Shrewsbury pickets’ case in Court of Appeal,

ON 3-4 February 2021

Posted on Jan 30, 2021 in News

We are delighted to confirm that the pickets appeal will be heard on 3 and 4 February 2021 at the Court of Appeal in the Royal Courts of Justice, London.

The Campaign represents twelve pickets including Des Warren, John McKinsie Jones, Ken O’Shea, Malcolm Clee, Michael Pierce, Terry Renshaw, Kevin Butcher, Bernard Williams, Alfred James, Roy Warburton, Graham Roberts and John Seaburg.

Two other pickets, Ricky Tomlinson and Arthur Murray, withdrew from the campaign and the legal case in 2017 when the Criminal Cases Review Commission turned down our application. The remaining original eight pickets never gave up. With the support of the Campaign and trade unions we successfully challenged the CCRC in a judicial review in April 2019. The CCRC reviewed the case and finally, in March 2020, referred the eight pickets’ convictions to the Court of Appeal. Our success won the right for all the remaining convicted pickets to apply to the CCRC to be added to our case. The families of four further pickets asked the Campaign to support them and we were delighted to submit their applications, which were accepted.

On the back of our success the two who withdrew from the case in 2017, Ricky Tomlinson and Arthur Murray, were able to reapply to the CCRC and had their case referred in May 2020. They have chosen not to re-join their fellow pickets and are represented separately in the court, though their lawyers base their case on the Campaign’s evidence.

The appeal has two grounds based, upon evidence discovered in the National Archives by the Campaign’s Secretary and Researcher, Eileen Turnbull:

(i) original witness statements had been destroyed by the police and this fact had not been disclosed to the defence counsel or the court;

and

(ii) the broadcast of a highly prejudicial documentary on ITV during the first trial, Red under the Bed, the content of which was contributed to by a covert agency within the Foreign Office known as the Information Research Department.

Terry Renshaw, a convicted picket who has campaigned tirelessly for over 40 years, speaking on behalf of the pickets, said,

“We are looking forward to finally having our day in court to show that we were victims of a miscarriage of justice. Without the Shrewsbury 24 Campaign we would not be where we are today. We owe a great debt of thanks to them for the tireless work that they have carried out.”

The Campaign’s Chairperson, Harry Chadwick, took part in the strike in 1972, picketing building sites in the North West. A retired carpenter and longstanding member of UCATT/Unite, he paid tribute to the support that the campaign has had from the labour movement,

“We have had tremendous support from all the trade unions, the TUC and the Labour Party. We will never forget the warm welcome and solidarity shown to us at the events that we have travelled to during the past 15 years. On behalf of the pickets and campaign, a heartfelt thank you.”

European Court: Defeat for Worker's Rights

FOLLOWING a decision in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg released this week, campaigners are challenging politicians to provide legal protection to agency workers. The ruling in the case of Smith v. the United Kingdom (Application Number 54357/15) was handed down by ECHR President, Kristina Pardalos, relates to Dave Smith, an engineer from Maldon in Essex, who was one of thousands of construction workers who appeared on the notorious Consulting Association blacklist operated on behalf of the UK's major building contractors.  Smith was blacklisted after he being elected as a safety representative for the construction UCATT (now part of UNITE).

His Employment Tribunal against various companies in the Carillon Group became a test-case for blacklisted workers but the Strasbourg decision has implications far beyond just the construction industry.  At the original Employment Tribunal, the company admitted that their senior managers had provided information to the blacklist because Smith was a union member who had raised concerns about safety issues on their projects.  But the ET found against Smith because as an agency worker he was not covered by UK employment law.  Millions of agency workers are currently excluded from basic employment rights such as unfair dismissal, redundancy and protection from victimization for raising safety issues.    

Smith's legal team appealed the case all the way to the Court of Appeal before it was finally rejected at the Supreme Court.  A submission was made to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the Consulting Association blacklist conspiracy was a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which are supposed to apply to everyone not just direct employees.  

Paragraph 36 of the ECHR judgement reads: 

"At the outset, the Court considers that in light of the criminal proceedings pursued against the Chief Officer of the Consulting Association by the Information Commissioner for failing to register as a data controller under the Data Protection Act and the admissions made by the defendant companies in the High Court proceedings, it is clear that the retention of personal data by the CA interfered with the applicant’s Article 8 rights". 

