HRRA Court Proceedings
Statement
1
We believe it to be in the public interest that we disclose the truth proved by incontrovertible documentary evidence about the dispute that caused us to sue Hastings & Rother Rainbow Alliance’s trustees for compensation and damages in 2013. Julie Eason, Dave Burke, Mary Benton, Gary Rolfe, Ben Sallows, Barbara Martin, Nadine West, and Abigail Luthmann jointly defended the claim and deliberately and maliciously lied throughout their defence. Fifteen of their lies followed by the incontrovertible truth about them will be reproduced in this statement.
2
Conduct of the eight trustees who jointly defended the claim includes attempting to pervert the course of justice; they individually signed their names under the following declaration of truth pre-printed on the summonses they received - 'I believe that the facts stated in this form are true” knowing they had lied throughout it.
3
A solicitor acting for us who is aware of all that occurred throughout the dispute has advised after reading the joint defence statement that the eight trustees have committed contempt of court by knowingly lying throughout their statement and then signing individual Declarations of Truth. We have been advised that such a contempt of court can be punished under the Perjury Act by up to two years imprisonment. Advice has also been given that a significant number of the untrue allegations in the joint defence submission are defamatory, and that there are now grounds for obtaining court restraining orders the objective of which would be to bar trustees from causing further harm to Paul, our chairman, whose health and reputation they have deliberately and severely damaged and to the Helpline itself. At this juncture court orders are envisaged against Julie Eason, Mary Benton, and Dave Burke, but others may follow.
4
Dave Burke, HRRA’s chair was informed by a solicitor we consulted last September that untrue, malicious allegations he had made about a letter of enquiry that we had written to a Hastings Borough Council officer that he had admitted he had not even seen and had been told about by Julie Eason were defamatory but he refused the solicitor’s request to retract and apologise for having made them which caused the dispute to escalate.
5
Julie Eason was described by Dave Burke in his allegations as “involved”. Our honest opinion. based on the balance of probabilities, the fact that Julie Eason bears a grudge against Paul because of his opposition to her whilst they both served for a short time as HRRA trustees, that she knew Dave Burke's allegations to be untrue, and that she has acted with considerable malice towards Paul is that she was very much involved in the fabrication of the allegations which could only have been done by her, or by Dave Burke, or by them both acting together.
6
Disputes involving Julie Eason begun last August when Paul, our chairman was serving as an elected trustee of HRRA and Julie Eason as a trustee co-opted shortly before then. A special trustees’ meeting took place that was not attended by all trustees, including Paul who was unable to attend through illness. During the meeting for which no agenda had been issued a decision was made that Julie Eason be appointed co-chair, a post that did not even exist at the time, it had to be created for her. Minutes were not issued either, only notes, so it was impossible who was in favour of Julie Eason's proposed appointment.
7
When Paul objected to Julie Eason’s proposed appointment because he did not consider the manner in which the appointment was being made was acceptable for an officer of a charity it was made clear to him by other trustees that the decision was a fiat accompli and no discussion would be allowed.
8
Previous decisions had been made by a ‘clique’ within the committee, from which Paul was excluded, and this was another one. We believe that not having an agenda for the meeting or minutes issued may have been a deliberate attempt to conceal the circumstances in which Julie Eason's appointment was to be made.
9
Paul had previously objected to a talk taking place about Alan Turing by a local author that Julie Eason had arranged without the trustees’ knowledge, certainly without Paul’s. When Julie Eason informed all the trustees that the author was not willing to mention that Alan Turing was gay, a fact that led to his death generally believed to by suicide and linked to his sexuality, Paul raised an objection. HRRA being an LGBT charity Paul believed a talk without any mention of Alan Turing's sexuality and the serious problems it had caused him to suffer which included being criminally prosecuted because of his sexuality would be unacceptable to members. Julie Eason was furious with Paul because he objected.
10
The decision to appoint Julie Eason as co-chair was followed by Julie Eason taking it upon herself to organise a fund-raiser, again without discussion by all the trustees.
11
In an email to HRRA’s trustees Julie Eason wrote that a friend had given her advice and “...suggested that the first thing to do is to sweet talk the council into giving us St Marys in the Castle for free, so I am going to have a word with Simon Hubbard at the council and canvass the possibility of that, on a without prejudice basis.”
12
We would mention at this stage that St. Mary’s in the Castle refers to St. Mary-in-the-Castle, a council-owned building . It was common knowledge at that time that no new bookings of any kind were being accepted by the council for St. Mary's because they had always leased it, initially to a local charity as an arts centre and subsequently to tenants who had operated the building for themselves as commercial ventures; the council no longer had a tenant and had been unable to find one. The council had not made a decision regarding the building’s future, and pending a decision being made was consequently rejecting all new booking requests. These facts were common knowledge in the town. Paul replied to Julie’s email and advised her not to make her proposed request stating why. He considered it extraordinary if it was genuinely the case that of eight trustees who lived in the town including Julie Eason and Dave Burke, the chair he was the only one who knew that the council was rejecting all new bookings requests when the local newspaper was printing letters about the building’s future uncertainty virtually every week and that it was not possible to hire St Mary's. No trustee other than Paul made any comment.
13
Julie Eason replied to Paul’s email with the email below which she copied to the other trustees -
“Dear Paul, I spoke to Simon Hubbard yesterday, he thinks we have a very good chance of getting St Mary;'s in the castle free of charge, he asked me to put our request in writing, which I did and he is canvassing inside the council for us.”
14
Paul had no reason at the time he read Julie Eason's email to disbelieve what she claimed to have been told but we later discovered from Mr Hubbard that she had been extremely economical with the truth in her email account of her conversation with him to the extent that she had seriously misrepresented what she had been told which we believe included the following facts 1. Mr Hubbard had no control over bookings, 2. He was unaware of the council's hire policy 3. He had asked Julie Eason to put her request in writing, which she had done and was so that he could pass the request to a colleague for advice about it. 4. The advice Mr Hubbard received was that no new bookings were being accepted and Julie Eason's request was then rejected for that reason.
15
In a second email on August 18th Julie Eason wrote “My sense from Simon is that one way or another, the council would really like to help us, so fingers crossed on that one. Failing that, I have a good personal relationship with the Chief Executive of the County Council, so we could perhaps start looking at the library. We'll have a response from Simon Hubbard by the time we meet, if the answer is a no, I'll go back and ask about the town hall, so we at least have a sense of what could and would not, be possible.”
16
Julie Eason now described the event she proposed to organise as a cabaret with the title of '’Tipping the Velvet,’ a Lesbian term. It is inconceivable that permission would ever have been given for the event Julie Eason had described to be held in the library or town hall despite Julie Eason's comments.
17
The Helpline was holding its 25th anniversary celebration the following month, and we had booked and were paying for the hire of the council-owned Stade Hall because we believed that St. Mary-in-the-Castle which we would have much preferred could not be booked. St. Mary's is a much larger venue than the Stade Hall, and as we were having to turn down requests from people and organisations wishing to attend owing owing to the Stade Hall’s limited capacity, Paul felt it appropriate given that the Helpline’s committee were also HRRA members to inform us what Julie Eason had said so we could ask if, we wished to do so, if it was possible to transfer our booking to St. Mary’s. Unlike HRRA, we were willing to pay the usual hire fee.
18
We decided to make an enquiry, and wrote a letter to Mr Hubbard, (reproduced below) We asked for clarification of the Council's hire policy for St. Mary’s because it seemed to us considering Julie Eason’s comments that it must be different for HRRA than for other applicants whom we knew had recently had their requests rejected. Given that Julie Eason had said that she had been told by Mr Hubbard that he thought her request for the free use of St. Mary's stood a good chance of being accepted we were fully justified in asking for clarification as to why HRRA was clearly regarded as a special case and the solicitor we later consulted advised us that we had every right to have written our enquiry in the terms that we had.
19
If Paul had been aware of Julie Eason's comments made in her second email concerning a request for the use of the library and town hall we would not have made the enquiry, but he did not read the email until after our letter was sent.
20
It was only after we received Mr Hubbard's reply that we realised Julie Eason had been so significantly economical with the truth in her emailed account to Paul and HRRA's other trustees of her conversation with Mr Hubbard. that she had been been misleading about the possibility of her request for St. Mary's being accepted.
21
We believe it to be in the public interest that we disclose the truth proved by incontrovertible documentary evidence about the dispute that caused us to sue Hastings & Rother Rainbow Alliance’s trustees for compensation and damages in 2013. Julie Eason, Dave Burke, Mary Benton, Gary Rolfe, Ben Sallows, Barbara Martin, Nadine West, and Abigail Luthmann jointly defended the claim and deliberately and maliciously lied throughout their defence. Fifteen of their lies followed by the incontrovertible truth about them will be reproduced in this statement.
2
Conduct of the eight trustees who jointly defended the claim includes attempting to pervert the course of justice; they individually signed their names under the following declaration of truth pre-printed on the summonses they received - 'I believe that the facts stated in this form are true” knowing they had lied throughout it.
