Pamela Fitzpatrick: 'Solidarity really is the most beautiful of words' - fighting for justice in today's Labour Party

 Post by Martin Francis in a personal capacity

 

 I left the Labour Party a very long time ago (c1965) but have kept up an interest in developments in the party from Wilson to Starmer.  Recently I have been dismayed by the way Labour Party friends have been treated under the Starmer regime. A lack of natural justice and a developing authoritarianism is evident in the disciplinary processes that I have observed from the outside.

It makes me anxious about the approach Labour would take as a government.

Pamela Fitzpatrick is a local example of such an unfair disciplinary process. This is her account below:

 

It is now 14 months since I lodged my appeal against my expulsion from the Labour Party. I was a long standing member of the Party and at the time of my expulsion I was Chair of the Harrow Labour Group, the Labour appointed Chair of the Planning Committee, a Labour councillor for almost 8 years, and a recent Labour Parliamentary Candidate. Throughout my time in the Party I also held a variety of CLP and Branch positions. 

 

Against this long history and work for the Party the sole reason I was expelled was that I had given an interview to the organisation Socialist Appeal in May 2020 and in doing so the Party judged me to be in breach of a rule it had created over a year later. I have contacted Labour several times over the past 14 months to ask for an update on my appeal, but I have had no response or acknowledgement. Reluctantly therefore I have instructed Solicitors who have now issued a letter before claim to the Labour Party. 

 

Labour has 28 days in which to respond and remedy this illegality. But if they fail to do so satisfactorily, we will have no choice but to commence proceedings in the High Court. This is not my desired outcome.

 

The letter before claim sets out the impact the unlawful treatment by Labour has had on me. It has resulted in my exclusion from any political positions associated with the Party and has had a profoundly damaging impact on my political career. Upon expulsion from the Party, I lost my position as a Labour Councillor, as Chair of the Harrow Planning Committee and as Chair of the Harrow Labour Group. I also lost my position on Labour’s National Women’s Committee. A position I had been elected to in June 2021 by Labour members, with a majority of over 100,000. This is a committee that is very close to my heart as I have experienced abuse within the Party and am aware of many other women who have also experienced similar abuse. The position was voluntary and lasted 2 years. 

 

I have not been able to exercise the role since my expulsion. I am unable to put myself forward for selection as a Parliamentary Candidate (having stood for Harrow East in the 2019 General Election).

 

I was an active member of my CLP but have been unable to participate in any Labour Party events or activities. This includes going to the Party Conference, any events that are organised, branch meetings, taking part in canvassing, fundraising events. These activities have taken up the majority of my time for many years, but I am no longer able to attend them. 

 

I have been shunned by people I previously considered to be colleagues, including other councillors who ignore me now if I meet them. This has all had a damaging impact on my professional and political reputation. It is uncontroversial that such treatment would have a negative impact on a person’s personal life and wellbeing, as it has had on me. But I know I am but one of so many treated this way. 

 

My heartfelt thanks to all those who have supported me. Solidarity really is the most beautiful of words.

 

Pamela's friends and supporters have launched a fundraiser to help her in her  Challenge to Labour's lack of fair procedures and natural justice. They say. 'At this first stage we are simply seeking an appeal hearing in Pamela’s case that is conducted in a fair, impartial and transparent way. We will also be looking at all legal avenues to achieve our goal. 

As of today the fundraiser stands at £11,438  against a target of £15,000 with eleven days to go.

Follow this LINK to the fundraiser which contains more details of the case.

A legal action that shames Brent Council

Another case has emerged where Brent Council has pursued legal action against a vulnerable member of the local community apparently without any consideration of ethical issues. In this case they pursued a recently bereaved deaf gay man for possession of his home.

The story was told by Debra Wilson for Anthony Gold Solicitors on the Lexology legal newsfeed website LINK :

His Honour Judge Lochrane in giving judgment on a possession claim brought by Brent Council was critical of the Council’s approach, in refusing to allow a cohabitee a right to succeed to his deceased Gay partner’s tenancy.

The couple had lived together in a committed relationship for several years. Brent Council relied on a Court of Appeal authority to the effect that in order to succeed to a tenancy, applicants must prove that their relationship is “openly and unequivocally displayed to the outside world”. The couple concerned were both profoundly deaf and were in a homosexual relationship akin to that of living together as civil partners, of which was known to several members of the deaf lesbian and gay community.

The Judge was concerned that the proceedings did not descend into any “unedifying” process of an examination into the private life of the defendant. The council’s lawyers sought to find a way of arguing that the defendant had not informed the local authority that he was in a Gay relationship with his deceased partner. There was a veil of silence to this case as the couple lived a life where their deafness and lack of speech clearly made communications difficult with anyone who was not “within their world”. But, Brent Council disagreed, as it was their view that any couple living together must be “open” with the local authority and not just within their own community.

The Judge made a finding that he considered that Brent Council had not assessed the case with the necessary “delicacy and sensitivity” that it required. The Judge considered that it was incumbent on Brent Council to make proper enquiries before coming to a conclusion because of the potential devastating effect that the Defendant would have been homeless. The case serves to underline that there are various reasons why some couples would wish to hide their relationship, whether because of cultural divides, age differences, disapproval from family and so forth.

Brent Council asked for permission to appeal which was refused. The Council were ordered to pay the costs of the action. The Defendant’s counsel’s parting shot was to warn Brent council that any efforts to overturn the Judge’s refusal of permission to appeal would cause undoubted outrage amongst, not only the Gay, Lesbian and Deaf community but Brent council taxpayers for bringing a case that really should not have been pursued.

'Racist van' will not return without consultation following legal action threat

Solicitors Deighton Pierece Glynn issued the following statement this morning:

The Home Office have agreed never to run adverts telling migrants to go home again without consulting.

Following our letter to the Home Office, threatening legal action of the decision to pilot a campaign driving large vans around London which displayed messages telling migrants to ‘go home’, the Government has confirmed that if any further campaigns of a similar nature are planned, they would carry out a consultation with local authorities and community groups. The Government accepted that the purpose of consulting would be so that it could have ‘due regard’ to the effect a campaign of this nature would have on the communities living in the affected areas.

Our clients’ legal challenge was based on the Government’s failure to comply with the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. This duty requires the Government to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and harassment based on race and religion, as well as to foster good relations between people from different racial and religious groups. Due to the inflammatory nature of the campaign, as voiced by several prominent public figures including Vince Cable MP and the leaders of Brent and Redbridge Councils, the due regard duty was high, and a consultation should have been carried out before the pilot began so that the Government could have properly considered the effect of the campaign before deciding whether to go ahead.

The one week pilot has ended. However, the Government has provided an assurance that if the Home Office were to carry out any further campaigns of this nature it would have due regard to the effect this would have on migrants living in those communities and in so doing would carry out a consultation. Any such consultation would of course have to be meaningful.

One of our clients, Raymond Murray, commented:

 I’m very pleased the Home Office has seen sense and will do things differently in future, and hopefully they’ll never try a stunt like this again.

Refugee and Migrant Forum of East London (RAMFEL) and Migrant Rights Network (MRN) will be running a series of workshops across London to support those interested in campaigning against the Government’s anti-immigration policies. Solicitors from Deighton Pierce Glynn and Bhatt Murphy will be on the discussion panels. See here for further information.

The Claimants are represented by Louise Whitfield and Sasha Rozansky.

Register for the workshops HERE