Complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal by Lola Heavey

Form T2 final8pp

20/12/02

9:06 am

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal Complaint Form Form T2

Complete this form if your complaint is against any of the Intelligence Services or one or more of the Public Authorities listed at the end of this form and if it is not a human rights claim. (If you wish to make a human rights claim please complete Form T1.)

Page 1

Your Details

Heavey

Your surname

Your surname at birth (if different) Your surname at the date(s) when the events complained of occurred (if different)

Your forenames

Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge and belief. If there is insufficient space on this form please use an additional sheet of paper if you need to, making it clear to which questions the additional information relates. 1

Declan Jude

Mr 4 September 1960

Title (Mr, Mrs, Miss etc.) When you have completed the form please sign and date it together with any separate sheets which you wish to submit along with it.

Date of Birth

Your present address including your postcode

83 Priory Gardens, Highgate London N6 5QU

AT WHICH PLACE OR PLACES DID THE CONDUCT OF WHICH YOU COMPLAIN HAPPEN? (Please give the full addresses of any properties, telephone numbers and details of any vehicles to which the complaint relates.)

WHAT IS YOUR COMPLAINT? (Please give details of the conduct you are complaining about and say why you think your complaint falls within the category or categories which you have ticked.)

Please see attached sheets, paras 7-11.

TO WHICH ORGANISATION(S) DOES THE COMPLAINT RELATE AND WHY? (Please refer to the list at the end of this form.) This includes persons acting on behalf of an organisation.

Please see attached sheets, paras 1-2.

Any other names by which you were commonly known when the events complained of occurred

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE CONDUCT COMPLAINED OF? (The Tribunal can only consider your complaint if it comes under one or more of the following headings. Please tick the box or boxes which apply to your complaint.)

Conduct which you believe to have been carried out in relation to you by or on behalf of any of the Intelligence Services. That conduct may relate to you, your property or your communications. You can complain of that conduct whether or not it involves the use of an investigatory power under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Your communications by post or your telecommunications have been intercepted e.g. telephone tapping or interference with your mail.

Please see attached sheets, paras 3-5.

If this form is being submitted by your solicitor or advisor please complete this section. Surname of solicitor or advisor Initials

Title

Name of firm (if applicable) 3 Address including postcode

WHEN DID THE CONDUCT HAPPEN AT EACH PLACE?

Please see attached sheets, para 6.

There has been entry onto or interference with your property or with your wireless telegraphy.

Surveillance by a public authority has taken place which has resulted, or is likely to result, in private information about you being obtained.

Form T2 final8pp

20/12/02

9:06 am

Surveillance concerning you has been carried out, or is being carried out, by a public authority in relation to anything taking place on any residential premises or in any private vehicle. Covert human intelligence has been used in relation to you, e.g. a public authority has used, or is using, a personal or other relationship for the purpose of getting information about you.

IS THERE EVIDENCE OTHER THAN YOUR OWN IN SUPPORT OF YOUR COMPLAINT? If so, who could provide that evidence? What is that evidence likely to be?

Please see attached sheets, para 12.

IF THE EVENTS WHICH YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT HAPPENED MORE THAN ONE YEAR AGO IS THERE AN EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY IN SUBMITTING YOUR COMPLAINT? (See note 2 below)

Please see attached sheets, para 13.

Page 5

Confidentiality Your claim will be handled in confidence. To carry out its functions, the Tribunal has power to call on any official documents or information it may need. The Tribunal cannot disclose details of your claim in questions 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 of this form without your permission. If it does not have your permission it may not be possible for the Tribunal to investigate your complaint properly. Please tick here if you are prepared to give that permission

2. Normally the Tribunal will only consider complaints made within one year of the event(s) to which it relates. The Tribunal can consider older complaints if it is equitable to do so. If your complaint relates to events more than a year ago you should give an explanation for the delay in submitting your complaint if you can. 3. If you wish to consult the legislation relating to your complaint you can do so via the website of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office www.hmso.gov.uk

X Some of the legislation which you may wish to consult is as follows:

Declaration

● ●

I have answered all the questions on the application form to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signature

Date

10 August 2011

●

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules (Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2665)

LIST OF ORGANISATIONS ABOUT WHOSE CONDUCT A COMPLAINT MAY BE MADE 1. The Intelligence Services The Security Service (MI5) The Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)

Notes Do you wish correspondence from the Tribunal to be sent to you or to your solicitor or advisor instead of to you? Please tick one box only Please send correspondence to me Please send correspondence to my solicitor/advisor instead of me

1. If your complaint is not under one of the categories above and is not a human rights claim (for which you must complete a Human Rights Complaint Form) it cannot be considered by the Tribunal and you should make your complaint direct to the Public Authority in question.

