JOINT THE TRUTH IS LOUDER MOVEMENT
This website is for ‘self-represented litigants’, would-be whistleblowers and the people who support them.
We strive to encourage the actions of 'paying-it-forward', to rouse a society where people help, just for the sake of helping: whether this is through advocacy, by sharing resources, experiences, tips, guidance, or simply just accompany unrepresented Claimants to a Tribunal or Court hearing.
Find out how you can do your bit to help the 'Pay it Foward movement'
Spread the word about this website.
Check out the 'Whistleblower Watch' section
WHO WERE THE DEFENDANTS’ IN THIS CASE?
Lewisham Council and their public officers/managers:
Ralph Wilkinson (Lewisham Council's current Head of Public Services)
Christine Grice (Lewisham Council's former Head of Access and Support)
Elaine Smith (Lewisham Council's current Positive Activities Team Manager- who had also been the joint interim head of the Youth Support Services at the time)
Valerie Gonsalves (Lewisham Council's current Key work Team Manager)
Kate Parsley (Lewisham Council's former Head of the Teenage Pregnancy Team- who had also been the joint interim head of the Youth Support Services at the time)
Elaine Hattam (Lewisham Council's HR officer)
The Defendants' were represented by their in-house legal team, specifically their Solicitor- Francis Millivojevic and their Head of Law- Kath Nicholson, (who signed statements of truth in the defence of my claim). The Defendants' Barristers were Stuart Brittenden from Old Square Chambers and William Bennett from 5rb.
Lewisham Council spent in excess of £700,000 of tax payers money defending legal action brought in the Tribunal and High Court, by me (AA Vaughan- an unrepresented Claimant with no legal training). I am a former employee.
Lewisham Council admitted that it defamed me. Babcock and Lewisham Council had previously tried to 'gag' me with a £95,000 settlement offer, which I refused.
Read the Tribunal Claims that I brought against Lewisham Council and its managers.
I subsequently withdrew my Tribunal claims in order to focus on my defamation case and vindicate my reputation, (as the Tribunal cannot hear defamation claims).
Lewisham Council claimed that it spent £350,000 defending my withdrawn tribunal claims, which involved the same set of events as my defamation claim.
My long fight for truth and justice
As you will be aware, the Government has promised changes and investigation into whether Public Interest Disclosure Act is protecting those who speak out. I can confirm that the Act is failing to protect Whistleblowers. Truth is Louder therefore, could not be timelier.
I went through the proper channels and made protected disclosures, reporting dealings of misconduct in public office and corruption by Lewisham Council managers in the Children and Young People's Service to the Chief Executive Barry Quirk, the Executive Director Frankie Sulke and Unison.
HOW DID LEWISHAM COUNCIL AND THEIR MANAGER'S RESPOND TO THIS?
I told the High Court that Lewisham Council and its managers willfully and maliciously fabricated/falsified evidence against me, publicly defamed and targeted me, (a vulnerable disabled employee at the time) in order to subject me to humiliating and degrading treatment.
Lewisham Council even implied that I was 'faking' my depression, despite the fact that they were aware that I had been receiving treatment for this condition.
I therefore applied to the High Court for an interim injunction in libel and slander to restrain them under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and to prevent further harassment.
The High Court refused to grant the application and granted the Defendants' application to allow the Tribunal case to go first.
The Defendants' would have then been free to repeat their defamatory allegations about me in that forum.
They told me to stop contacting them about the issue, (despite their union reps being aware of what had gone on, and who can clearly be heard in my covert recordings 'slating' Lewisham Council and its manager and stating I had 'done nothing wrong'.
I had to appear at the High Court 5 times. During these public hearings, the defamatory statements/lies were repeated.
Despite presenting conclusive evidence to the Court which disproved their allegations against me, there has been no retraction or apology and the Court (Sir David Eady), saw fit to throw my case out.
I was denied an opportunity to vindicate myself through the legal system!
Sir David Eady awarded Lewisham Council costs- this was despite the fact that I had already been made bankrupt by the FTSE 100 Company Babcock, (after losing my first Tribunal case against it and Lewisham Council). The costs I was liable for in that case were around £70,000.
On top of this, the High Court had also previously ordered me to pay an additional £22,000 in costs for 2 preliminary hearings that had gone against me in relation to my defamation case.
I am in huge debt now and I will probably never be able to work again.
I fear that I have been blacklisted for whistleblowing- I even captured a Unison rep on one of my covert recordings warning me of this.
Lewisham Council was awarded costs for the defamation case on an 'indemnity' basis: This essentially means that Sir David Eady has given Lewisham Council the benefit of the doubt that the costs had been 'reasonably' incurred.
