjust his
behaviour rather than Customer Service Operatives be asked to understand the
disability.
76. ‘There will be a duty on public authorities now to involve disability’.
77. Under the new Disability Equality Duty, ‘Social Care Services have a
fundamental role to play in helping to secure…participation of disabled
people’.
78. Mr Revell, as a UN advisor, would be ideally suited and would revel in
this role and already offers his assistance to the Council yet is constantly
rebuffed due to the nature and manifestation of his disability and prejudice
engendered over many years due to his complaints, which are his way of
informing the council they are failing the disabled.
79. The current emphasis is on inclusion as illustrated by the first page of
the DED which states its purpose is ‘ensuring equality of access to all
Social Care services by removing exclusionary practices of all kinds and
considering what additional assistance (such as equipment, communication
support and/or advocacy) may be required to provide genuinely equal access.’
80. This has not been genuinely offered to Mr Revell. In fact on many
occasions it has been approved then removed, as illustrated by the decision
to fund Ms Moore in an advocacy role, which was then withdrawn 6 weeks later
at great distress to Mr Revell, with a cursory excuse of lack of training
when none was offered or is currently available from the ERYC. These changes
in personnel dealing with him also make Mr Revell very anxious as an
aversion to or fear of change is a symptom of the Autistic spectrum.
81. There have been many reports on Mr Revell’s mental capacity for court
and the council’s treatment of him, both for the courts and the Social
Services, by Dr Shah (Jan 01), also Dr Shah’s paper ‘Asperger’s Syndrome
Behaviour Issues: A Psychological Report ‘which details the mental impact of
unmet needs on those suffering ASDs and Autism; Professor Howlin for the
Local Government Ombudsman (submitted to the Social Services and the
courts); Jo Todd of Key4 learning (Mar 04); Professor Digby Tantum; Dr
Amanda Kirby (1999); which have not been acted on by the service provider or
the courts.
82. These are all available on request but not offered to the courts by the
Council as they are not always complimentary about Council services and they
require many adjustments to be made in Mr Revell’s case.
These reports were offered to Your Honour last Thursday.
83. There was recently a case where a CPS prosecutor asked an Autism expert
(Dr Craig of the Institute of Psychiatry, KCL) to speak on behalf of an
Autistic victim of crime. The CPS prosecutor, Gareth Minty said, ’I felt I
needed to make sure the court knew as much about Autism as possible. I also
wanted to avoid the victim being cross-examined in a way that would unfairly
take advantage of his disorder.’
84. ‘Dr Craig explained that if Andrei (victim) failed to answer questions,
it was not because he was being difficult or evasive. The reason was either
that he was still thinking about the question and formulating an answer or
that he did not understand the question.’
85. If a victim of crime is afforded this explanation of their behaviour to
the court on his behalf, and the implication is that going to court is very
stressful for all involved, then why is Mr Revell refused similar assistance
and understanding?
86. The other implication of this case is that the victim as an Autistic
person was not considered to be seen as competent to be dealing with the
normal rigours of court e.g. cross-examination.
87. This is at odds with the Judge’s assertion that Mr Revell is competent
to handle his own affairs in court and to manage his own case. Both these
points have been proved wrong by Thursday’s experience. Mr Revell could not
formulate succinct questions with a basis in considered argument and found
it extremely difficult to deal with the obligations put on him by the court
on how to behave. His case management has been left to Ms Moore without the
relevant funding to unravel it nor any legal advice.
88. Under the National Assistance Act 1948 ‘a local authority must make
arrangements for promoting the welfare of persons aged 18 or over who suffer
from mental disorder of any description’. An injunction that will incite
anxiety, stress and the other manifestations of Mr Revell’s conditions is
not promoting his welfare but is actively detrimental to it.
89. The Council use the evidence that Mr Revell managed to keep himself away
from the County Hall and CSCs when he was bound by bail conditions as a
reason to imply that the only way to keep Mr Revell away from the ERYC
premises is to threaten him with arrest. Mr Revell is aware of the
implications of going to prison, as were his advocates who dissuaded him
from putting himself in danger by returning to the County Hall. When Mr
Revell returned there on the day of his case dismissal, he was not
trespassing, as there was no injunction to break. He may however have been
unaware of the effect his appearance had on those who wished him to be
criminalized and excluded and as such been unaware of the danger of winding
up those who work there.
90. Similarly, the other injunctions and asbos have failed due to him not
having committed any crime on any statute book in the United Kingdom, for if
he had we would be embarking on a criminal case with a full burden of proof.
91. This injunction is an attempt by the Council at harassment, intimidation
and bullying of a disabled person due to their disability and the fact that
they are involved in the complaints procedures and have made allegations
against staff with reference to their duty of care to him as a vulnerable
adult which indicates discrimination under the DDA and DED and other Acts.