3
A solicitor acting for us who is aware of all that occurred throughout the dispute has advised after reading the joint defence statement that the eight trustees have committed contempt of court by knowingly lying throughout their statement and then signing individual Declarations of Truth. We have been advised that such a contempt of court can be punished under the Perjury Act by up to two years imprisonment. Advice has also been given that a significant number of the untrue allegations in the joint defence submission are defamatory, and that there are now grounds for obtaining court restraining orders the objective of which would be to bar trustees from causing further harm to Paul, our chairman, whose health and reputation they have deliberately and severely damaged and to the Helpline itself. At this juncture court orders are envisaged against Julie Eason, Mary Benton, and Dave Burke, but others may follow.
4
Dave Burke, HRRA’s chair was informed by a solicitor we consulted last September that untrue, malicious allegations he had made about a letter of enquiry that we had written to a Hastings Borough Council officer that he had admitted he had not even seen and had been told about by Julie Eason were defamatory but he refused the solicitor’s request to retract and apologise for having made them which caused the dispute to escalate.
5
Julie Eason was described by Dave Burke in his allegations as “involved”. Our honest opinion. based on the balance of probabilities, the fact that Julie Eason bears a grudge against Paul because of his opposition to her whilst they both served for a short time as HRRA trustees, that she knew Dave Burke's allegations to be untrue, and that she has acted with considerable malice towards Paul is that she was very much involved in the fabrication of the allegations which could only have been done by her, or by Dave Burke, or by them both acting together.
6
Disputes involving Julie Eason begun last August when Paul, our chairman was serving as an elected trustee of HRRA and Julie Eason as a trustee co-opted shortly before then. A special trustees’ meeting took place that was not attended by all trustees, including Paul who was unable to attend through illness. During the meeting for which no agenda had been issued a decision was made that Julie Eason be appointed co-chair, a post that did not even exist at the time, it had to be created for her. Minutes were not issued either, only notes, so it was impossible who was in favour of Julie Eason's proposed appointment.
7
When Paul objected to Julie Eason’s proposed appointment because he did not consider the manner in which the appointment was being made was acceptable for an officer of a charity it was made clear to him by other trustees that the decision was a fiat accompli and no discussion would be allowed.
8
Previous decisions had been made by a ‘clique’ within the committee, from which Paul was excluded, and this was another one. We believe that not having an agenda for the meeting or minutes issued may have been a deliberate attempt to conceal the circumstances in which Julie Eason's appointment was to be made.
9
Paul had previously objected to a talk taking place about Alan Turing by a local author that Julie Eason had arranged without the trustees’ knowledge, certainly without Paul’s. When Julie Eason informed all the trustees that the author was not willing to mention that Alan Turing was gay, a fact that led to his death generally believed to by suicide and linked to his sexuality, Paul raised an objection. HRRA being an LGBT charity Paul believed a talk without any mention of Alan Turing's sexuality and the serious problems it had caused him to suffer which included being criminally prosecuted because of his sexuality would be unacceptable to members. Julie Eason was furious with Paul because he objected.
10
The decision to appoint Julie Eason as co-chair was followed by Julie Eason taking it upon herself to organise a fund-raiser, again without discussion by all the trustees.
11
In an email to HRRA’s trustees Julie Eason wrote that a friend had given her advice and “...suggested that the first thing to do is to sweet talk the council into giving us St Marys in the Castle for free, so I am going to have a word with Simon Hubbard at the council and canvass the possibility of that, on a without prejudice basis.”
12
We would mention at this stage that St. Mary’s in the Castle refers to St. Mary-in-the-Castle, a council-owned building . It was common knowledge at that time that no new bookings of any kind were being accepted by the council for St. Mary's because they had always leased it, initially to a local charity as an arts centre and subsequently to tenants who had operated the building for themselves as commercial ventures; the council no longer had a tenant and had been unable to find one. The council had not made a decision regarding the building’s future, and pending a decision being made was consequently rejecting all new booking requests. These facts were common knowledge in the town. Paul replied to Julie’s email and advised her not to make her proposed request stating why. He considered it extraordinary if it was genuinely the case that of eight trustees who lived in the town including Julie Eason and Dave Burke, the chair he was the only one who knew that the council was rejecting all new bookings requests when the local newspaper was printing letters about the building’s future uncertainty virtually every week and that it was not possible to hire St Mary's. No trustee other than Paul made any comment.
13
Julie Eason replied to Paul’s email with the email below which she copied to the other trustees -
“Dear Paul, I spoke to Simon Hubbard yesterday, he thinks we have a very good chance of getting St Mary;'s in the castle free of charge, he asked me to put our request in writing, which I did and he is canvassing inside the council for us.”
14
Paul had no reason at the time he read Julie Eason's email to disbelieve what she claimed to have been told but we later discovered from Mr Hubbard that she had been extremely economical with the truth in her email account of her conversation with him to the extent that she had seriously misrepresented what she had been told which we believe included the following facts 1. Mr Hubbard had no control over bookings, 2. He was unaware of the council's hire policy 3. He had asked Julie Eason to put her request in writing, which she had done and was so that he could pass the request to a colleague for advice about it. 4. The advice Mr Hubbard received was that no new bookings were being accepted and Julie Eason's request was then rejected for that reason.
15
In a second email on August 18th Julie Eason wrote “My sense from Simon is that one way or another, the council would really like to help us, so fingers crossed on that one. Failing that, I have a good personal relationship with the Chief Executive of the County Council, so we could perhaps start looking at the library. We'll have a response from Simon Hubbard by the time we meet, if the answer is a no, I'll go back and ask about the town hall, so we at least have a sense of what could and would not, be possible.”
16
Julie Eason now described the event she proposed to organise as a cabaret with the title of '’Tipping the Velvet,’ a Lesbian term. It is inconceivable that permission would ever have been given for the event Julie Eason had described to be held in the library or town hall despite Julie Eason's comments.
17
The Helpline was holding its 25th anniversary celebration the following month, and we had booked and were paying for the hire of the council-owned Stade Hall because we believed that St. Mary-in-the-Castle which we would have much preferred could not be booked. St. Mary's is a much larger venue than the Stade Hall, and as we were having to turn down requests from people and organisations wishing to attend owing owing to the Stade Hall’s limited capacity, Paul felt it appropriate given that the Helpline’s committee were also HRRA members to inform us what Julie Eason had said so we could ask if, we wished to do so, if it was possible to transfer our booking to St. Mary’s. Unlike HRRA, we were willing to pay the usual hire fee.
18
We decided to make an enquiry, and wrote a letter to Mr Hubbard, (reproduced below) We asked for clarification of the Council's hire policy for St. Mary’s because it seemed to us considering Julie Eason’s comments that it must be different for HRRA than for other applicants whom we knew had recently had their requests rejected. Given that Julie Eason had said that she had been told by Mr Hubbard that he thought her request for the free use of St. Mary's stood a good chance of being accepted we were fully justified in asking for clarification as to why HRRA was clearly regarded as a special case and the solicitor we later consulted advised us that we had every right to have written our enquiry in the terms that we had.
19
If Paul had been aware of Julie Eason's comments made in her second email concerning a request for the use of the library and town hall we would not have made the enquiry, but he did not read the email until after our letter was sent.
20
It was only after we received Mr Hubbard's reply that we realised Julie Eason had been so significantly economical with the truth in her emailed account to Paul and HRRA's other trustees of her conversation with Mr Hubbard. that she had been been misleading about the possibility of her request for St. Mary's being accepted.
21
Our letter to Simon Hubbard
22
Before we received Mr Hubbard’s reply to our letter, Roger Sweetman, the Helpline secretary received several emails from Dave Burke, HRRA’s chair that became increasingly belligerent, and in which he wrote-
" Roger
I understand that Paul has written to Hastings BC both as a Trustee of HRRA… and as Chair of the Gay Helpline in a way which it seems prevented HRRA obtaining a venue for a fund-raising event. We have therefore lost the opportunity.
More importantly he seems to have indicated that there is a split in HRRA and possibly between HRRA and the Gay Helpline. i'm (sic) sure I don't need to tell you how damaging such a suggestion could be.
I've written by email to Paul asking for his account of the facts (I haven't seen his letter) but he has not replied. Given his state of health, I do not want to ask him again. I haven’t spoken to anyone within HRRA about this (however Julie Eason was involved).”
23
We believed that either the contents of our letter or the receipt of it had clearly been disclosed to Julie Eason, without any justification whatsoever, and the untrue allegations about our letter then fabricated. The trustees stated in their joint defence statement that Mr Hubbard contacted Julie Eason when he received our letter and disclosed the contents of it to her. The disclosure was made several days before Mr Hubbard sent a reply.
24
Note: Dave Burke admitted that he had not seen our letter, he said he had been told about it, (he had been told by Julie Eason) but had nevertheless made very serious allegations about it without having first corroborated them with the council which he had an indisputable duty to have done. To not only falsely allege that our letter was responsible for the rejection of Julie Eason's request but to lie that our letter indicated non-existent splits is evidence in our honest opinion of extreme malice.
