The Virginia creeper adorning the ancient walls of Soughton Hall had turned an even more stunning shade of scarlet by the last day of Cllr Heesom’s marathon tribunal. Of course, this is just the hearing of evidence from witnesses and from Cllr Heesom. When he was released from the oath, the Panel withdrew to consider if they had any points that needed clarification. They trooped back some 20 minutes late and both the Judge and Peter Davies had lined up questions on timing of the documents Patrick had received all those years back from the Ombudsman’s investigation team. It seemed important that Patrick had not received all the documents he needed to mount his defence? Patrick was allowed the last word. What happens next was then explained by the judge. The transcripts will be available to parties by the 26th October but the Ombudsman’s barrister let slip that he had the latest ones already. (Special treatment- surely not”)

The Panel won’t make their decision known till the New Year. Too busy yet justice delayed is justice denied. Then a half day to consider any breaches,( what exactly is Patrick going to done for) and another half day to determine his fate!

With a cheery thanks to all participants including the sound engineer, the Panel rose at 3.42 on 12 October. The investigation had started on 15th March 09. Unbelievable.

At the hearing on 5th October, Mr Hughes, the Ombudsman’s barrister was taking Cllr Heesom though a thread of emails I had written in (for me) Black February 09. These emails had been successfully used against me to prove I had lied to stop the Ombudsman’s investigation into Patrick’s own investigation by the same PSOW. One dealt with potential costs of £17,500. In February 09, I had asked Human Resources Department the costs if Patrick had got his way and we had not interviewed any one from the short list? An email arrived that estimated £17,500 would be the sum spend to advertise and go through the process of weeding out the applicants. This “costs”email was critical to my case as I had not witnessed any bullying behaviour but the possibility of wasting £17,500 of public money had Patrick refused to interview anyone, had infuriated me. We just did not want further delay in selection a Head of Housing. This was the reason for my tetchiness towards Patrick, not any inappropriate behaviour.

On oath Mrs Lewis told the panel I had been appalled by Patrick’s behaviour. She knew nothing of my interest in costs. Her statement was taken by Andrew Walsh on the same day he took mine. Hmm

Andrew Walsh was the Ombudsman’s investigator into both me and Patrick Heesom. His findings sent us both to Adjudication Panels. His job had been to collate all the investigation documents for both of us. If the vital costs email was part of the Heesom bundle, why was it excluded from mine?

It gets worse! At my Adjudication Panel, Tony Child, the Ombudsman’s barrister left no stone unturned to embarrass me and cast doubt on my integrity over my February emails. But when I suggested a document was missing, this was ignored and the examination switched to safer ground. Mr C stated there was nothing on file on costs!

Andrew Walsh was present throughout my hearing. He gave evidence against me. When I did find the missing email on an old computer, and I handed it to my Panel, it was simply ignored. Andrew Walsh was present on all three days. Still he said nothing when the costs emails was found. He just smirked as I blubbered when I was found guilty of a breach of Codes.

Mr Hughes presented my costs email as part of the Ombudsman’s case against Patrick on 5th October, I should have had a copy too. Failure to disclose evidence is a criminal offence..

I emailed the Panel Clerk asking for a transcript. I need it for two reasons. I will explain those reasons soon. Once I have the proof of my allegations when the transcript is released very soon, things will get very interesting. What if I’m refused? Me thinks the credibility and the reputation of this newly appointed Judge may be at serious risk. In no way am I suggesting the judge had any role in my 2010 tribunal. Mr Walsh and his master the Ombudsman; who sent me there have lots of serious questions to answer.

Dear Cllr Halford

I am sorry that my attendance at recent hearings of the Cllr Heesom Tribunal and another also in North Wales has prevented me from replying before now to your email of 8 October.

The Tribunal has directed that transcripts are to be provided to representatives for Cllr Heesom and the Ombudsman for the purposes of proceedings in this case only. Due to the significant resource that would be needed to check the transcripts, it is accepted by parties to the proceedings that they are provided in unverified form on the understanding that any significant issues arising from discrepancies will be considered by the Tribunal as and when the need arises.

I am not yet in possession of the transcript for 5 October, but regardless of that I am unable to release the transcript to you while the Tribunal proceedings continue. Should you so wish, your request will be further considered at the conclusion of the case, though I cannot say when that will be at this time.

Yours sincerely

Stephen Phipps
Registrar – Cofrestrydd
Adjudication Panel for Wales – Panel Dyfarnau Cymru
First Floor, North Wing (N04) – Llawr Cyntaf, Adain y Gogledd (N04)
Cathays Park – Parc Cathays
Tel – Ffôn: 029 2082 6414
Fax – Ffacs: 029 2082 3442

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.