92. The ERYC were offered the opportunity to avoid the stressful and
farcical situation at the hearing by accepting the effect the court
appearance would have on Mr Revell’s state of mind and supporting an
adjournment; or by accepting that the problem is not as acute now as it was
last October when the proceedings were started and to dismiss the claims; or
to offer an obligation on themselves in an undertaking to attend to Mr
Revell’s Social Care needs and thus compromise with him with reference to
attending ERYC premises.
93. No compromise, mediation or conciliation has been attempted with Mr
Revell in this case. Ms Scott was under orders to accept no obligation for
care on the ERYC. This shows that in calling the Police and initiating
injunctions, the ERYC have not been exhaustive in their search for other
solutions and also illustrates the lack of research into other forms of
communication on behalf of ERYC. This shows that the reaction and injunction
is not justified under Section 20 of the DDA as other means of dealing with
Mr Revell are available and have not been tried.
94. Taking away Mr Revell’s ability to attend Customer Service centres
through this injunction will equate to neglect and discrimination on the
part of the court as the situation currently is that Social Services do not
talk to him or arrange appointments for him as per Jon Mager’s letter
September 05 or with his Circle of Friends/Support and as such leaves him
effectively ‘gagged’ if he does not have another physical point of contact
with the council with which to voice his concerns. No one else in the East
Ridings is affected by such an order, whether able-bodied or not and as such
this would make Mr Revell a cause celebre, as this is discrimination based
on Mr Revell’s tone of voice, not actions, which he cannot help due to his
disability.
95. The employment of a security guard with no more powers to remove than
staff currently in situ, at great cost to ERYC, to deal with one person is
another example of the ‘sledgehammer to crack a nut’ analogy as the ERYC
continually refuse to fund a support worker, a full time Social Worker, an
advocacy assistance, legal representation or assistance and various travel
and referral costs relating to treatment which would help the situation and
convince Mr Revell that he is being listened to and thus not have a reason
to attend the ERYC premises.
96. This taxpayers’ money, and that paid to the solicitors, barristers and
courts throughout these proceedings would have been better spent on
improving Social care for Mr Revell and others supposed to be cared for by
ERYC.
Mr Revell also wishes to state:
97 - That the unwillingness of the court to adjourn the hearing affected his
right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act and that the
injunction affects his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of
the same Act as the restrictions are not proportionate. These infringements
also invoke Article 14 in tandem with disability discrimination.
98 -The adjournment was requested on the grounds that Mr Revell had spent 2
days away on a Wellness and Recovery scheme organised by the Hull & East
Riding Mental Health Action Group, designed to promote relaxation, instigate
personal responsibilities and different thought processes to deal with
stress related to everyday life for disabled people. Mr Revell returned home
late on the night before the hearing and requires greater time than
‘neuro-typicals’ to recover from exertion such as travel. This is another
feature of Autism not grasped by the court. The mental impact of the hearing
undid all the good work put in to relax and calm Mr Revell earlier in the
week. Given the short deadline for submission of grounds for adjournment,
and the fact that Mr Revell had only recently been issued with a new GP, it
was impossible to expect a sick note or proof of effect of the court case in
time for the hearing as the effects would only be obvious when he attended
the court. Mr Revell attended his GP on Friday 8th December and was on the
verge of being sectioned due to the stress induced by Thursday’s court
appearance.
99 -The other reason for adjournment was that Ms Moore had been given only 6
and a half days to organise Mr Revell’s affairs and assist him in a defence,
and that she was on a prearranged holiday for 4 of these days after being
told she was surplus to ERYC requirements in November, and Mr Revell was
away for those days that she was able to assist. The timescale did not allow
for her to instruct a lawyer on Mr Revell’s behalf for the essential legal
assistance required which would have co-ordinated the hearing better.
100 - An adjournment would have avoided the farce, unpleasantness and
anxiety on all sides created by the hearing and its sudden appearance and
would have meant that Mr Revell’s case had been legally researched and
himself better prepared mentally.
101 - Despite Your Honour’s disbelief that there is no legal advice
available for those affected by Autism, Asperger’s etc in the North East, Ms
Moore found this to be entirely true as the only solicitors trained and
prepared to act for Mr Revell are based in London and they are not prepared
to travel to Hull and work pro bono or for legal aid.
102 - That the HRA precedent of R vs. Isleworth be recognised in relation to
Mr Revell being kept waiting at court without appropriate rest periods and
reasonable access to and time for food.
103 - Mr Revell’s Circle of Friends/Support have never been contacted as
character reference or as expert witnesses to explain Mr Revell’s
disabilities and their impact on his state of mind as well as the impact on
others he comes into contact with and the best way to work with him. In fact
their testimonies have been rubbished and ignored despite making themselves
available time and again. Mr Joe Whittaker of the Bolton Institute has
offered to create a training schedule for the ERYC. He has had no reply for
over 3 years. This is contrary to the assertion that all other options of
handling Mr Revell have been tried.