2. Public Authorities Any police force; The National Criminal Intelligence Service; The National Crime Squad; The Scottish Crime Squad; The Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency; The Royal Ulster Constabulary; The Serious Fraud Office; Any of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces; The Commissioners of Customs and Excise; The Commissioners of Inland Revenue; The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; The Ministry of Defence; The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; The Department of Health; The Home Office; The

Department of Social Security; The Department of Trade and Industry; The Scottish Administration; The National Assembly for Wales; Any local authority (within the meaning of section 1 of the Local Government Act 1999 or constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994); The Environment Agency; The Scottish Environment Protection Agency; The Financial Services Authority; The Food Standards Agency; The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce; The Personal Investment Authority; The Post Office; The Health and Safety Executive; A Health Authority established under section 8 of the National Health Service Act 1977; A Special Health Authority established under section 11 of the National Health Service Act 1977; A National Heath Service trust established under section 5 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990; The Common Services Agency for the Health Service; A Health Board; A Special Health Board; A National Health Service Trust established under section 12A of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978; The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain; The BBC (TV license detection activities only); The Prison Service; and such other authorities as are granted powers by an order under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act or the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act. Other public authorities may be added by order making powers under the Acts. Please contact the Secretary to the Tribunal for the latest list. Alternatively you may wish to consult: The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Prescription of Offices, Ranks and Positions) Order 2000 (Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2417) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Prescription of Offices, Ranks and Positions) ( Scotland) Order 2000 (Scottish Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 343) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Prescription of Offices, Ranks and Positions) ( Scotland) Amendment Order 2001 (Scottish Statutory Instrument 2001 No. 87) All are available at www.hmso.gov.uk

Q1: TO WHICH ORGANISATION(S) DOES THE COMPLAINT RELATE AND WHY? This includes persons acting on behalf of an organisation. 1.

The Complainant makes (a) a complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA, s65(4)) and (b) a complaint under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA, s7(1)(a) and within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under s65(2)(a) RIPA) in respect of ongoing interception by the Security Service (MI5) and/or Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) over a period dating back to September 2003. The Complainant also alleges harassment, directed surveillance, the disabling of internet access at home and in public libraries, interference with a website, blog and emails and interception of privileged communications by one or both agencies. The Rt Hon Baroness Neville-Jones, Minister of State for Security and Counter-Terrorism, in response to a letter from the Complainant's MP, has recommended the Tribunal to investigate.

The Complainant believes that the activities complained of herein are directly linked to a 1997 High Court case that he was involved in in Ireland involving the RC Hospitaller Order of St John of God and his subsequent move to England to establish a network of those abused by church, now a non-profit organisation called Network for Church Monitoring (N4CM). The four-day High Court case was the first wardship inquiry to be heard in public before a jury, which the Complainant successfully defended in person (see attached Irish Times opinion article dated 6 March 1997). He alleged that the proceedings were an attempt to cover up wrongdoing by the Hospitaller Order of St John of God in the mid-1980s (see attached copy of letter from Elliott Duffy Garrett Solicitors, dated 5 December 1997, addressed to Fr Fintan Brennan-Whitmore OH, former Provincial of the Congregation in Ireland, and Fr Whitmore's reply). The complainant submits that one or both agencies are conducting unlawful activities calculated to intimidate him and his wife and undermine their organisation.

Q2: AT WHICH PLACE OR PLACES DID THE CONDUCT OF WHICH YOU COMPLAIN HAPPEN? (Please give the full addresses of any properties, telephone numbers and details of any vehicles to which the complaint relates.)