However, because of the campaign led by the Blacklist Support Group alongside the UNITE and GMB trade unions, which resulted in a Select Committee investigation and a multi-million pound settlement in High Court litigation, the ECHR ruled that Smith's case had been 'duly considered' by the British legal system and was therefore declared 'inadmissible'. 

While Smith was paid compensation during the High Court settlement, the ECHR ruling leaves the issue of the second class treatment of agency workers by UK employment law completely unresolved.  If even a blacklisted worker whose human rights have been infringed cannot win legal redress in either the UK Employment Tribunal system or the highest court in Europe, what chance do care workers, teachers or nurses engaged via employment agencies stand?  The current differential treatment of agency workers amounts to a EU sized loophole by which unscrupulous bosses can exploit agency workers with absolute impunity.  

John Hendy QC represented Smith in his test-case and commented on the ECHR decision:

"The use of agency workers and false self employment now deprive several million workers from full employment rights. The use of employment tribunal fees defeats the rights of those workers who do have them. As Dave Smith's case shows these problems cannot be left to the courts: they require urgent and fundamental legislation. The election provides the opportunity to vote on this issue".

After receiving the decision, Dave Smith commented:

"This ECHR decision is a green light to bad employers.  If UK and EU judges either can't or won't protect agency workers. I challenge all political parties in the General Election to commit themselves to extending full employment rights to the millions of workers engaged via employment agencies. In an era of zero hours contracts and casualisation, this is a defining issue for any politician claiming to stand up for workers rights". 

Gail Cartmail, UNITE Assistant General Secretary stated: 

“As this disappointing decision is being digested we know the paucity of legal protection from blacklisting means that third parties are instructing “do not engage” or if an activist slips through the net, dismiss.  Tomorrow is International Worker’s Memorial Day when we will mark 43 construction workers death from April 2015 to April 2016. In the past and today major players in construction have singled out trade union activists for raising legitimate safety concerns.  We need a full Public Inquiry and it is good to know this is a Labour pledge.  Remember the dead and fight for the living.”

UNITE member, Terry Brough, was the only other blacklisted worker to have a case submitted to the ECHR.  His case was ruled 'inadmissible' in September 2016. Brough commented:

"I extend my solidarity, respect and best wishes to Dave and his team in this, his latest involvement in the fight for justice. Blacklisted workers have not achieved justice through the courts: Corbyn should pledge a full public inquiry on the blacklisting scandal".  

Blacklist Support Group

Plumber wins legal case on worker's rights

THE Court of Appeal decided that a plumber, Gary Smith (pictured) who worked for Pimlico Plumbers for six years until 2011, is entitled to basic rights such as sick pay even though he was technically self-employed.

Gary Smith had claimed that he was dismissed following a heart attack and sued Pimlico Plumbers for sick pay.

The case is one of several that have considered the relationship between independent contractors and companies such as Uber, Deliveroo and parcel delivery firm Hermes and City Sprint UK Ltd.

This decision in the Appeal Court could mean more protections for thousands of independent contractors working job-to-job with little security and limited employment rights.

With the number of workers in the gig economy jobs surging in recent times, campaigners have claimed that it leaves many with no guarantee of earnings and no protection if they can't work.  In some cases workers have claimed they are being paid less than minimum wage.

However yesterday, a Judge warned that the ruling would not necessarily be applicable to all workers in similar positions.

Michael Burke Guilty of Rape!

£17K or £23K?:  It was The Sun that Paid It!

YESTERDAY Karen Danczuk, 33, the estranged wife of Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk and a former Rochdale councillor, waived her right to anonymity by speaking publicly after her brother’s conviction on rape charges.  

Mrs Danczuk, the estranged wife of Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk and a former Rochdale councillor, told the jury at Manchester Crown Court which convicted her brother of a series of sex attacks:  'Whereas my first time of having sex was with my brother.  It’s horrible.  Even now I can’t sleep naked.  I can’t even cuddle in bed.  Most people remember their first time having sex with somebody they love.'

