A letter to the secretary of the Labour Party’s National Constitutional Committee
Below is a letter I sent today (March 31 2017) to Jane Shaw, believed to be the secretary of the Labour Party’s National Constitutional Committee, a shadow organisation responsible for the party’s Kafka-esque disciplinary procedures.
Dear Ms Shaw,
I am writing to you because I understand that you may be secretary of the Labour Party’s National Constitutional Committee (NCC). I have asked formally and repeatedly to be told who is the NCC’s secretary — and indeed who are the members of NCC — but no answer has been forthcoming.
As I hope you know, I have been suspended from the Labour Party for more than five months, since October 26 2016. Despite having made myself available for a preliminary interview on January 6 2017, I was not told — and have still not been told — what allegations have been made against me, nor who has made them.
On January 18 2017, I was told the Labour Party NEC’s Disputes Panel had referred the matter to the NCC. I was assured the NCC secretary would be in touch “in due course”. Despite repeated requests, this has not happened.
Can you explain why you have not been in touch and let me know when you plan to undertake any investigation or other appropriate action?
Meanwhile, I have read the excellent report of the Shami Chakrabarti Inquiry, which was published on June 30 2016. This made several excellent recommendations in its chapter headed “Clear and transparent procedures for dealing with allegations” (pp 15–20):
· Specifically, the report said it was important that procedures explain that those in respect of whom allegations have been made are clearly informed of the allegation(s) made against them, their factual basis, and the identity of the complainant. It said “subjects of complaint should normally be informed both of its substance and author at the earliest opportunity”.
· Furthermore, the report said it was important the procedures lay down clear timelines within which a complaint will be dealt with.
· In addition, it highlighted the importance of motivation and context, when considering if a complaint was politically motivated.
· The report also said: “It is completely unfair, unacceptable and a breach of Data Protection law that anyone should have found out about being the subject to an investigation or their suspension by way of the media and indeed that leaks, briefing or other publicity should so often have accompanied a suspension pending investigation.”
Can you tell me if these recommendations have been accepted and implemented? If they have not been implemented, what are the reasons?
My experiences suggest the Labour Pary’s disciplinary processes remain as shockingly Kafka-esque as ever.
As mentioned before, I still have not been told of the allegations made against me, nor the identity of those making them.
Ivor Caplin, a former Labour Party MP, leaked news of my suspension to local media even before I had received the letter informing me of it.
Since then, the only information I have gleaned came in one of a series of informed but prejudiced articles in Private Eye — five in the last six issues! — which suggested the allegations related to my “treatment” of Councillor Warren Morgan, leader of the Labour Group on Brighton and Hove City Council, and Jack Spooner, who was until recently the paid employee of the Labour Group.
The only documentation I have been shown — at the January 6 interview — was a printout of a number of tweets by me about Cllr Morgan’s untruthful accusations about Matt Tully, a member of Patcham Branch Labour Party, of which I was chair until my suspension.
I have provided proof beyond reasonable doubt — including CCTV footage — that Mr Tully did not spit at a caretaker on the day of the annual meeting of Brighton, Hove and District Labour Party on July 9 2016. Despite Cllr Morgan being aware of Mr Tully’s protestations of innocence, he repeated the “spitting” allegations in various media statements; a complaint by Mr Tully to Iain McNicol, the Labour Party general secretary, went unacknowledged.
Finally, I have evidence that the Data Protection Act has been breached by individuals who I believe to be behind the complaints against me. Information has appeared in the public domain that can have been known only to officers, representatives, and/or employees of the Labour Party.
In conclusion, I believe any allegations against me are the result of me supporting Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party. I would welcome the opportunity to explain — in the words of Shami Chakrabarti — the “motivation” and “context” of what I believe to be malicious and false allegations that have caused immense suffering.
I look forward to a swift reply. And a speedy opportunity to put this distressing matter behind me.
Yours sincerely,
Greg Hadfield
L0091688
