Have you got your box of tissues handy? You'll need them! Man's inhumanity to man!
AFFIDAVIT
OF
ROBERT
ALAN ECCLESTONE
I,
Robert Alan Ecclestone, of Spire View, Cotts Lane, Tilney All Saints, PE34 4SL,
make oath and say as follows:
1.
My
name is Robert Alan Ecclestone.
2.
My
date of birth is 14 March 1952.
3.
Throughout
the duration of the timeframe mentioned in this Affidavit, I was living with my
parents in their bungalow which they owned outright, without either a mortgage
or a lease.
4.
Between
the late 1990s and 2000, we had thefts from our property, tools were stolen
from our sheds and petrol removed from our car.
5.
On
one occasion, whilst we were charging a battery on a car, somebody came on to
our property and stole the hydrometer and battery charger, whilst it was still
plugged into the mains electricity.
6.
This
was the last straw that made us report the thefts to the police.
7.
When
the police arrived, they expressed an opinion that it must have been someone
local, and that our best way forward was to erect a high fence and gate
(approximately 7 feet in height so that it would be too high to climb over) and
keep the gate locked at all times.
8.
This
advice was acted upon by my father and me in approximately 2003.
9.
However,
in October 2005, police from Norfolk Constabulary broke into our property early
one morning and without giving any reasons, arrested me and took my parents to
a care home in Wisbech called Langley Lodge. Its address is 26 Queens Road,
Wisbech, Cambridgeshire PE13 2PE.
10. There was never
a Search Warrant on the property and nor was there an Arrest Warrant on me.
11. Nor was there an
eviction order of any kind which gave the police powers to remove my parents
into care.
12. On the way to
Wisbech in the car, Mr Shepherd, whom I believe to be a senior Social Services
official), apologised to my parents for what he was doing but he said the
police asked him to do it.
13. I was taken to
King’s Lynn Police Station where I was held in custody overnight.
14. The police
claimed that they had acted upon a complaint from neighbours and that I had
falsely imprisoned my own parents.
15. I denied the
allegation and was placed on four weeks’ bail. A condition was placed on me
which stated that I could not be in touch with my parents.
16. Whilst on bail,
on Monday 7 November 2005, I was working in my garden in my old clothes which
were full of holes. Police broke into the property with mental health workers
and arrested me under the Mental Health Act.
17. The police did
not have a warrant and nor did the mental health professionals.
18. I was removed
from my home and taken to the Fermoy Unit at King’s Lynn Queen Elizabeth
Hospital. This will be verified by my medical records.
19. I was told by
the police that I would be held there for 28 days to be assessed and observed.
20. As soon as I
arrived there, I was repeatedly asked to take medication which I steadfastly
refused.
21. At all times I
was falsely imprisoned against my will.
22. I told a manager
that I did not know what it was all about and that it was obviously a mistake
because I am mentally capable and I did not see the reasons for my unlawful
detention.
23. He told me that
I could appeal.
24. I told the
manager that I wanted to appeal and he gave me the forms.
25. About 3 days
later a female solicitor came over from Norwich to interview me and I explained
the situation to her.
26. She told me that
there would be a Tribunal Hearing, “probably next Monday”.
27. Throughout the
duration of my time there, I was repeatedly asked to take medication, but I
continued to refuse.
28.
On
Friday 11 November 2005, I was asked to attend an interview led by consultant
Dr. Miller. There were at least 12 people present, including two doctors,
social workers and mental health professionals.
29. At this
interview, I was asked many questions which I was able to answer precisely. One
question was “Why are you refusing to take your medication?” and I replied, “Is
it correct that I was told that I brought here for assessment?”
30. Their reply was
“Yes.” Upon which I said, “If you give me medication to change me, then you are
going to get an inaccurate assessment aren’t you?”
31. The team looked
stunned at my answer and a doctor nodded his head and said, “Actually you are
correct.”
32. Approximately
two hours later, the manager called me into his office and told me that I was
free to go home. He told me that there was no need for a Tribunal, having
decided that it was not necessary.
33. The doctor
apologised to me and said, “I’m sorry, this has been a big mistake.”
34. A day before my
bail was due, I received a telephone call from a Sergeant Proctor at Swaffham
Police Station telling me that it would not be necessary to attend bail because
no charges were being brought.
35. Throughout
October and November my parents were kept in the care home, which added to my
stress and to their stress.
36. The police
should have brought my parents home once I was told that no charges were being
brought against me.
37. Whilst my
parents were held in Langley Lodge, they were not allowed out, they were
falsely imprisoned behind locked doors and they were not allowed visitors.
38. I made one visit
to see them but was told that if I did not clear off immediately, the police
would be informed and I would be arrested.
39. In the
meanwhile, the Council and the Police took the keys to the property off me.
According to their own paperwork, both the police and the council unlawfully
visited my property whilst I was being unlawfully detained in the Fermoy Unit.
40. I now believe
that both the police and the council have used my time in the Fermoy Unit to
visit my property and snoop around to see what valuables we had there.
41. It was wholly
inappropriate for me to be detained under the Mental Health Act as I was not a
danger to myself or anyone else.
42. I later learned
from my mother that it was not until the last day of my period on bail that the
police questioned my mother and learned that she and my father had a key to the
gate so that there could not have been false imprisonment.
43. This fact could
have been established on the first time I was arrested.
44. In spite of
this, it was not until January 2006 that my parents were finally allowed to
return home. I cannot understand the reason for this delay.
45. This period of
unnecessary delay caused further stress to myself, and to my parents.
46. Neither the
police nor Social Services returned my parents to our home. They had to return
home on the bus.