25
Despite the best efforts of both Roger and Paul whose health was adversely affected to a great extent by the stress he was being caused, it was impossible to make Dave Burke accept that what he had apparently been told was not true. In his final email to Roger Dave Burke wrote -
“As we have not been able to settle this informally, it needs to be discussed by the full committee.… I do not want to pursue this correspondence as I don't belive (sic) that it is achieving anything…i am taking it to the HRRA committee…i'm sure the best thing you can do it (sic) take legal advice.
Dave"
26
Paul felt his role as a trustee of HRRA had now become untenable because of Dave Burke’s totally unacceptable conduct, and his total unwillingness to accept the the truth about our letter, and he resigned.
27
Mr Hubbard's reply to our letter
28
Before we received this letter we had received Dave Burke's emails untruthfully alleging that our letter to Mr Hubbard was responsible for the rejection of Julie Eason's request so we wrote to Mr Hubbard again informing of what had occurred and received the following reply -
29
Before we received this letter we had received Dave Burke's emails untruthfully alleging that our letter to Mr Hubbard was responsible for the rejection of Julie Eason's request so we wrote to Mr Hubbard again informing of what had occurred and received the following reply -
29
!
We later received a letter from Neil Dart, Director of Corporate Services.in which he wrote -
“I can categorically say that that your letter of 19 August did not lose HRRA the opportunity to have the completely free use of St. Mary in the Castle for a social fundraising event. The reason free use was refused is that it would have been counter to Council policies it is also the case that the Council would seek to treat all organisations equally. As Mr Hubbard rightly points out, the control of bookings does not lie with him. He rightly referred the matter to the Council officer with operational responsibility for St. Mary in the Castle to obtain guidance and was given the decision that was referred back to HRRA.”
31
By this time Dave Burke's untrue allegations, which the three letters from the council proved to be untrue, had entered the public domain, which we consider to have been deliberate, and caused us significant harm so we had no alternative other than to consult a solicitor to whom we showed copies of our letters to the council and the replies we had received.
32
The solicitor's advice was that Dave Burke's untrue allegations were defamatory and they wrote and informed him of the fact and requested that he retract his allegations and apologise for having made them but he refused to do so claiming he had been told, but without stating by whom, he had not been defamatory and he said that it was up to what he described as "others " if his allegations about splits gained ground.
33
Dave Burke had been advised by our solicitor to seek independent legal advice if had any doubts as to his legal position but it is inconceivable that a solicitor could have given him the advice he claimed to have received. By his own admission the untrue allegations he had made were about a letter that he had not even seen and had been told about by Julie Eason.
34
We would mention that at no time whatsoever has Julie Eason ever acknowledged that she was told that her request was rejected because no new bookings were being accepted, including in the defence to the court claim. On the contrary, she has persisted in maliciously alleging and implying that our letter was to blame and untruthfully alleged that Paul has caused significant harm to HRRA in a variety of ways when she knows full well he has not with the reality being that both he and the Helpline have been the victims of her malice and that of the other trustees who have acted in association with her and condoned her gross misconduct by rejecting formal complaints made to them and subsequently acted in association with her by lying throughout their joint defence to the court claim.
35
We believe it fair comment to say that Julie Eason has anger management problems. These are her own comments about the harm words can cause extracted from an open letter that she wrote to the journalist Julie Birchill after Ms Birchill had written a newspaper article that incurred Julie Eason’s wrath. The open letter was published on HRRA’s website on 30 January 2013, and includes the following -
“I never believed the sticks and stones mantra, words can, and do hurt. The beauty of yours however were that they so clearly resembled a teenage rant, a vile outpouring of vitriol from a woman clearly long overdue for rehab.”
Julie Eason admitted she had always believed "words can and do hurt" , and she was therefore fully aware that the untruthful and malicious allegations about the consequences for HRRA that were made about our letter and her other allegations would cause significant harm.
36
Given that Julie Eason has had ambitions to become Hastings & Rye’s Member of Parliament and participated in the process by the local Labour party to be selected as their Prospective Parliamentary Candidate we believe it is in the public interest that her conduct is made public.
37
Acting on advice we received from Steve Manwaring, the Director of Hastings Voluntary Action that we had the right to make a formal complaint to HRRA's trustees about the conduct of Julie Eason and Dave Burke we did so. Mary Benton, Gary Rolfe, and Barbara Martin were then appointed by the other trustees to investigate our complaints. At Mary Benton's request we provided copies of all the correspondence exchanged with the council and reproduced in this statement which provided incontrovertible proof that our letter of enquiry to Mr Hubbard was not responsible for Julie Eason's request for St. Mary's being rejected, and it was impossible for it to have been. The three investigating trustees were also aware that Dave Burke had been informed by a solicitor that his allegations that our letter was responsible along with other allegations he had made were untrue and defamatory. Mary Benton acknowledged receipt of the documentation which we later realised had been completely disregarded.
38
When Julie Eason became aware that we had made a formal complaint, she reacted with fury by sending Paul a truly venomous email in which she falsely alleged Paul had significantly harmed HRRA in several ways, including writing to Mr Hubbard. The sending of this email is evidence that Julie Eason can have an unacceptable tendency to react with fury when she feels she has been crossed, which we believe to have motivated her untrue allegations about our letter to Mr Hubbard. We showed the email to our solicitor who was shocked by it and said that it must have been very unpleasant for Paul to have had to read.
39
The investigation was protracted for several months at the end of which the following message was sent to Paul in an email by Mary Benton, HRRA's secretary -
"DECISION OF HRRA INVESTIGATORY PANEL RELATING TO FORMAL COMPLAINT RAISED BY PAUL BROADHURST
The panel of HRRA trustees were appointed by the full committee to consider a formal complaint submitted by Paul Broadhurst and investigate all relevant issues relating to this. Having completed the investigation and completed their work the panel’s decision is as follows: - We find that the complaint is not upheld and having examined all relevant factors we find that both Julie and Dave acted reasonably and within their remit as trustee and chair of HRRA".
40
We had placed our trust in HRRA to conduct a fair and impartial investigation, but they had abused the trust placed in them by ignoring the incontrovertible evidence of gross misconduct with which they had been supplied. It is categorically not within the remit of a trustee to maliciously lie and make defamatory allegations, to send malicious emails, and for the trustees to assert that it is is almost beyond belief.
We regard as we believe any right minded person would also do that the investigation was not impartial, that it was biased in favour of Julie Eason and Dave Burke, and that it can be truthfully described as a sham.
41
We were advised by Mr Manwaring the Director of HVA following the rejection of our valid complaints about Julie Eason and Dave Burke that we had the right to appeal against HRRA's rejection of the complaints, but HRRA refused to allow us to do so.
42
Mr Manwaring then agreed to act as a mediator between the Helpline and HRRA which both sides accepted. Paul’s health, as we previously stated had suffered considerably as a direct consequence of the stress HRRA’s malicious and untrue allegations about him had caused him to suffer. Mr Manwaring was aware that Paul was very ill, and he told Roger, our secretary that in light of Paul’s extremely poor health he did not consider it appropriate for him to participate in the mediation at that time, and it was agreed that Roger would attend meetings, which he confirmed he would do in an email he sent to Mr Manwaring on November 12th 2012.
43
Roger then received an email from Mr Manwaring in which he was asked if if there were any questions that he wished him to put to Dave Burke prior to a meeting and Roger replied and said that he would like Dave Burke to state what he had been told by Julie Eason prior to him sending the emails in which he had untruthfully alleged that our letter was responsible for Julie Eason's request for St. Mary-in-the-Castle being rejected. Mr Manwaring then confirmed that he had forwarded Roger's request to Dave Burke, and later stated in an email that he had received no response to his enquiry and to three other requests regarding making arrangements for him to attend a meeting.
44
Two months later, on 11th January 2013 Mary Benton wrote in an email to Paul -
“It is now felt by the committee that mediation is unlikely to provide a satisfactory outcome and therefore we no longer wish to be involved in such action. As far as we are concerned, this matter is now concluded, and we will no longer be responding to any other correspondence on this subject”.
45
Mary Benton's comment that the decision was that of the committee was not true, it was a decision of a clique within the committee because as we discovered after the court summonses had been served two committee members who are not amongst the eight named at the beginning of this statement had been denied all knowledge of the dispute despite requesting it.
46
Roger asked Mr Manwaring if he had been told by HRRA that they were withdrawing from mediation, and he said that he had, and that there was nothing more that he could because he had received no response at all to the three emails he had sent to Dave Burke inviting him to attend a mediation meeting.
47
HRRA's eight trustees lied in their joint defence statement by alleging that Mr Manwaring had informed them that Paul had not co-operated with the mediation process because he was unwilling to sit down with them and that was the reason he said there was nothing that he could do. The full text of HRRA's allegations will be detailed later.
48
Paul’s reputation had been deliberately and maliciously trashed, as had the Helpline’s, and Paul’s health severely a nd provably affected by the stress of unsuccessfully endeavouring for a lengthy period to clear his name. We decided given HRRA’s unwillingness to participate in mediation that the only way forward to compel them to be truthful and recover monies we had lost was to commence a court claim to the trustees for compensation and damages.