She told a jury she was regularly molested in the family home between the ages of six or seven until she was 15 or 16 by Michael Burke, her brother who is five years older than her. 
After a three-week trial on Wednesday, the jury found Mr Burke guilty of eight counts of rape and another serious sexual offence against three women, including three counts of rape against his sister between 1992 and 1994. 
He was cleared of nine other serious sexual offences. 
Karen Danczuk initially revealed publicly she had been abused, without naming her attacker, in an interview with The Sun newspaper in February last year. 
The two other victims came forward shortly afterwards.  Neither can be named for legal reasons.  During the trial Mrs Danczuk gave evidence from behind a curtain around the witness box, shielding her from the dock where her tormentor sat, often shaking his head in denial. 
The mother of two boys aged six and eight, told of her unconventional and unhappy childhood, growing up in a terraced house in Middleton, near Rochdale. 
Northern Voices, which was covering the case on last Friday and the Monday of this week, heard in the summing-up by The Hon. Mr Justice Gilbart* that Karen Danczuk had been paid a sum of money for The Sun interview.  The amount is disputed but is said to be in the region of either £17,000 or £23,000. 
In her evidence Karen Danczuk said: 
'It started out like it was a game, it was not so much an attack, it was, like, innocent. 
'It was a game of hide and seek, think I was about six or seven. He would always take me into his bed. He would lie next to me, we would be under the bed covers for ages. The first time he was literally on top of me naked. 
'It was a slow process. That kind of went on for some time, the hide under the bed covers stuff carried on. It still haunts me now.' 
She said the abuse progressed to rape, aged 11, on a weekly basis, usually on a Sunday evening which was 'bath night' and continued until she was 16. 
The first person she told of these events was a clinical psychologist at Nye Bevan House in Rochdale in 2009 after she felt suicidal and depressed. 
She was cross-examined over two days by Nigel Power QC, defending her brother, who queried why she went first to the papers before the police, asked if money was her motivation and accused her of 'attention seeking'. 
She said:  'To this day I have grown up and fought my whole life to change my childhood.  I decided I would come forward, that was my choice. 
'Before I ever became famous I was seeking help, before I ever knew I would end up in the public eye. 
'This idea that it is just attention, this has ruined my life.  I have had a horrendous life, it’s a fact.  This is why I have had help from doctors because it’s a fact.  Days when you have, being dead makes more sense than being alive. 
'I think I finally felt ready to face it, I’m ready to see this through, he can’t get away with what he did. 
'My life has been hell for what he’s done, I don’t want anything, I want closure.' 
Meanwhile, today The Sun ran another exclusive story based on Karen Danczuk's account of how she suffered from her brother's attentions when they both were children in the early 1990s.
Mr. Michael Burke will be sentenced on December 15.  After the guilty verdicts, Mr Justice Gilbart told Mr. Burke:  'A custodial sentence is inevitable.' 
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3994112/Karen-Danczuk-weeps-speaks-rape-torment.html#ixzz4RmBWUyDO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

* According to his Wikipedia entry:  Sir Andrew James Gilbart (born 13 February 1950), styled The Hon. Mr Justice Gilbart, is a judge of the High Court of England and Wales.  He was educated at Westminster School and Trinity Hall, Cambridge.^[1]   He was called to the bar by Middle Temple in 1972 and became a bencher there in 2000.  He was made a QC in 1991, a circuit judge in 2004, a senior circuit judge and Honorary Recorder of Manchester in 2008, a deputy judge of the High Court from 2004 to 2013, and his appointment as a judge of the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) was made in 2013.  Illness prevented him taking up his appointment until October 2014.  Although a Planning Law specialist at the Bar, and heavily involved in the long-running Manchester Runway litigation, Mr. Justice Gilbart was well-regarded by the Manchester Bar for his approach to criminal cases as the Recorder of Manchester.  During his tenure in that office he presided over many high-profile criminal cases, from murder to the high-profile Manchester Riots, in respect of which he set local sentencing guidelines which were later overturned by the Court of Appeal. 
He was made a Knight Bachelor on 10 November 2015^[2]

Labour's workfare shame: How Labour abandoned support for the poorest over illegal sanctions!

