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

*** Did HHJ Grenfell read Mellissa's Moore's, Non-legal Advocate submission in my case.

There is no references, at all; and HHJ Grenfell has not commented within his judgement and have taken East Riding of Yorkshire Council's side and not taken any of my evidence and that of my 'witness' and advocate, at all. What does that say? I will let you all make your mind up in reading my submission from Mellissa Moore's and HHJ judgement and order.

Is this really a 'fair-hearing for a disabled person?

Yours

Colin Revell

Case No: 5KH06566

IN THE KINGSTON-UPON-HULL COUNTY COURT


as from
Leeds Combined Court
The Courthouse
1 Oxford Row
Leeds LS1 3BG


Date: 03rd January 2007

Before :

His Honour Judge S P Grenfell
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE COUNCIL Claimant
- and -
COLIN REVELL Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ms January Scott (instructed by Susan Lockwood) for East Riding of Yorkshire Council
The defendant, Mr Colin Revell in person (accompanied by Ms Moore)

Hearing dates : 7th December 2006 plus written submissions
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

His Honour Judge Grenfell:
1. The East Riding of Yorkshire Council (“ERYC”) seeks an injunction restraining Colin Revell from entering County Hall, Beverley, the Customer Service Centres at Anlaby, Beverley, Bridlington, Cottingham, Driffield, Goole, Hedon, Hessle, Hornsea, Howden, Market Weighton, Pocklington and Withernsea, and that he contact ERYC only through his social worker.
2. It is not disputed for the purpose of this current application that Colin Revell has the disabilities associated with the autistic spectrum, in particular, autism, Asperger’s syndrome, and neurodiversity.
3. He has an ongoing dispute with ERYC as to the implementation of his Care Plan. In an earlier judgment I dealt with several County Court Claims that he had brought against ERYC and several of its employees. This claim for injunctive relief, however, is only loosely connected to those matters.
4. Once again it was arranged for me to travel to Hull to hear this application and a whole day was set aside for the hearing. Despite the fact that on the previous occasion a successful hearing had been held in a District Judge’s chambers and that the hearing was ready to proceed similarly, Colin Revell on this occasion required that he appear via the court internal videolink. This necessarily led to some delay. I suggested that, in view of the fact that Colin Revell’s attendances at ERYC’s premises appeared to have reduced in frequency, it might be possible for Colin Revell to give an acceptable undertaking. Negotiations sadly ended with no agreement. That was a pity, because it seemed to me that there was a missed opportunity for Colin Revell to take an element of responsibility and control. It was in these circumstances, that the hearing got under way later than anyone would have wished for.
5. The fact that subsequently Colin Revell was to complain that he had had nothing to eat all day is not understood. There was plainly both opportunity and time for refreshment. The complaint carried less force being made at the end of the day than it might have carried earlier. No one wanted the hearing to finish late, but with the added complication of the videolink it became inevitable that it would do so. In my view, the court could have done no more to accommodate Colin Revell. Once again I am obliged to Ms Moore for helping him through this hearing and, in particular, for exercising a measure of control over him in the vulnerable witness suite. The solution to the lateness of the finish of the hearing was found in adjourning for written submissions and judgment. Ms Moore assisted Colin Revell in the production of those submissions.
6. The difficulty with written submissions in a case of this nature is at once apparent. As Ms Scott has correctly pointed out in her Reply to submissions, a whole raft of irrelevancies has been raised, largely in connection with allegations on which no evidence was given in connection with the implementation of Colin Revell’s Care Plan.
7. The issues in fact are very simple. ERYC made it clear to Colin Revell some considerable time ago in writing that he was not entitled simply to turn up at County Hall or any one of ERYC’s Customer Service Centres without first making an appointment. However, he has continued to do so.
8. The difficulty is that Colin Revell expects every member of staff employed by ERYC to be trained in the Autistic Spectrum. It may be that staff on the desk do not have a specific understanding of the disabilities associated with the Autistic Spectrum. For this reason, as I understand it, the chief executive made the decision that it would be better for all if he came to council premises only by appointment. However, it is important to understand that the vast majority of people who wish to speak to a member of council staff do in fact have to make an appointment to do so. This has a relevance to the suggestion that Colin Revell was being discriminated against by reason of his disability.
9. Colin Revell relies on Section 21(1) Disability Discrimination Act 1995 . The test of discrimination for these purposes is whether a person is being dealt with less favourably than others on account of his disability. The fact that Colin Revell was required to make an appointment before he arrived at the premises is no more than a minor distinction and, in my judgment, did not amount to being treated less favourably. I should go further and find that the attention that had to be devoted to him in comparison with other customers was plainly greater. I am satisfied that there was no breach of Section 21(1) Disability Discrimination Act.