49
Neither the Helpline nor HRRA have a legal existence, so if court summonses needed to be issued, we were advised that they should be taken out by Paul because he had been the victim of the most malice, suffered the most harm, and with the summonses issued on an individual basis against each of the ten trustees of HRRA.
50
We made individual, formal written claims to HRRA’s trustees in March 2013 seeking damages, and informed them that if it were rejected, they would be sued. The claim was rejected, and each of HRRA’s ten trustees were served with court summonses. At the time the summonses were issued HRRA had two trustees in addition to the eight who submitted a joint defence. The two trustees were elected at an AGM just a few weeks after the dispute leading to the court claim begun, but all knowledge of the dispute was deliberately withheld from them by the other eight trustees although we were only made aware of this by one of the excluded trustees after the summonses were issued.
51
One of the two trustees informed us after the summonses were served that they had been aware that a dispute of some kind existed, but not its nature, and they were not responsible for what took place because they were excluded whenever the dispute was discussed at meetings. This is a fact that the eight trustees admitted to in their joint defence. They wrote, “We had elected two new members at our AGM, to the committee, who asked to be fully briefed on this matter. We refused this request”. No explanation was given.
52
The dispute had begun in August 2012 and the AGM referred to was in the following October with the summonses not being taken out until the following April. Information had therefore been deliberately withheld from the two trustees for a lengthy period.
53
We were advised by a solicitor after they had read the defence statement that we should inform the court before being notified of the hearing date that the eight trustees had conspired to pervert the course of justice by deliberately lying in their defence statement. The solicitor also offered after reading the joint defence submission to present the claim at the court hearing because Paul was still extremely ill and unable to do so.
54
Obtaining documentary evidence that the eight trustees had lied took some time to obtain, and unfortunately our letter to the court crossed in the post with one from the court stating that a judge in the Hastings County Court where the claim was to be heard had said the court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the claim because it involved defamation of character (by Dave Burke) even though damages for defamation were not sought as part of the claim, and therefore the claim could not proceed to a hearing. We were subsequently informed that as the claim could not proceed that no action could be taken by the court in respect of the numerous untrue allegations in the joint defence statement.
Fifteen of the eight trustees' malicious, untrue allegations
copied from their defence statement now follow
Julie Eason’s request for the free use of St. Mary-in-the-Castle
Lie 1
"During the Claimant's tenure as part of the committee, the committee held a strategy day. The organisation celebrates its 10th anniversary this year, and decided at that strategy day (which the claimant did not attend) to try to hold a fund-raising event to both celebrate the anniversary and raise some core funds."
The Truth
The notes of the strategy day (no minutes were issued) make no mention whatsoever that a decision was made to hold a fund-raising event and to celebrate the tenth anniversary.
Lie 2
We consulted an events organiser, who advised us that that we should seek to secure a public building for this event, in order that we could retain the bar receipts, which we were advised was the simplest and most secure way to ensure the event was profitable.
The Truth
The committee did not consult an events organiser, Julie Eason took it upon herself after the strategy day to organise a fund-raising event, and the rest of the committee only became aware of this when she sent an email on August in which she said that she had received advice from a friend who was an events organiser and who had “...suggested that the first thing to do is to sweet talk the council into giving us St Marys in the Castle for free, so I am going to have a word with Simon Hubbard at the council and canvass the possibility of that, on a without prejudice basis.”
Lie 3
The trustees wrote in their joint defence Ms Eason one of the trustees of the committee at that time, approached a council officer that she knows vaguely, in a professional l capacity through her work in the Voluntary sector. This is we believe an entirely legitimate cause of action, We requested the free use of a public building (St. Mary-in-the-Castle) and were informed that the officer approached was not responsible for the building, but he signalled a willingness to try and support this request.”
The Truth
The trustees were led by Julie Eason in her email of August to believe that she would be “canvassing the possibility” of HRRA being given the free use of St. Mary-in-the-Castle, not making a request. Paul replied to the email on and advised against making a request because it was common knowledge that the council was rejecting all new requests to hire, which Julie Eason's was, and because he personally knew of potential hirers willing to pay a fee who had had their own requests rejected.
Lie 4
Julie Eason replied to Paul's email, copied her reply to the other trustees, and said that she had already made a request, not the enquiry she had previously claimed that she intended to make, for the free use of St. Mary-in-the-Castle, to Simon Hubbard, a senior council officer. Julie Eason claimed that Mr Hubbard had told her thought her request "stood a good chance of being accepted", and that he is“ canvassing for us”.
The Truth
Julie Eason's comments were extraordinary considering that all other requests were being rejected, but we had no reason at that time to disbelieve her. We wrote to Mr Hubbard and asked for clarification of the council's hire policy because we wished to switch the booking we had already made for our 25th anniversary event from the council-owned Slade Hall to St. Mary-in-the Castle if it was possible to do so.
Note:
In the joint defence submission the trustees alleged that following the receipt of our letter Mr Hubbard had contacted Julie Eason, disclosed the contents of our letter, and her request was then rejected. It was implied that our letter was responsible when the trustees categorically knew that it was not having received copies of our letter to Mr Hubbard, two copies of letters we received from him and one from Neil Dart, another senior council officer. six months prior to the court claim. The letters we received prove Julie Eason’s comments about what she claimed Mr Hubbard to have told her to completely lack credibility. The letters, that we have reproduced at paras x and X, prove that Julie Eason was told that her request was rejected because it was for a new booking, that she was told no new booking requests were being accepted, and that it was impossible for our letter to have had any consequences whatsoever for her request.
The following is an extract from one of Mr Hubbard’s letters which is reproduced in full in para)
“Because the tender process for SMIC is not complete it is impossible to say who a future operator will be. In the interim the Council will honour obligations to a limited number of regular bookings until the end of 2012. It is not possible for a future booking of any kind to be agreed in the circumstances. " Julie Eason’s request, a new one, was categorically rejected for the aforementioned reason.
Regarding the defendants claim that Mr Hubbard “signalled a willingness to try and support this request,” a letter we received from Neil Dart, another senior Council officer (see paragraph 18) states that the Council seeks to treat all organisations equally.
Julie Eason was clearly aware that there was a possibility of her request being rejected because in her second email of August she wrote that if her request was rejected that as she had what she described as "a good personal relationship with the chief executive of the county council" she "could ask for the use of the library and the town hall”
The claim therefore by the trustees in their defence that a bar was essential for the fund-raiser is not credible because Julie Eason had stated, and they had received the email from her, that she could request the use of the library or the town hall for the event neither of which has a bar.
Paul did not and could not have "written to the committee after seeing the minutes of the strategy day to try to persuade the other trustees not to contact the council " as alleged. The notes of the strategy day (minutes were not issued) contain no mention of requesting the free use of St. Mary-in-the-Castle and could not have because the advice to make a request had not been given at the time, and the trustees did not consult an events adviser. Julie Eason stated in her email of August that a friend of hers had advised her to "sweet talk the council into giving us St. Mary's for free", and that was the first mention of such a request.
Julie Eason was clearly aware that there was a possibility of her request being rejected because in her second email of August she wrote that if her request was rejected that as she had what she described as "a good personal relationship with the chief executive of the county council" she "could ask for the use of the library and the town hall. "
In her second email, Julie Eason also said that the event was to be a Victorian-style cabaret with the title "Tipping the Velvet. Neither the library nor the town hall has a bar, and a need to have one to have one was not mentioned in either of the emails.
Although it is alleged that “the rest of the committee disagreed” with Paul’s advice not to request the free use of St. Mary’s, Julie Eason did not state until her email of August 17th that she had been advised by a friend to make the request. Paul advised her not to do because he believed such a request was certain to be rejected, which it subsequently was , and was because no new bookings were being accepted. A fact that was common knowledge. On August 18th , the day after stating that she intended to request the free use of St. Mary-in-the- Castle Julie Eason wrote in an email that she had made a request the previous day. There was therefore no opportunity for the trustees to discuss the request and Paul's comments unless it was done clandestinely and without Paul’s knowledge which had been the case with other decisions.
The officer approached by Julie Eason was Simon Hubbard. Julie Eason alleged in an email that Mr Hubbard had told her he thought her request stood "a very good chance of being accepted" when he could not possibly have known if that was likely or not because as he stated in his letter to us, he was unaware of the Council’s hire policy and for that reason he had asked for the request to be made in writing , which Julie Eason had done, and was so that he could seek advice from a colleague. Mr Hubbard’s letter has already been reproduced with these comments. The advice he said he received was that no new bookings were being accepted, Julie Eason's request was rejected for that reason, she was categorically told that was the reason, but she has been totally unwilling to accept it despite being fully aware that we have three letters from the council stating our letter had played no part whatsoever in the rejection, and it was not possible for it to have done.
The allegations that have been made that our letter was responsible for the rejection are not true, not credible, extremely malicious and defamatory.
HRRA Lie 4
“The building in question (St. Mary’s) “was at that time being put out to tender. Despite this, the council did take a limited number of bookings.”