Upon arriving in the UK in 2003, the Complainant and his wife lived in Birmingham at two addresses: from September 2003 to July 2005 at 214 Hawkesyard Court, Hawkesyard Road, Erdington, Birmingham, B24 8LH (see attached photographs of extensive property damage by flooding from the flat above), and from July 2005 to November 2006 at 4 Hunton Road, Erdington, Birmingham B23 6AH. At the former property they lived off their own savings while attempting to establish a network of those abused by church.

For more than 2 1/2 years, from November 2006 to July 2009, the Complainant and his wife were forced to sleep rough on the streets of London after the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) terminated the Complainant’s joint claim for Jobseeker’s Allowance because he did not ‘sign on’ TWO DAYS BEFORE he was due to do so on 29 September 2006. During this period they slept in two porches: from November 2006 to September 2008 at 3 America Square, London EC3N 2LR (until a trellis gate was installed on the Complainant's birthday), and from September 2008 to July 2009 at Salters’ Hall, 4 Fore Street, London EC2Y 5DE.

Since July 2009, the Complainant has been living with his wife at 83 Priory Gardens, Highgate, London N6 5QU. The telephone number the Tribunal requires for this property is 020 8340 6779; the Complainant's live-in landlady's name is Belinda McKenzie. It is noteworthy that MI5 whistleblower David Shayler lived in this same house for a couple of years, until around 2007. According to the BBC, Shayler “caused the biggest crisis of official secrecy since the spy catcher affair”. Around 2007, Shayler changed his name to Delores Kane, declared himself to be Jesus, and became a squatter (see attached photograph of Shayler as Delores Kane, and of him being evicted by police from Hackhurst Farm in August 2009.)

Q3: WHEN DID THE CONDUCT HAPPEN AT EACH PLACE? 6.

The Complainant wishes to draw attention to the spread and increase in surveillance and interception of his communications over many years, and provides a wide range of examples in the response to question 4 below.

Q4: WHAT IS YOUR COMPLAINT? (Please give details of the conduct you are complaining about and say why you think your complaint falls within the category or categories which you have ticked.) 7.

First, the Complainant makes a complaint under s65(2)(b) and 65(4) RIPA that his communications are being intercepted in “challengeable circumstances”, within the meaning of s65(7) RIPA (ie under an interception warrant or in circumstances in which there ought to have been an interception warrant or where consideration ought to have been given to obtaining an interception warrant). Second, the Complainant makes a complaint under s6(1) and 7(1) HRA and s65(2)(a) RIPA that there is an unlawful interference with his rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Complainant also alleges harassment, directed surveillance, the disabling of internet access at home and in public libraries, interference with a website, blog and emails and interception of privileged communications by one or both agencies. For the sake of brevity, only the most salient facts are presented in the following three paragraphs.

The Complainant submits that as a result of the manipulation of his email in undermining his efforts to secure additional signatures for his petition to the United Nations regarding therapeutic cloning, he has been forced to shelve the petition; this despite that the petition has been signed by no less than 28 Nobel laureates as well as hundreds of other scholars. The Complainant has also had to shelve a statement to President Barack Obama and members of the US Congress regarding forest conservation which has been signed by a recipient of the Blue Plant Prize, widely considered the environmental equivalent of a Nobel award. The Complainant and his wife’s campaigning activities have been further undermined by the disabling of their home internet access on several occasions, most recently since 4 July 2011; the narrowing of their broadband from time to time, even in public libraries; and by the targeting of the N4CM website. Since 2004, the website has been removed from the internet on four distinct occasions and has been vandalised twice, most recently on 8 February 2011 as the Complainant was about to publish the first of nine exclusive book excerpts from Nobel laureates. The Network for Church Monitoring Blog has also been vandalised, and the Complainant's Skype account hacked. 2