Jonathan Reynolds MP

In February 2013, the Court of Appeal quashed ‘The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise) Scheme’. The three Judges, Lord Justice Pill, Lady Justice Black and Sir Stanley Burton, ruled that the 2011 Regulations were ultra vires of section 17A of the Jobseeker’s Act 1995 because they failed to prescribe a description of the various schemes launched in August 2011 or the circumstances in which, a person can be required to participate in those schemes or the period during which, participants are required to undertake work on those schemes.

The case centred on whether the Secretary of State was able to create programmes and schemes at a whim rather than issuing Parliament with full details of the myriad of schemes in operation. It was declared that the Secretary of State, Ian Duncan Smith, had not given unemployed people sufficient information about their rights to appeal against being made to work up to 780 hours unpaid and the penalties they would face if they refused. The effect of the ruling meant that almost all of the Government’s work-for-your dole employment schemes were unlawful.

The Court of Appeal ruling meant that thousands of unemployed people (approximately 44,000) who had been unlawfully sanctioned (had their benefits stopped) for not participating in these schemes, were entitled to a refund of their benefits of around £130 million. On 30 October 2013, the decision of the Appeal Court was upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Department of Work & Pensions (DWP) stated that they would resist paying out rebates until all legal avenues had been exhausted. However, following the Court of Appeal ruling, the Government introduced emergency legislation -  ‘The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Schemes for Assisting  Persons to Obtain Employment) Regulations 2013’ and the ‘Jobseeker’s (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013’  that was fast tracked through Parliament with the support of most of the opposition.

What both measures sought to do was to validate the 2011 Regulations retrospectively and undo the decision of the Court of Appeal. This did have the effect of retrospectively making unlawful benefit sanctions imposed under the 2011 Regulations lawful in order to deny people rebates.

When these measures were introduced in Parliament in the spring of 2013, some 44 Labour MPs voted against these measures. However, the Labour Party official line was to ‘abstain’ so the Government could get the legislation through.

One of the MPs, who abstained, was Jonathan Reynolds MP, who represents the constituency of Stalybridge and Hyde. In May 2013, he wrote to a constituent to explain why he’d abstained on the Government’s Jobseekers Bill. According to Reynolds, the DWP’s back to work schemes (2011 Regulations), were struck down – not because they were unlawful – but on a technicality, because the DWP had not provided sufficient information to jobseekers about the penalties involved in refusing to participate in their schemes. He added, “The legal judgement was not about the legality or ethics of so-called workfare schemes (which were introduced by the last Labour government). These will always be political, not legal, matters.” He stated that he thought it only reasonable that people should have their benefits stopped if they won’t try to find work. However, he points out that Labour had demanded two crucial concessions: first, that people can appeal against mistakes by the DWP; “We can’t have carte blanche retrospective legislation of sanctions.” Second, there should be an independent review of the sanctions regime.

What Reynolds fails to mention and must have known at the time, is that in supporting this nasty little bill, money illegally taken from jobseekers who had been illegally sanctioned, would not be paid back to them. Labour’s support allowed the Government to backdate changes to the law so they could steal money from the poor.

Even right-wing think tanks like Civitas,were appalled by this shocking move. They asked, is the Government above the law? Moreover, what is the point in taking the Government to court, when they can simply move the goal posts and ignore the ruling, by introducing retrospective legislation that validates it?

Though Labour and Jonathan Reynolds MP, supported the Tory Government, the High Court subsequently found that retrospective legislation designed to render lawful benefits sanctions that were issued under the 2011 Regulations, was ‘incompatible’ with the right to a fair trial. The court called the move ‘draconian’, stating it was not explained or justified and “incompatible with the European Convention on human Rights.” After the ruling, the Government announced that it would appeal to the Supreme Court.

A Blairite and Labour friend of Israel, Jonathan Reynolds was elected to Parliament at the 2010 General Election, following the resignation of his mentor and predecessor, James (work-or-lose-your-dole) Purnell, who turned the seat of Stalybridge & Hyde into a marginal. According to Labour NEC member, Tom Watson MP, Reynolds was not initially put on the NEC’s shortlist, having failed to impress. However, Watson told ‘The Times’, that Reynolds was put on the shortlist of candidates for the vacant seat, following intervention from James Purnell and Peter Mandelson, who wanted him elected.