The Truth
The Council was not accepting any new bookings, which Julie Eason's was, and had not at that time put the building out for tender. A decision to do so was not made until a council meeting held some weeks later. The council’s letters previously reproduced state not only that no new bookings of any kind were being accepted but also that Julie Eason was categorically told this was the reason for the rejection of her request. This being so, each of the allegations made by HRRA that our letter was responsible for the rejection and undermined the request for the free use of St. Mary’s are untrue, and are known by HRRA to be untrue because copies of the Council's letters were provided to Mary Benton, HRRA's secretary.
Lie 5
“Following our approach to the council, Ms Eason was contacted by the council officer to whom the initial approach had been made, (Simon Hubbard) who explained the contents of the letter Mr Broadhurst had sent to him which questioned if it was proper for the council to consider our request. We then received a letter from the council saying that the request was denied.”
The Truth
The solicitor we consulted advised us that Mr Hubbard had no justification whatsoever for disclosing our letter . Why Mr Hubbard behaved as alleged we do not know, but it is a fact that our letter in no way whatsoever questioned if it was proper as the trustees alleged for the council to consider Julie Eason's request. We were told in a letter from Neil Dart, another senior council officer the Council could not have considered Julie Eason’s request because to do so would be counter to Council policy, and Mary Benton, HRRA's secretary had acknowledged the receipt of a copy the letter with other letters she had requested in September 2012 when the so-called investigation into the valid complaints about Julie Eason and Dave Burke had been made.
Defamatory allegations made by Dave Burke (HRRA’s chair)
HRRA Lie 6
“Mr Burke, then chair of the committee, wrote to Mr Broadhurst (after Julie Eason had told him about our letter to Mr Hubbard) to ask why he had written to the council which we saw as an act that essentially undermined the fund-raising strategy the committee had agreed. “
The Truth
Dave Burke did not write to Paul and ask why he had written to the Council, which he did after being told by Julie Eason that her request had been rejected, he alleged that our letter was responsible for the rejection along with two other untrue allegations, yet as we have previously stated letters from the Council prove that Julie Eason was categorically told that her request was rejected because no new bookings of any kind were being accepted.
Dave Burke had also alleged that our letter implied there were splits within HRRA and between HRRA and the Helpline and he regarded this as damaging. It was apparently not considered sufficiently malicious and harmful just to fabricate the allegation that our letter had caused Julie Eason's request to be rejected and so two other untrue allegations had been fabricated.
The solicitor we consulted had written to Dave Burke and informed him that his three allegations were untrue and defamatory, and requested that he withdraw them and apologise for having made them but he had refused to do so.
Our letter to Mr Hubbard made clear that it was written because we were enquiring if it would be possible to switch our booking for the Stade Hall to St. Mary’s. In no way whatsoever can it be truthfully claimed that the letter “essentially undermined the fund-raising strategy the committee had agreed” and for the following reasons. 1. The committee had not agreed during the strategy day to Julie Eason making a request for a free hire of St. Mary’s because Julie Eason's email of August 17th is proof that she had not at that time been advised by a fund-raiser to make the request. 2. Julie Eason only mentioned that she intended making a request for St. Mary’s in her email of August 17th, and on the 18th, she stated in another email that she had already made a request. There was no opportunity whatsoever for the committee to have considered the matter unless yet again a clandestine discussion took place by a clique within the committee as had occurred previously when decisions such as appointing Julie Eason as a co-chair had been made
HRRA Lie 7
“(Dave Burke) emailed Secretary of the Gay Helpline and presumably aware of a letter purported to be written on behalf of that organisation, hoping to resolve the matter. Mr Broadhurst claims that this constitutes libel which we strongly refute.”
The Truth
The eight trustees were fully aware that a solicitor, not Paul, had informed Dave Burke in a letter that his allegations were defamatory. We were assured by the solicitor we consulted that we had every right to have written to the council in the terms in which we had and we were later advised that our letter categorically did not "purport to have been written on behalf of the Helpline", it indisputably was on behalf of the Helpline. Paul has not claimed that Dave Burke’s allegations constituted libel, and the trustees know this full well. HRRA’s trustees were aware that Dave Burke had received the solicitor’s letter and that he had been told by the solicitor that his three allegations were defamatory but they made no mention of this anywhere in their defence statement
HRRA's Investigation into our complaints of gross misconduct
Acting on advice we received from Steve Manwaring, the Director of HRRA we made a formal complaint to HRRA’s trustees of gross misconduct by Julie Eason & Dave Burke and supplied at the request of the investigating panel consisting of Mary Benton, Gary Rolfe, and Barbara Martin a copy of our letter to Simon Hubbard together with copies of two letters we received from him and one from Neil Dart, another senior Council officer.
HRRA Lie 8
“The investigating committee sought his (Steve Manwaring, Director of Hastings Voluntary Action) advice throughout the complaints investigation) process as to what constituted best practices in complaints handling, and followed this. They considered evidence, obtained documents where these were relevant. The panel concluded that both Ms Eason and Mr Burke acted reasonably and within their remit as trustee and chair of HRRA, and found the complaint was not upheld. They reported to the whole committee and Mr Broadhurst.”
The Truth
The investigating panel had disregarded the letters from the council proving that Julie Eason’s request was rejected because no new bookings of any kind were being accepted and that she had categorically been told this. They were aware that a solicitor the Helpline was forced to consult had written to Dave Burke informing him that his three allegations were untrue and defamatory. Any investigation that disregards incontrovertible proof of the validity of a complaint that has been made, which was the case in this instance, can truthfully be described as a sham, and which HRRA’s investigation indisputably was. The comment that the investigating panel “reported to the whole committee" is a lie because by the eight trustees own admission in their defence statement two trustees were deliberately denied any information at all concerning the dispute.
When our complaints were rejected Mr Manwaring advised us that we had the right to appeal, but the trustees refused to allow us to do so. Mr Manwaring subsequently offered to act as a mediator, and both the Helpline and HRRA agreed to mediation but HRRA then failed to cooperate and withdrew from the process. The trustees lied extensively in their defence about the mediation, and this will be dealt with later in this statement.
The eight defendants’ untrue allegation of defamation by Paul Broadhurst. our chairman
HRRA Lie 9
“The defendant have not made defamatory statements about the claimant. This in marked contrast to the conduct of the claimant.”
The Truth
The eight trustees knew full well that a solicitor had written a letter to Dave Burke informing him that the three allegations he had made in his emails were untrue and defamatory. At no time has Paul ever made any defamatory allegations whatsoever about any trustee of HRRA.
HRRA's untrue allegations concerning Simon Hubbard
HRRA Lie 10
“The council officer (Simon Hubbard) who had indicated an intention to try and support our entirely reasonable request, was also receiving prolific correspondence from the complainant.”
The Truth.
This allegation by the trustees is yet another lie. Mr Hubbard received only three letters, but the number of the letters we wrote to him is irrelevant to HRRA’s defence and if a council employee made any disclosure to a trustee of HRRA that Mr Hubbard had received correspondence from us they had no right whatsoever to have done so.
Mr Hubbard's letters to us are proof that he had categorically not indicated to Julie Eason any intention whatsoever to support her request.
Mediation
The court expects parties to a dispute to attempt to resolve a claim without the need for a court hearing, and both parties to the claim were made aware of this by the court at the outset of the claim. Had the claim proceeded, the court mediation service would have contacted both parties, which the eight trustees were made aware of by the court, and they were also informed that it would take the form of mediation by phone, not 'face to face' meetings.
Steve Manwaring, the Director of Hastings Voluntary Action had made an offer both to the Helpline and to HRRA to act as a mediator several months before the summonses were issued and his offer was was accepted by both parties. it became evident though that HRRA had no intention of co-operating. Co-operation would have required HRRA to be truthful about what Julie Eason had been told when her request for the free of St. Mary-in-the-Castle was rejected.
The following untrue allegations concerning mediation were made by the eight defendants in their defence submission.
HRRA Lie 12
"Mr Manwaring attempted to bring the parties together at mediation, but despite a willingness from HRRA trustees to sit down and discuss, this was not shared by the complainant who made it clear he was open to shuttle diplomacy but not sitting down with HRRA. After several months of this process getting nowhere, Mr Manwaring advised HRRA that he was no longer willing to continue with this process as he could not see common ground on which to resolve the dispute, nor did he believe that Mr Broadhurst was seeing mediation as an attempt to resolve the complaint, as he was discussing the complaint openly with a wide number of key figures in the community, whilst demanding that HRRA did not discuss the matter with others. In Mr Manwaring’s view, he did not see a potential resolution to the dispute being achieved through mediation.”
The Truth
Once again, the trustees lied with extreme malice. Mr Manwaring told Roger, the Helpline secretary, when he offered to mediate, that he was aware that Paul was very ill, and he said he considered it inappropriate for him to participate in the mediation at that time, and they mutually agreed that Roger would participate.
Roger subsequently received an email from Mr Manwaring in which he said that he had made three emailed requests to Dave Burke to attend a meeting and had received no replies. Had Dave Burke attended a meeting he would have been required to state exactly what Julie Eason had said to him following the rejection of her request for a free hire of St. Mary’s, and he had been made aware of this.
