The case of an elderly Harlow couple who reported a suspected benefit
fraudster to the authorities, only to later discover that their details had
been given to the man himself, has been raised in the House of Commons
by Harlow MP Robert Halfon.
Mr Halfon, who highlighted the case in a debate on Friday, described the
couple as "two utterly decent, salt-of-the-earth individuals".
He said they "do the right thing, obey the law, have worked hard, saved
hard all their lives and suffered unnecessarily - pointlessly - because of
the actions of state agencies".
Mr Halfon said the wife had reported a man to the Jobcentre Plus fraud
team when she became aware he was claiming disability benefits.
Mr Halfon told the House of Commons the man had been seen on several
occasions carrying heavy objects, such as bed bases and bags of cement.
He was often seen climbing "nimbly" up ladders to trim tall trees and he
reportedly worked as a cash-in-hand labourer and gardener.
The couple and their neighbours gave statements which were later
passed, without their permission, to the man. Mr Halfon said the couple
had believed they would be protected by the Data Protection Act 1998.
Mr Halfon added that for the past four years the couple and their
neighbours have been "continually harassed, intimidated and, in some
cases, physically assaulted"
Speaking in the debate, Mr Halfon said: "Their cars have been damaged.
They have been constantly verbally abused and many attempts have been
made to break their windows or damage their property.
"(The couple) were provided with personal alarms by the police following
regular threats of violence, and even death threats.
A court date was set but the man did not attend.
Various other dates were also set. And then it transpired that the man
had issued a summons against the husband of the couple for £5,000
citing "loss of benefit", "using the police as harassment" and a range of
other claims.
The couple then had to employ a solicitor and barrister - at a cost of
almost £8,000 to date - to defend themselves.
Mr Halfon added: "What kind of country are we living in when the criminal
justice system can be abused in such a way? The state exists, at its most
basic level, to fight crime, to protect vulnerable and good people, and to
uphold the rule of law; that is why we pay our taxes.
"What is so deeply depressing about this case is that time and again,
whether from long delays, incompetence, or sheer calculating
indifference, the state has failed to do its most basic job."
Mr Halfon has written to the Information Commissioner's Office regarding
the data protection aspect of the couple's case. He was told the couple
could raise their complaint by completing a form on the back of a leaflet
which was sent to Mr Halfon.
Mr Halfon said: "That is more PC Plod than Batman and Robin. After more
than four years of hitting a brick wall, what confidence should (the
couple) have that completing and returning a complaints form on the
back of a leaflet will lead to anything other than more bureaucracy and
delay?"
He added: "We must protect decent people who do the right thing. What
is the point of coming to Parliament and making laws if when people do
the right thing they suffer? What is the point of laws at all if the good and
decent suffer because of incompetence and bureaucracy?
"We should know that the character of the state is revealed not in its
ambitions but in its actions, not in its policy but in its implementation. The
characters of Jobcentre Plus and the courts system have been woeful.
Justice Minister Crispin Blunt said he could not comment on a particular
case but said: "I wholly share my honorable Friend's concern that those
who perform a public duty by informing on people who commit benefit
fraud or any offence should not be subjected to harassment.
"Society depends on courageous people who witness crime coming
forward, reporting it and giving evidence. Witnesses are vital to our
criminal justice system, and it is crucial that they receive appropriate
support when they give evidence in criminal proceedings to ensure that
justice is done."
He added: "However justice also requires us to ensure that the defendant
has a fair trial. When someone gives evidence about an alleged offence,
they may be asked to make a signed witness statement, which will
contain their name and address.
"Once the statement has been made, what happens to it depends on
whether anyone is charged with an offence and prosecuted in the courts.
I understand that when taking a witness statement, the Department of
Work and Pensions investigators explain to those giving it that they may
be asked or required to give evidence in court. The signed statement
includes wording to that effect.
"If no charge is brought, the matter will go no further, but if someone is
charged, the prosecutor may wish to use the witness's evidence as part of
the case against the accused.
"In those circumstances, the prosecutor must give copies of all the
prosecution evidence to the defence in advance of the trial.
"Any witness statements will have the address of the witness removed,
but not their name. That reflects the general long-standing principle of
English common law that defendants have the right to know the identity
of their accusers and to challenge the evidence against them."
Mr Blunt added the Government takes the issue of witness intimidation
very seriously.
He said: "I hope my honorable Friend can see that the Ministry of Justice
takes witness protection very seriously. I appreciate that the measures...
did not come into play because the case that he described did not proceed
to trial.
"However, I hope it gives his constituents some reassurance to know
witness intimidation and witness protection is taken seriously and that we
have significant powers to try to provide that protection