10. I am very much alive to the difficulties that Colin Revell has, but the issue is simply whether he is permitted to enter County Hall without an appointment. The two letters that he was sent and, I am satisfied, he received, made that clear. He has nevertheless continued to attend. As a result, on the 50 odd occasions when, I am satisfied, he has attended at various ERYC premises without an appointment, he has had no lawful authority to do so.
11. My understanding, however, is that his visits have become less frequent recently. Interestingly when last summer he was bailed by magistrates with a condition that he should not attend council premises, he kept to that condition until the bail expired. From that fact I derive the impression that basically Colin Revell is a law abiding person.
12. However, there have been recent visits made by him in September and October. I heard evidence from Mr David Randerson and Mr Martin Heath. On the 22nd September Colin Revell came to County Hall at a time when it had just closed for business and Mr Heath eventually had to call the police when he refused to leave and had become increasingly agitated.
13. On the 25th October Colin Revell attended at County Hall and Mr Randerson was called down to deal with him. This he said was a typical example of the numerous visits he had made since the letters were sent to him. He wanted to make a complaint, but Mr Randerson reminded him that all communications should be through his social services contact. He said that letter wasn’t lawful. He was getting agitated. When Mr Randerson asked him to leave he refused. He was harassing the staff in his view. It was virtually the same procedure every time: Colin Revell would throw questions and quote legal jargon.
14. The Police were called and removed him. About two hours later, however, there was a similar pattern. He entered the reception area of customer services. He was agitated, but sat himself away. Mr Randerson told him that he was not allowed on the premises. He was on his mobile telephone ringing somebody, which he passed to Mr Randerson. It was Melissa Moore. He tried to explain that Colin Revell had to have an appointment; she said that was ridiculous. By this stage there was quite a disturbance. At this point somebody shouted “I’ve heard them bullying you”; Colin Revell went to speak to one Ian Boynton, who was called as a witness on behalf of Colin Revell.
15. Mr Boynton said that, whilst he was there no one looked alarmed or distressed; that he personally did not feel alarmed; that Colin Revell was calm in his manner; that he was “rambling on about what was going on.” I have no reason to disbelieve Mr Boynton. At the same time, I am satisfied that the staff involved would probably have been too professional in their approach to give the outward impression of being alarmed or distressed. I am satisfied that, whatever Mr Boynton may have shouted, there was no suggestion of Mr Randerson bullying Colin Revell in any way.
16. Mr Randerson said that he had made point of not invading Colin Revell’s space from the time when he first told him about his condition. I formed the view that Mr Randerson had come to find the experience of having to deal with Colin Revell distressing himself and he was in no doubt that the staff at the reception desk certainly found it so. I accept his evidence that every time his ‘phone rang he was dreading going down to reception.
17. Mr Heath spoke of the final incident which had occurred on the 3rd November, when Colin Revell had shouted out his and Mr Randerson’s name in the street, which he personally had found distressing.
18. Ms Moore made the point that professionals such as Mr Randerson and Mr Heath ought not to find the actions of someone like Colin Revell distressing. However, I think she underestimated the effect that his persistent behaviour has had on staff. I am certain that Colin Revell himself has very little idea of the effect that his behaviour has on those who have to field his complaints and his campaign for the greater understanding of the Autistic Spectrum.
19. Having heard all the evidence I am satisfied that Colin Revell does not need to attend any of the customer services premises of ERYC without an appointment; that he has a means of contact through his social worker that gives him as good as, if not better than, access to ERYC that is available to other citizens of East Yorkshire. He may well have a strong point that more people should be aware of autistic disabilities and should show greater understanding, but I am satisfied that his continued and persistent presence at ERYC customer service premises has caused a considerable nuisance and threatens to continue to do so unless restrained.
20. ERYC has shown proper grounds for the making of an injunction in the terms sought.
21. I am satisfied, however, that at no stage has Colin Revell been violent or threatened violence, although he has plainly exhibited intimidating behaviour towards ERYC staff. I bear in mind the clear example of his intimidating behaviour was the issuing of claims against so many individual members of staff that I had to strike out in October last. I am satisfied that Colin Revell is likely to abide by the terms of this injunction and that in the circumstances a power of arrest is not necessary. It is a pity that he was not prepared to give an undertaking to the same effect, which would have saved a great deal of time and expense. Colin Revell needs to understand that considerable resources have been spent on the litigation in which he has been involved and which would much better have been spent in other ways.
22. The injunction, therefore, will issue. It should be for a period of 3 months. ERYC is to prepare the Order and to submit copies by e-mail to the court, to Colin Revell and to myself. If Colin Revell is prepared to accept that he has duly received a copy of the Order, then he need not be subjected to the difficulty of personal service. Should it be thought necessary for a hard copy to be given to him, then perhaps Ms Moore would undertake to ensure that he had a copy.