Paul made no demand whatsoever to HRRA that they did not discuss the matter with others, it is not credible that he did so because he had done nothing wrong, and he was not, as alleged, discussing the matter with anyone except for stating as he had every right to do given the untrue, extremely malicious and defamatory allegations made about him that were freely circulating in the public domain and had already trashed his reputation that he had been the victim of lies and considerable malice.
The following email sent from Mary Benton, HRRA secretary, to Paul on 11 January is indisputable evidence that HRRA was responsible for the termination of mediation-
“It is now felt by the committee that mediation is unlikely to provide a satisfactory outcome and therefore we no longer wish to be involved in such action. As far as we are concerned, this matter is now concluded, and we will no longer be responding to any other correspondence on this subject."
We have an email sent on January 17th from Mr Manwaring to Roger in which he confirms that Mary Benton, HRRA’s secretary, had informed him that HRRA was withdrawing from mediation..
HRRA Lie 13
“Despite our own endeavours to keep the matter private, to protect Mr Broadhurst’s reputation at his request this was not reciprocal, and Mr Broadhurst was undermining our organisation.
The Truth.
No request was ever made by Paul to keep the matter private; he had no reason to do so because he had done nothing wrong; his reputation and the Helpline’s had been deliberately trashed by HRRA lies, and the allegation that he was undermining HRRA is yet another one.
HRRA Lie 14
“We feel genuinely sorry that someone who was a trustee of our organisation has done so much damage to it, during the past twelve months.”
The Truth.
Paul has in no way whatsoever caused HRRA to suffer any “damage", at any time. The allegation is both extremely malicious, and vindictive, and we believe it along with numerous other allegations made by HRRA trustees in their joint defence to be defamatory.
HRRA Lie 15
“The defendants deny that they have breached a duty of care to the Complainant as alleged. The defendants deny that a duty of care exists."
"The Defendants have at all material times acted reasonably as trustees.”
The Truth.
A duty of care is a legal obligation that each of HRRA's trustees indisputably owes to each of their members. The defendants’ actions prior to the court claim, including Dave Burke’s defamatory allegations, his refusal to retract and apologise for having made them as requested by the solicitor we consulted, and the trustees untrue allegations made throughout their defence submission are proof that they have acted with malice and vindictiveness over a prolonged period. They have categorically not acted as they have alleged “at all material times reasonably as trustees", and it is a fact that they deliberately breached their duty of care with the sham investigation carried out by Mary Benton, Gary Rolfe, and Barbara Martin which alleged that both Julie Eason and Dave Burke had acted within their remits as trustees when incontrovertible proof had been supplied to them that they had categorically not acted reasonably as trustees, but with considerable malice.
May 2013
"Mr Broadhurst wrote to the committee after seeing the minutes of the strategy day, to try to persuade us not to contact the council. Mr Broadhurst stated his view that we should not approach the council, which the rest of the committee disagreed with.”
.
Lie 1
“The defendants deny that they have breached a duty of care to the Complainant as alleged. The defendants deny that a duty of care exists."
"Even if such a duty of care exists the Defendants deny they are in breach of a duty of care."
"The defendants have at all material times acted reasonably as trustees."
The Truth
A duty of care is a legal obligation that each of HRRA's trustees indisputably owe and to each of their members., of which Paul is one. The defendants’ actions prior to the court claim, including Dave Burke’s defamatory allegations, his refusal to retract and apologise for having made them as requested by the solicitor we consulted, and the trustees untrue allegations made throughout their defence submission are proof that they have acted with malice and vindictiveness over a prolonged period. They have categorically not acted as they have alleged “at all material times reasonably as trustees", and it is a fact that they deliberately breached their duty of care with the sham investigation carried out by Mary Benton, Gary Rolfe, and Barbara Martin which alleged that both Julie Eason and Dave Burke had acted within their remits as trustees when incontrovertible proof had been supplied to them that they had categorically not acted reasonably as trustees, but with considerable malice.
Lie 2
"The Defendants deny being involved in a campaign of smears and lies against the Claimant as alleged...have not made defamatory statements about the Claimant."
The Truth
Dave Burke untruthfully alleged in an email that Paul had written a letter to Hastings Borough Council "in such terms" that Julie Eason's request for the free use of St. Mary-in-the-Castle had been rejected and he further falsely alleged that the letter implied splits within HRRA and between HRRA and the Helpline. After these allegations entered the public domain we consulted a solicitor who wrote to Dave Burke informing him that his allegations were untrue and defamatory and requesting him to retract and apologise for them but he refused to do so. All eight of the trustees are aware of what occurred.
Lie 3
"The committee held a strategy day and decided at that strategy day to hold a fund-raising event. We consulted an events organiser, who advised us that we should seek to secure a public building for this event, in order that we could retain the bar receipts. Ms Eason one of the trustees at that time, approached a council officer that she knows vaguel. We requested the free use of a public building, and were informed the officer approached was not responsible for the building but he signalled a willingness to try and support this request, which we believe is an entirely proper thing to do."
The Truth
In her email message in which she gave an account of the conversation that she had had with the council officer referred to, who is Simon Hubbard, Julie Eason had been extremely economical with the truth. She said that Mr Hubbard had told he thought her request stood a good chance of being accepted but the reality was that he was totally unaware of the council's hire policy, he had no control over bookings, and he had asked Julie Eason to put her request in writing, which she had done, which was so that he could seek advice from a colleague who dealt with bookings. It is a fact that Julie Eason had made her request to the wrong person. The advice Mr Hubbard was given by his colleaguewas that the council was not accepting any new bookings and the request was rejected for that reason and no other.
The claim that an events organiser had advised securing a public building in order to retain the bar receipts conflicts with comments in another email from Julie Eason to each of HRRA's trustees in which she stated that if her request was rejected that as she had what she described as a good personal relationship with the chief executive of the county council she could ask for the use of the library, and the town hall, neither of which has a bar.
Lie 4
"Mr Broadhurst wrote to the committee after seeing the minutes of the strategy day, to try and perduadeus not to contact the council. He was, we understand, involved in the committe for the bukilding in question, which as as he rightly states was being put out to tender.Despie this, the council did take a limited number of bookingd. Mr Broadhurst stated his view that we shoukd not approach the council, which the rest of the committe diadgreed with."
The Truth
Each of the comments is untrue. No minutes of the strategy day were issued, only notes, and the notes contained no mention of contacting the council because the advice to do so had not been given at that time. Julie Eason only mentioned that she had received the advice to contact the council a week later.
Paul was not as alleged involved in "a committee for the building" and it was not a that stage being put out to to tender because the council had not made a decision about the building's future, the decision to seek tenders for the running of the building was not made until a later council meeting.The council was categorically not taking any new bookings, which Julie Eason was, and the letters previously reproduced pro ve that Julie Eason was catergortically told this was the reason for the rejection of her request.
The committee did not disagree that a request should be made to the council; no comments regarding the request that Paul was aware of were ever made.
Lie 5
"Following our approach to the council, Ms Eason was contacted by the council officer (Simon Hubbard) to whom the initial approach had been made, who explained the contents of the letter Mr Broadhurst had sent him, which questioned whether it was proper for the council to consider our request. The Claimant's letter asks if HRRA is receiving preferential treatment and if so the perceived justification for making HRRA a special case. We then received a letter from the council saying that the request was denied. Mr Burke, then Chair of the committee wrote to Mr Broadhurst to ask why he had written to the Council which we saw as an act that the essentially undermined the fundraising strategy the committee had agreed. Mr Broadhurst claims that this constitutes libel, which we strongly refute".
The Truth
Paul has not at any time claimed that he was sent an email by Dave Burke that constitutes libel.
We were advised by our solicitor that there was absolutely no justification whatsoever for the contents of our letter to have been disclosed. We had asked in the letter why Julie Eason had as she claimed to have been told her request "stood a good chance of being accepted" when it was common knowledge that requests to hire and pay for use of the building were being rejected and yet HRRA's request for the free use seemed likely to be accepted which would certainly be preferential treatment. We also made clear that we wanted if at all possible to switch the booking we had made the following month to St. Mary-in-the-Castle .
Julie Eason was categorically told that her request was rejected because it was for a new booking and no such requests were being accepted. We have been assured in letters from the council that our letter to Mr Hubbard was not in any way responsible for the rejection and it was impossible for it to have that consequence.
Dave Burke did not make enquiries to Paul as to why he had written to the council he falsely alleged in an email to Roger, our secretary that the letter was responsible for the claim being rejected and that it implied splits within HRRA and between HRRA and the Helpline.
Lie 6
“Following our approach to the council, Ms Eason was contacted by the council officer to whom the initial approach had been made, (Simon Hubbard) who explained the contents of the letter Mr Broadhurst had sent to him which questioned if it was proper for the council to consider our request. We then received a letter from the council saying that the request was denied.”