However, the Defendants' admitted to the High Court that they defamed me.
**It is important to note that they had told the Tribunal that they had not defamed me**
Lewisham Council refused to give me a copy of its schedule of costs for the defamation case from me, so I am unaware of the amount of taxpayers money that it spent defending the lies that were told about me.
I asked Lewisham Council for this information on 21 December 2013.
Check out the website where a freedom of information request for this information has also been made by another person, (in the search bar, just type in 'London Borough of Lewisham legal fees'): www.whatdotheyknow.com
An answer is yet to be provided by Lewisham Council. It is clear that they cannot claim that the information requested is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
See how the public interest test has to be applied:
‘A public authority can only withhold the information if the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure’- Information Commissioner’s Office (2012) The public interest test, p2.
No doubt Lewisham Council is reluctant to reveal how much Tax payers money was actually spent on this case!
The ICO guidance goes on to explore what the public interest might mean:
‘…there is a public interest in transparency and accountability…’
‘There is a public interest in good decision-making by public bodies, in upholding standards of integrity, in ensuring justice and fair treatment for all, in securing the best use of public resources and in ensuring fair commercial competition in a mixed economy.’ Lewisham Council doesn’t appear to think so
- Lewisham Council and their managers subjected me to numerous detriments.
- A plan was then hatched to get rid of me.
- I was suspended for 7 months on full pay, (whilst Lewisham Council fabricated evidence against me in my absence), before eventually sacking me, (within months of me refusing a payoff of £95,000 to go away and keep quiet) .
- Then Lewisham Council 'topped it all off' with a nice big helping of...
and
I told the High Court that Lewisham Council and its managers willfully and maliciously fabricated/falsified evidence against me, publicly defamed and targeted me, (a vulnerable disabled employee at the time) in order to subject me to humiliating and degrading treatment.
Lewisham Council even implied that I was 'faking' my depression, despite the fact that they were aware that I had been receiving treatment for this condition.
I therefore applied to the High Court for an interim injunction in libel and slander to restrain them under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and to prevent further harassment.
The High Court refused to grant the application and granted the Defendants' application to allow the Tribunal case to go first.
The Defendants' would have then been free to repeat their defamatory allegations about me in that forum.
This was also huge blow for me because:
- The speedy vindication of my reputation was paramount, but the High Court had effectively ruled that I would have to wait to have my day in court, (and the Tribunal hearing was not due to take place for at least another 7 months);
- Once the Tribunal hearing begun, I would have simply been told by the judge that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear my defamation claims;
- The Tribunal had also ruled that I could not submit all my crucial covert recordings, (which disproved the allegations that were being made against me);
- All of the Defendants' whom I had accused, were not even going to give evidence at the Tribunal hearing;
- The Tribunal did not have the power to make an order preventing Lewisham from breaching my human rights and/or the power to award damages for a breach of the Convention rights under the Act.
WHAT DID MY UNION DO?
They told me to stop contacting them about the issue, (despite their union reps being aware of what had gone on, and who can clearly be heard in my covert recordings 'slating' Lewisham Council and its manager and stating I had 'done nothing wrong'.
DID I HAVE A DISCIPLINARY RECORD? NO!
- I had never received any formal warnings before I was suspended, no formal complaints had been made about me and no one had ever taken out a grievance against me.
- I was not fired for misconduct. Lewisham Council trumped up some other charge against me: 'some other substantial reason', (whatever that means)!
HOW DID I RESPOND TO THIS?
Whilst still employed I raised grievances which were dismissed by Lewisham Council. I also 'blew the whistle' to reported Michael Gove, Nick Clegg, Secretary of State for Justice Chris Grayling and many others, but no one was interested. I then decided to take legal action, issuing tribunal claims for discrimination, whistleblowing detriment and unfair dismissal and a High Court claim for defamation and breaches of my Human Rights. My Tribunal claims against Lewisham Council were never heard because I withdrew them in order to focus on my defamation case against them. (You may have heard about my earlier tribunal case which I was offered £95,000 to settle, but refused. This case was against my former employer- the FTSE 100 Company Babcock. This case against Babcock was a separate case, involving different issues. It had nothing to do with Lewisham Council. Lewisham Council merely inherited the case because my employment transferred to Lewisham whilst the case was still on-going). I was left with no other option but to litigate against Lewisham Council. I just wanted to clear my name and be able to work!LEWISHAM COUNCIL DEFAMATION
The defamatory statements in question are not trivial. They are false and malicious and extremely serious. I advised the High Court that they constituted libel, (approximately 34 statements) and slander, (approximately 50 statements). I covertly recorded Lewisham Council managers during my employment with Lewisham Council. Lewisham Council didn't know that I had covertly recorded until after I was sacked. I accumulated around 40 hours of recording and I also built up a large quantity of documentary evidence. These pieces of evidence disprove all the allegations made against me. Lewisham Council and its managers all maintained their false allegations against me for nearly 2 years.DENIED MY RIGHT TO VINDICATE MYSELF
I had to appear at the High Court 5 times. During these public hearings, the defamatory statements/lies were repeated.