why is this loons post not hidden?

Get lost troll fxxka.
Colin this a very long report & indy is mainly a newswire so many people will not read all this info.
Anyway I understand your despair, from my experience in Nottingham Notts Advocacy Group are a great group for people with "disbilities",escpecially mental to use ran by proffessional understanding ex service users.
Advocacy Service
KATE POWELL AND SUE HARPER Direct Line 01482 867659
(24 Hr Ansaphone)or 864042
Fax: (01482) 861311
Hull & East Riding

Also try this directory
 http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/26739175/
 http://www.daa.org.uk/
in my experience also DANdisability action network are nationally up for protest if they can still be contacted, cant get their details to hand,
If non of these work try Notts Advocacy Group for advice 0115 9107303
goodluck

Who was that 'fascist' idiot calling 'a-loon'?

what's he doing in the indymedia? We really need 'Disablist' idiotic individuals like him within the indymedia and movement, don't we?? He the one who should be removed.

I could educate him about 'Disablism' if he wants with his bigoted attitudes and behaviour to be challenged and changed, like many others with Society and in public bodies and Courts!!!

Anyway, for those who know me I have been a pro-active DANNer for years within the local, national and interantional Disabled Peoples', Autistic/NeuroDiversity, Mental Health 'Survivors', Independent and Inclusive living movements. I am pro-active campaigner within the UN Disability Convention too.

All the advice about advocates I have tried and got no where. I think Kate Powell are from MENCAP, am I right? Been there worn that tee-shirt and Hull and E. Riding MIND too. They didn't want to know me for 'whistleblowing' as an Autsitic/NeuroDiverse disabled qualified professional.

Who need Charity and Pity ?? Not me..... 'Rights, Not Charity'! !

PISS ON PITY, TOO!!!

'WE' in the disabled peoples' movement need BASIC HUMAN and CIVIL RIGHTS, NOT CHARITY AND PITY !!!

This will protect 'US' from all forms of oppression and 'DISABLISM', and 'NEURO-TYPICALISM' attitudes and behaviour, as like the bigoted facist idiot who replied here within the indymedia!!

FREEOURPEOPLE

COLIN