The Truth
The solicitor we consulted advised us that Mr Hubbard had no justification whatsoever for disclosing our letter to Julie Eason. Why he behaved as he did we do not know, but it is a fact that our letter in no way whatsoever questioned if it was proper as the trustees alleged for the council to consider Julie Eason's request. We had been told in a letter the Council could not consider Julie Eason’s request because to do so would be counter to Council policy, and Mary Benton, HRRA's secretary had acknowledged the receipt of a copy of it and of other letters she had requested in September 2012 when the so-called investigation into the valid complaints about Julie Eason and Dave Burke had been made
Nowhere in their six-page defence statement did the trustees have the honesty to admit they had seen the correspondence , and implied, whereas previously they had untruthfully alleged, that our letter was responsible for the rejection. They now lied by alleging that they regarded our letter as "undermining" their request when they were fully aware it had not and could not have done so.
Lie 7
“Mr Burke, then chair of the committee, wrote to Mr Broadhurst (after Julie Eason had told him about our letter to Mr Hubbard) to ask why he had written to the council which we saw as an act that essentially undermined the fund-raising strategy the committee had agreed. “
The Truth
Dave Burke did not write to Paul and ask why he had written to the Council, which he did after being told by Julie Eason that her request had been rejected, he alleged that our letter was responsible for the rejection along with two other untrue allegations, yet as we have previously stated letters from the Council prove that Julie Eason was categorically told that her request was rejected because no new bookings of any kind were being accepted. Dave Burke had also alleged that our letter implied there were splits within HRRA and between HRRA and the Helpline and he regarded this as damaging. It was apparently not considered sufficiently malicious and harmful just to fabricate the allegation that our letter had caused Julie Eason's request to be rejected and so two other untrue allegations had been fabricated.
The solicitor we consulted had written to Dave Burke and informed him that his three allegations were untrue and defamatory, and requested that he withdraw them and apologise for having made them but he had refused to do so.
Our letter to Mr Hubbard made clear that it was written because we were enquiring if it would be possible to switch our booking for the Stade Hall to St. Mary’s. In no way whatsoever can it be truthfully claimed that the letter “essentially undermined the fund-raising strategy the committee had agreed” and for the following reasons. 1. The committee had not agreed during the strategy day to Julie Eason making a request for a free hire of St. Mary’s because Julie Eason's email of August 17th is proof that she had not at that time been advised by a fund-raiser to make the request. 2. Julie Eason only mentioned that she intended making a request for St. Mary’s in her email of August 17th, and on the 18th, she stated in another email that she had already made a request. There was no opportunity whatsoever for the committee to have considered the matter unless yet again a clandestine discussion took place by a clique within the committee as had occurred previously when decisions such as appointing Julie Eason as a co-chair had been made
Lie 8
“(Dave Burke) emailed Secretary of the Gay Helpline and presumably aware of a letter purported to be written on behalf of that organisation, hoping to resolve the matter. Mr Broadhurst claims that this constitutes libel which we strongly refute.”
The Truth
The eight trustees were fully aware that a solicitor, not Paul, had informed Dave Burke in a letter that his allegations were defamatory. We were assured by the solicitor we consulted that we had every right to have written to the council in the terms in which we had and we were later advised that our letter categorically did not purport to have been written on behalf of the Helpline, it indisputably was on behalf of the Helpline. Paul has not claimed that Dave Burke’s allegations constituted libel, and the trustees know this full well. HRRA’s trustees were aware that Dave Burke had received the solicitor’s letter and that he had been told by the solicitor that his three allegations were defamatory but they made no mention of this anywhere in their defence statement
Acting on advice we received from Steve Manwaring, the Director of HRRA we made a formal complaint to HRRA’s trustees of gross misconduct by Julie Eason & Dave Burke and supplied at the request of the investigating panel consisting of Mary Benton, Gary Rolfe, and Barbara Martin a copy of our letter to Simon Hubbard together with copies of two letters we received from him and one from Neil Dart, another senior Council officer.
Lie 9
“The investigating committee sought his (Steve Manwaring, Director of Hastings Voluntary Action) advice throughout the complaints investigation) process as to what constituted best practices in complaints handling, and followed this. They considered evidence, obtained documents where these were relevant. The panel concluded that both Ms Eason and Mr Burke acted reasonably and within their remit as trustee and chair of HRRA, and found the complaint was not upheld. They reported to the whole committee and Mr Broadhurst.”
The Truth
The investigating panel had disregarded the letters from the council proving that Julie Eason’s request was rejected because no new bookings of any kind were being accepted and that she had categorically been told this. They were aware that a solicitor the Helpline was forced to consult had written to Dave Burke informing him that his three allegations were untrue and defamatory. Any investigation that disregards incontrovertible proof of the validity of a complaint that has been made, which was the case in this instance, can truthfully be described as a sham, and which HRRA’s investigation indisputably was. The comment that the investigating panel “reported to the whole committee" is a lie because by the eight trustees own admission in their defence statement two trustees were deliberately denied any information at all concerning the dispute.
When our complaints were rejected Mr Manwaring advised us that we had the right to appeal, but the trustees refused to allow us to do so. Mr Manwaring subsequently offered to act as a mediator, and both the Helpline and HRRA agreed to mediation but HRRA then failed to cooperate and withdrew from the process. The trustees lied extensively in their defence about the mediation, and this will be dealt with later in this statement.
Lie 10
“The defendant have not made defamatory statements about the claimant. This in marked contrast to the conduct of the claimant.”
The Truth
The eight trustees knew full well that a solicitor had written a letter to Dave Burke informing him that the three allegations he had made in his emails were untrue and defamatory. At no time has Paul ever made any defamatory allegations whatsoever about any trustee of HRRA.
Lie 11
“The council officer (Simon Hubbard) who had indicated an intention to try and support our entirely reasonable request, was also receiving prolific correspondence from the complainant.”
The Truth.
This allegation by the trustees is yet another lie. Mr Hubbard received only three letters, but the number of the letters we wrote to him is irrelevant to HRRA’s defence and if a council employee made any disclosure to a trustee of HRRA that Mr Hubbard had received correspondence from us they had no right whatsoever to have done so.
Mr Hubbard's letters to us are proof that he had categorically not indicated to Julie Eason any intention whatsoever to support her request.
The court expects parties to a dispute to attempt to resolve a claim without the need for a court hearing, and both parties to the claim were made aware of this by the court at the outset of the claim. Had the claim proceeded, the court mediation service would have contacted both parties, which the eight trustees were made aware of by the court, and they were also informed that it would take the form of mediation by phone, not 'face to face' meetings.
Steve Manwaring, the Director of Hastings Voluntary Action had made an offer both to the Helpline and to HRRA to act as a mediator several months before the summonses were issued and his offer was was accepted by both parties. it became evident though that HRRA had no intention of co-operating. Co-operation would have required HRRA to be truthful about what Julie Eason had been told when her request for the free of St. Mary-in-the-Castle was rejected.
Lie 12
"Mr Manwaring attempted to bring the parties together at mediation, but despite a willingness from HRRA trustees to sit down and discuss, this was not shared by the complainant who made it clear he was open to shuttle diplomacy but not sitting down with HRRA. After several months of this process getting nowhere, Mr Manwaring advised HRRA that he was no longer willing to continue with this process as he could not see common ground on which to resolve the dispute, nor did he believe that Mr Broadhurst was seeing mediation as an attempt to resolve the complaint, as he was discussing the complaint openly with a wide number of key figures in the community, whilst demanding that HRRA did not discuss the matter with others. In Mr Manwaring’s view, he did not see a potential resolution to the dispute being achieved through mediation.”
The Truth
Once again, the trustees lied with extreme malice. Mr Manwaring told Roger, the Helpline secretary, when he offered to mediate, that he was aware that Paul was very ill, and he said he considered it inappropriate for him to participate in the mediation at that time, and they mutually agreed that Roger would participate.
Roger subsequently received an email from Mr Manwaring in which he said that he had made three emailed requests to Dave Burke to attend a meeting and had received no replies. Had Dave Burke attended a meeting he would have been required to state exactly what Julie Eason had said to him following the rejection of her request for a free hire of St. Mary’s, and he had been made aware of this.
Paul made no demand whatsoever to HRRA that they did not discuss the matter with others, it is not credible that he did so because he had done nothing wrong, and he was not, as alleged, discussing the matter with anyone except for stating as he had every right to do given the untrue, extremely malicious and defamatory allegations made about him that were freely circulating in the public domain and had already trashed his reputation that he had been the victim of lies and considerable malice.
The following email sent from Mary Benton, HRRA secretary, to Paul on 11 January is indisputable evidence that HRRA was responsible for the termination of mediation -
“It is now felt by the committee that mediation is unlikely to provide a satisfactory outcome and therefore we no longer wish to be involved in such action. As far as we are concerned, this matter is now concluded, and we will no longer be responding to any other correspondence on this subject."
We have an email sent on January 17th from Mr Manwaring to Roger in which he confirms that Mary Benton, HRRA’s secretary, had informed him that HRRA was withdrawing from mediation. .
Lie 13
“Despite our own endeavours to keep the matter private, to protect Mr Broadhurst’s reputation at his request this was not reciprocal, and Mr Broadhurst was undermining our organisation.
The Truth.