The Complainant alleges that the following incidents bare all the hallmarks of unlawful directed surveillance: (a) on 17 August 2004, immediately prior to the launch of their website, the Complainant and his wife suffered a severe flood to their home from the flat above, causing extensive property damage; (b) on 22 September 2007, at a time when the Complainant was answering questions in the JREF Forum regarding a letter he had posted to non-religious forums requesting small donations to help them survive on the street, his wife was assaulted as she slept beside him in the porch in America Square (crime reference no. CR/007884/07); (c) on 8 March 2008, three days after an e-letter from the Home Office stating that it was unlikely the Complainant's emails were being intercepted, their website was removed from the internet without a court order or due process; (d) on 4 September 2008, the Complainant’s birthday, a trellis gate was installed in the porch in America Square, in which they had been sleeping for almost two years; (e) on 18 June 2008, while still living on the streets and the same morning the Complainant was due to post his second Request for Priority to the European Court of Human Rights, his principal bag containing all of their money and documents, including passports, was robbed in a day centre run by the RC Sisters of Mercy (crime reference no. 4215697/08).

10. The Complainant believes there is an intention to keep him and his wife impoverished in order to reduce their potential. Notwithstanding an Order of the High Court dated 11 April 2006 that caused the Complainant’s joint claim for Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) to be reinstated immediately and accumulated arrears paid to the Complainant, both he and his wife were forced to sleep rough on the streets of London for more than 2 1/2 years because the Complainant did not ‘sign on’ two days before he was due to do so on 29 September 2006 (see paragraph 4 above). Moreover, it took the DWP three months to reinstate the Complainant's joint claim JSA after they found a roof over their heads. In his attempts to seek a cessation of the interference and disruption to his and his wife’s benefits, the Complainant has sought permission to lodge a Judicial Review against their Jobcentre Plus office, Highgate Jobcentre Plus (of the DWP) – a related case against the Jobcentre in the Central London County Court under the Data Protection Act has resulted in a judgment in the Complainant's favour (amount to be decided by the court). Nonetheless, his housing benefit payments were recently suspended (reinstated on 13 May 2011) because Haringey Council received a notification from the DWP that the Complainant's Income Support entitlement was due to end on 8 June 2011; this matter is currently before the Independent Case Examiner. The Complainant has also had to lodge a case with the Tribunals Service against Haringey Council due to a decision by the Council on 2 March 2011 to take his monthly rent, multiply it by 12 and divide the sum by 52 weeks, leaving him with a shortfall in rent to pay. 11. The Complainant alleges that the fact that he recently learnt by email from a Nobel laureate that important emails of his are still being delivered to spam boxes and that his phone calls continue to be cut off mid-sentence demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that his communications are being intercepted. The Complainant submits that the proper inference from the circumstances described by the Complainant, amplified by the refusal of the authorities to deny the activities alleged, is that it is established on the balance of probabilities that the interception and processing took place. At a minimum there is reasonable likelihood that interception and processing has taken place and continues to take place (Hewitt and Harman v. UK, 12175/86, EComHR Report 9.5.89, paras. 26-32). 3

Q6: IS THERE EVIDENCE OTHER THAN YOUR OWN IN SUPPORT OF YOUR COMPLAINT? If so, who could provide that evidence? What is that evidence likely to be? 12. N4CM Chairman Dr Stephen D Mumford, founder and President of the Center for Research on Population and Security, North Carolina, USA, can confirm that several of the Complainant's phone calls from public phones have cut off in midsentence over a period dating back to 2005. Dr Mumford has been funding the N4CM website since December 2010, after the website was removed from the internet without explanation by a web hosting provider that the Complainant had paid for hosting until 2015. The Complainant's wife can also provide evidence in support of his complaint, including, but not limited to, emails, memoranda, diary (blog), and a Skype chat transcript exposing homophobic abuse by an anonymous perpetrator. (The evidence that the Complainant can provide is more wideranging.)

Q7: IF THE EVENTS WHICH YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT HAPPENED MORE THAN ONE YEAR AGO IS THERE AN EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY IN SUBMITTING YOUR COMPLAINT? 13. The Complainant submits that there has been a continuous course of conduct by one or both agencies; that he has not been inactive, as he has complained of the substance of the conduct through a variety of forums prior to submitting this complaint for investigation; that the conduct pre-dating 10 August 2010 did not differ fundamentally from that falling within the one-year period; and that the agencies would not be prejudiced by the investigation into the conduct at the earlier period.

I believe that the facts stated in this complaint are true. Full name: Declan Jude Heavey

Signed: __________________________________________ Complainant Date: 10 August 2011