Despite presenting conclusive evidence to the Court which disproved their allegations against me, there has been no retraction or apology and the Court (Sir David Eady), saw fit to throw my case out.
I was denied an opportunity to vindicate myself through the legal system!
Sir David Eady awarded Lewisham Council costs- this was despite the fact that I had already been made bankrupt by the FTSE 100 Company Babcock, (after losing my first Tribunal case against it and Lewisham Council). The costs I was liable for in that case were around £70,000.
On top of this, the High Court had also previously ordered me to pay an additional £22,000 in costs for 2 preliminary hearings that had gone against me in relation to my defamation case.
I am in huge debt now and I will probably never be able to work again.
I fear that I have been blacklisted for whistleblowing- I even captured a Unison rep on one of my covert recordings warning me of this.
Lewisham Council was awarded costs for the defamation case on an 'indemnity' basis: This essentially means that Sir David Eady has given Lewisham Council the benefit of the doubt that the costs had been 'reasonably' incurred.
However, the Defendants' admitted to the High Court that they defamed me.
**It is important to note that they had told the Tribunal that they had not defamed me**
Lewisham Council refused to give me a copy of its schedule of costs for the defamation case from me, so I am unaware of the amount of taxpayers money that it spent defending the lies that were told about me.
I asked Lewisham Council for this information on 21 December 2013.
Check out the website where a freedom of information request for this information has also been made by another person, (in the search bar, just type in 'London Borough of Lewisham legal fees'): www.whatdotheyknow.com
An answer is yet to be provided by Lewisham Council. It is clear that they cannot claim that the information requested is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
See how the public interest test has to be applied:
‘A public authority can only withhold the information if the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure’- Information Commissioner’s Office (2012) The public interest test, p2.
No doubt Lewisham Council is reluctant to reveal how much Tax payers money was actually spent on this case!
The ICO guidance goes on to explore what the public interest might mean:
‘…there is a public interest in transparency and accountability…’
‘There is a public interest in good decision-making by public bodies, in upholding standards of integrity, in ensuring justice and fair treatment for all, in securing the best use of public resources and in ensuring fair commercial competition in a mixed economy.’ Lewisham Council doesn’t appear to think so
- Spending cuts and wasting tax payers money
WHY SHOULD YOU BE ENRAGED BY ALL OF THIS?
You would be right to be enraged when tens of thousands of pounds of public money is being wasted by a local authority without justification and which undermines the culture of accountability that is required by the publicly funded body. At the final High Court hearing in November 2013; Lewisham Council produced a hearing bundle. The bundle included information regarding 85 million pounds in cuts that it stated that it needed to make to its budget over the next 4 years. Lewisham Council stated that the cuts were getting harder to make. Around the same time (in November 2013), Lewisham Council also made numerous staff redundant. These staff included many of my former colleagues. The money that Lewisham Council wasted on defending my genuine defamation case could have paid for a number of people’s salaries and/or gone towards the cost of maintaining a number of its services for several years.You can read Lewisham Council’s Chief Executive’s notice to staff about these cuts to the budget here.
Lewisham Council defended a my defamation claim for a year, (from December 2012- December 2013), only deciding to make its strike out application in October 2013. It then applied for costs when my defamation case was not allowed to proceed to a full hearing. It subsequently decided to pursue any costs against me, (what a big surprise...or not)! Read the e-mail I received from its legal department advising me of this, but stating that it would reserve its right to do so. It asserted that its reason for not pursuing costs against me was because I was already bankrupt, that I had no assets or savings and it wanted to therefore avoid wasting money. It is important to note that Lewisham Council was aware that I had no assets or savings when it pursued costs against me when I lost my tribunal case: Lewisham Council and the other defendants spent £20,000, on hiring someone just to prepare the bill for its claim for costs of £260,000 in that case- knowing full well that it could never recoup the money. It was also aware of my situation when it made an application to apply for the costs against me when the High Court made the decision to prevent me from proceeding to a full hearing for my defamation case.