104 - That Mr Revell has only attended County Hall twice since 5th October
hearing, once with Mrs Walker, which passed with no incident, and the other
time was 25th October as detailed in the evidence of Ian Boynton, Ms Moore
and Mr Randerson. As such the frequency of his visits and their conclusions
do not appear to back up the Council’s claims for an immediate solution to a
problem that is not immediate and has been ongoing for 18 months and has not
caused any recent problems.
105 -The problems are in the perception of others as to his disability, as
well as his perception of his actions. At the hearing, due to the stress
involved, almost everyone in the court raised their voice at some point in
reaction to Mr Revell and it was noticeable that ‘invisible’ disabilities
are those that worry the public as to what they are as the people involved
don’t appear disabled, often just slightly eccentric or obstructive. The
court often perceived that if they spoke slower or louder that this was all
that was required as ‘reasonable adjustment’ to aid comprehension. This
again shows lack of understanding of a syndrome where thought processes
cannot always be called logical or traced to a full relationship with the
consciousness and ability to answer questions and compute their meaning in a
manner the rest of us neuro-typicals take for granted.
106 - Mr Revell’s perception that the County Hall is the place of work for
the Council Services entrusted with his care is not misplaced as the County
Hall is their address and thus he is entitled, under the HRA right to
protest, attend said building to protest about his, and others, treatment by
the ERYC.
107 – Page 68 seems to sum up the ERYCs attitude towards Mr Revell. Despite
the fact that he has been asked to leave his accommodation (which means he
did not choose to leave but was requested) and was thus not intentionally
homeless, and then had further stated his distress and suicidal thoughts, Mr
Heath’s only comments are that he is relieved Mr Revell has vacated the
reception area. There is no consideration of his needs at all, nor is there
any concern for a very vulnerable citizen by any employee of the Council
concerned for his Social Care, Health and Wellbeing and charged with serving
the public.
108 – Precedent - Manchester vs. Romano states in point 20 (p78) that ‘in
that case there was not the slightest doubt that she was suffering from a
psychotic illness, and on appeal David Steel J said that the evidence showed
that the overwhelming preponderance of her bizarre and unwelcome behaviour
was attributable to that illness.’ Point 21 (p79) continues, ‘ He upheld the
judge’s finding that the claimants had failed to justify their conduct in
seeking her eviction. There was no evidence that they had considered the
step necessary “in order not to endanger the health or safety of any
person”…[the judge] found that there was no evidence that the defendant had
ever been an actual physical risk…the eviction was therefore unlawful in
terms of the 1995 Act.’ As confirmed by Mr Randerson, Mr Revell has never
been an actual physical risk to anyone and his behaviour is directly related
to his afflictions, including Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, which relates
to his repeated attendances.
109 – Precedent – Manchester vs. Romano (p92 pt 53) quotes from the Code of
Practice 3.13 ‘Service providers seeking to avoid discrimination
should…instruct their staff not to attempt to make a fine judgement…but that
they should focus instead on meeting the needs of each customer.’ This
includes Mr Revell’s needs as a customer of ERYC.
110 – Precedent – Manchester vs. Romano (p93 pt 57) again quotes the Code of
Practice, ‘A service provider does not have to be an expert on disability,
but it should take into account all the circumstances, including any
information which is available, any advice which it would be reasonable to
seek, and the opinion of the disabled person.’ ERYC has ignored these
guidelines by not adhering to the advice given by experts (detailed reports
above), not considering the impact of the circumstances of Mr Revell’s
living arrangements and the lack of a coherent care plan, not contacting the
Circle of Friends/Support or his advocate for easily sourced information on
neurodiversity in general and Mr Revell in particular, and not once has the
Council sought the opinion of Mr Revell; in fact they have actively avoided
his opinions.
111 - For the information of the court – Mr Revell’s mother died
approximately 18 months ago, around the time of the escalation of the
visits. Mrs Revell was Mr Revell’s primary contact, confidant and support
throughout his life coping with Autism, Asperger’s and other forms of
neurodiversity. Mr Revell has never been offered any bereavement counselling
for his loss and thus it is hardly surprising that when his mother died he
had to look elsewhere for support and naturally he expected the Council to
provide this service for him, as his mother had for the previous 40 years,
in line with their disability duties. It is not his fault that his needs at
that point were incorrectly assessed and no one at ERYC thought that an
ASD/Autism sufferer would benefit from structured grieving for his mother.
Your Honour,
All of us present in court last Thursday have our own house and family to go
home to, a place of our own to relax with our own thoughts and a definite
Christmas dinner with a tree, presents and loved ones.
Except Mr Revell.
He does not and currently does not have any hope of finding such a haven,
especially as his B&B accommodation closes for the holidays and no
alternative for him has been suggested yet by Social Services.
Until the ERYC obligate themselves to caring for him coherently and
competently with full resources, there should not be an injunction based on
a debate about the health, safety or welfare of anyone else until Mr
Revell’s Social Health, Safety and Welfare are guaranteed.
MJ Moore MNAEA
On behalf of Mr Colin Revell
14th December 2006
_________________________________________________________________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters
________________End of message______________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies). Enquiries about the list administratione should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|