47. My father was a
completely different man once he had returned home from the care home. He had
gone downhill very fast being in unfamiliar surroundings. Even the manager of
the care home agreed that my father deteriorated badly once he had been falsely
imprisoned in the care home. He liked to garden a lot and was an outdoor man,
but he was kept locked up in the care home.
48. Around March
2007, officers from King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council came to do an
alleged rat bait test on our property. They emphasised that it was free of
charge.
49. Officers put rat bait in various parts of the
garden which had not been placed in containers as recommended by regulation but
had been sprinkled around the garden by hand.
50. They also said,
“Now that we’re here, can we put some in the house as well?”
51. They managed to
produce some open plastic containers and placed some rat bait in to them.
52. Once they had
access to the house they kept asking questions such as “What is in the boxes on
the shelves?”
53. After they were
shown all the postcards, stamps and books, they said, “You should sell them on
the Internet, you would make a fortune.”
54. About a month
afterwards, they returned to check the rat bait in the garden and in the house.
One officer, whose name was Nathan Reed, found a dead bird in the garden.
55. In the Spring of
2007, there was torrential rain and the back garden turned to mud. There was no
sign of rat bait due to the rain.
56. The council
officers accused me of being infested with rats because the bait had all gone.
I tried to explain to them that they could not see any bait in the garden
because of the rain but they refused to listen to me.
57. They then came
into my house. The rat bait in the house had not been touched.
58. They went away.
59. On 5 July 2007,
they returned and issued two Council Notices to my father, Albert Edward
Ecclestone, the head of the house.
[Exhibit
RAE1, Notice issued under Public Health Act 1936 and
Exhibit
RAE2, Notice issued under Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949]
60. One Notice was under the Public Health Act
1936, section 83, in relation to the house.
61. The other Notice was issued under the
Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949, section 4, in relation to the garden.
62. I then went to the Citizens’ Advice Bureau
with my mother and father to investigate these Acts.
63. A man in the CAB read the small print and said
that there was a right of Appeal to the Magistrates’ Court, but that it must be
achieved within 21 days.
64. He said that we
had a right of Appeal because he looked up the law and said that the Council Notices
had been issued wrongly. He said that the Council had got things mixed up and
that both Notices were invalid, thus giving us a right of appeal.
65. The right of
Appeal under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 lies within section 290
of the Public Health Act 1936. This is because removal of cars is regarded as
constructional works.
66. The right of Appeal under the Public Health
Act section 83 lies within the Public Health Act 1936, section 300, sub-section
1(b) for inconsistencies to be determined in the Magistrates’ Court.
Inconsistencies involved a mix-up between items in the house and items in the
garden and works involving removal of only “unnecessary items” which is not
only legally unspecific but out of context with section 83 in which the word
“remove” is not mentioned, but only cleaning of interior surfaces.
67. The Court regards the making of a complaint to
be the bringing of the Appeal.
68. We went to the King’s Lynn Magistrates’ Court
and filled in the appropriate forms.
69. A few days
later, on 24 July 2007, we received letters from the Court confirming that both
Notices were to be appealed.
[Exhibit
RAE3, letters from the Court dated 24 July 2007]
70. In August 2007
the manager of Norfolk County Council social services at Downham Market came to
visit us at Spire View. I believe his name was Ian Pullen. He warned me that
“they” were going to empty our house. He advised me to hide all valuables away
and suggested that we hide them in the loft. We took his advice, the prayer
book and paintings were put in the loft, but they were still taken. Negative
statements were later made about this by the Chief Executive of the Council. Ian
Pullen is now retired but Norfolk County Council cannot supply his address
because they claim it would breach the Data Protection Act 1998.
[Exhibit RAE4,
letter from Chief Executive of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council,
dated 06 July 2009]
71. On 02 August 2007 we made a preliminary
appearance at King’s Lynn Magistrates’ Court.
72. The Appeal for the Public Health Act Notice
was allowed on 30 August 2007 at the King’s Lynn Magistrates’ Court.
[Exhibit RAE5, Letter from King’s Lynn
Magistrates’ Court, dated 09 January 2008]
73. The Court allowed our Appeal. The Council did
not contest our Appeal being allowed at the time.
74. The matter regarding the Prevention of Damage
by Pests Act notice appeal was adjourned until 03 October 2007.
[Exhibit RAE6, Court Register from King’s
Lynn Magistrates’ Court dated 05 October
2012]
75. The Appeal was allowed subject to the removal
of cars and car parts from the front garden of the property.
76. The cars were removed from the garden by
December 2007 and the matter should have been complete.
77. However, the Council – in a letter dated 11 January
2008 – put in writing that they had seen that the cars had been removed from
the driveway.
[Exhibit RAE7, Letter from Philippa Smith,
Senior Environmental Health Officer, King’s
Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, dated 11 January 2008]
78. They said that they still wanted to see inside
the house even though the Notice issued under the Public Health Act had been
revoked.
79. Initially we denied them entry, but they
returned later the same day saying that we had to give them right of entry or
we would be prosecuted.
80. We therefore felt that we had been bullied
into allowing them entry.
81. The council officers, whom I believe were
Philippa Smith and one other officer, came into my property and said that I had
not complied with the Public Health Act because I had not emptied the house.
82. I told them that that was not a requirement of
the Court.
83. They went away
and the next thing I knew the Council sent a letter on 28 February 2008 stating
that they had had a meeting and it was agreed at the meeting that they would
clear both our house and our garden.
[Exhibit RAE8, letter from Philippa Smith,
Senior Environmental Health Officer, dated
28 February 2008]
No comments:
Post a Comment