No request was ever made by Paul to keep the matter private; he had no reason to do so because he had done nothing wrong; his reputation and the Helpline’s had been deliberately trashed by HRRA lies, and the allegation that he was undermining HRRA is yet another one.
Lie 14
“We feel genuinely sorry that someone who was a trustee of our organisation has done so much damage to it, during the past twelve months.”
The Truth.
Paul has in no way whatsoever caused HRRA to suffer any “damage", at any time. The allegation is both extremely malicious, and vindictive, and we believe it along with numerous other allegations made by HRRA trustees in their joint defence to be defamatory.
May 2013
We later received a letter from Neil Dart, Director of Corporate Services.in which he wrote -
“I can categorically say that that your letter of 19 August did not lose HRRA the opportunity to have the completely free use of St. Mary in the Castle for a social fundraising event. The reason free use was refused is that it would have been counter to Council policies it is also the case that the Council would seek to treat all organisations equally. As Mr Hubbard rightly points out, the control of bookings does not lie with him. He rightly referred the matter to the Council officer with operational responsibility for St. Mary in the Castle to obtain guidance and was given the decision that was referred back to HRRA.”
31
By this time Dave Burke's untrue allegations, which the three letters from the council proved to be untrue, had entered the public domain, which we consider to have been deliberate, and caused us significant harm so we had no alternative other than to consult a solicitor to whom we showed copies of our letters to the council and the replies we had received.
32
The solicitor's advice was that Dave Burke's untrue allegations were defamatory and they wrote and informed him of the fact and requested that he retract his allegations and apologise for having made them but he refused to do so claiming he had been told, but without stating by whom, he had not been defamatory and he said that it was up to what he described as "others " if his allegations about splits gained ground.
33
Dave Burke had been advised by our solicitor to seek independent legal advice if had any doubts as to his legal position but it is inconceivable that a solicitor could have given him the advice he claimed to have received. By his own admission the untrue allegations he had made were about a letter that he had not even seen and had been told about by Julie Eason.
34
We would mention that at no time whatsoever has Julie Eason ever acknowledged that she was told that her request was rejected because no new bookings were being accepted, including in the defence to the court claim. On the contrary, she has persisted in maliciously alleging and implying that our letter was to blame and untruthfully alleged that Paul has caused significant harm to HRRA in a variety of ways when she knows full well he has not with the reality being that both he and the Helpline have been the victims of her malice and that of the other trustees who have acted in association with her and condoned her gross misconduct by rejecting formal complaints made to them and subsequently acted in association with her by lying throughout their joint defence to the court claim.
35
We believe it fair comment to say that Julie Eason has anger management problems. These are her own comments about the harm words can cause extracted from an open letter that she wrote to the journalist Julie Birchill after Ms Birchill had written a newspaper article that incurred Julie Eason’s wrath. The open letter was published on HRRA’s website on 30 January 2013, and includes the following -
“I never believed the sticks and stones mantra, words can, and do hurt. The beauty of yours however were that they so clearly resembled a teenage rant, a vile outpouring of vitriol from a woman clearly long overdue for rehab.”
Julie Eason admitted she had always believed "words can and do hurt" , and she was therefore fully aware that the untruthful and malicious allegations about the consequences for HRRA that were made about our letter and her other allegations would cause significant harm.
36
Given that Julie Eason has had ambitions to become Hastings & Rye’s Member of Parliament and participated in the process by the local Labour party to be selected as their Prospective Parliamentary Candidate we believe it is in the public interest that her conduct is made public.
37
Acting on advice we received from Steve Manwaring, the Director of Hastings Voluntary Action that we had the right to make a formal complaint to HRRA's trustees about the conduct of Julie Eason and Dave Burke we did so. Mary Benton, Gary Rolfe, and Barbara Martin were then appointed by the other trustees to investigate our complaints. At Mary Benton's request we provided copies of all the correspondence exchanged with the council and reproduced in this statement which provided incontrovertible proof that our letter of enquiry to Mr Hubbard was not responsible for Julie Eason's request for St. Mary's being rejected, and it was impossible for it to have been. The three investigating trustees were also aware that Dave Burke had been informed by a solicitor that his allegations that our letter was responsible along with other allegations he had made were untrue and defamatory. Mary Benton acknowledged receipt of the documentation which we later realised had been completely disregarded.
38
When Julie Eason became aware that we had made a formal complaint, she reacted with fury by sending Paul a truly venomous email in which she falsely alleged Paul had significantly harmed HRRA in several ways, including writing to Mr Hubbard. The sending of this email is evidence that Julie Eason can have an unacceptable tendency to react with fury when she feels she has been crossed, which we believe to have motivated her untrue allegations about our letter to Mr Hubbard. We showed the email to our solicitor who was shocked by it and said that it must have been very unpleasant for Paul to have had to read.
39
The investigation was protracted for several months at the end of which the following message was sent to Paul in an email by Mary Benton, HRRA's secretary -
"DECISION OF HRRA INVESTIGATORY PANEL RELATING TO FORMAL COMPLAINT RAISED BY PAUL BROADHURST
The panel of HRRA trustees were appointed by the full committee to consider a formal complaint submitted by Paul Broadhurst and investigate all relevant issues relating to this. Having completed the investigation and completed their work the panel’s decision is as follows: - We find that the complaint is not upheld and having examined all relevant factors we find that both Julie and Dave acted reasonably and within their remit as trustee and chair of HRRA".
40
We had placed our trust in HRRA to conduct a fair and impartial investigation, but they had abused the trust placed in them by ignoring the incontrovertible evidence of gross misconduct with which they had been supplied. It is categorically not within the remit of a trustee to maliciously lie and make defamatory allegations, to send malicious emails, and for the trustees to assert that it is is almost beyond belief.
We regard as we believe any right minded person would also do that the investigation was not impartial, that it was biased in favour of Julie Eason and Dave Burke, and that it can be truthfully described as a sham.
41
We were advised by Mr Manwaring the Director of HVA following the rejection of our valid complaints about Julie Eason and Dave Burke that we had the right to appeal against HRRA's rejection of the complaints, but HRRA refused to allow us to do so.
42
Mr Manwaring then agreed to act as a mediator between the Helpline and HRRA which both sides accepted. Paul’s health, as we previously stated had suffered considerably as a direct consequence of the stress HRRA’s malicious and untrue allegations about him had caused him to suffer. Mr Manwaring was aware that Paul was very ill, and he told Roger, our secretary that in light of Paul’s extremely poor health he did not consider it appropriate for him to participate in the mediation at that time, and it was agreed that Roger would attend meetings, which he confirmed he would do in an email he sent to Mr Manwaring on November 12th 2012.
43
Roger then received an email from Mr Manwaring in which he was asked if if there were any questions that he wished him to put to Dave Burke prior to a meeting and Roger replied and said that he would like Dave Burke to state what he had been told by Julie Eason prior to him sending the emails in which he had untruthfully alleged that our letter was responsible for Julie Eason's request for St. Mary-in-the-Castle being rejected. Mr Manwaring then confirmed that he had forwarded Roger's request to Dave Burke, and later stated in an email that he had received no response to his enquiry and to three other requests regarding making arrangements for him to attend a meeting.
44
Two months later, on 11th January 2013 Mary Benton wrote in an email to Paul -
“It is now felt by the committee that mediation is unlikely to provide a satisfactory outcome and therefore we no longer wish to be involved in such action. As far as we are concerned, this matter is now concluded, and we will no longer be responding to any other correspondence on this subject”.
45
Mary Benton's comment that the decision was that of the committee was not true, it was a decision of a clique within the committee because as we discovered after the court summonses had been served two committee members who are not amongst the eight named at the beginning of this statement had been denied all knowledge of the dispute despite requesting it.
46
Roger asked Mr Manwaring if he had been told by HRRA that they were withdrawing from mediation, and he said that he had, and that there was nothing more that he could because he had received no response at all to the three emails he had sent to Dave Burke inviting him to attend a mediation meeting.
47
HRRA's eight trustees lied in their joint defence statement by alleging that Mr Manwaring had informed them that Paul had not co-operated with the mediation process because he was unwilling to sit down with them and that was the reason he said there was nothing that he could do. The full text of HRRA's allegations will be detailed later.
48
Paul’s reputation had been deliberately and maliciously trashed, as had the Helpline’s, and Paul’s health severely a nd provably affected by the stress of unsuccessfully endeavouring for a lengthy period to clear his name. We decided given HRRA’s unwillingness to participate in mediation that the only way forward to compel them to be truthful and recover monies we had lost was to commence a court claim to the trustees for compensation and damages.
49
Neither the Helpline nor HRRA have a legal existence, so if court summonses needed to be issued, we were advised that they should be taken out by Paul because he had been the victim of the most malice, suffered the most harm, and with the summonses issued on an individual basis against each of the ten trustees of HRRA.
50
We made individual, formal written claims to HRRA’s trustees in March 2013 seeking damages, and informed them that if it were rejected, they would be sued. The claim was rejected, and each of HRRA’s ten trustees were served with court summonses. At the time the summonses were issued HRRA had two trustees in addition to the eight who submitted a joint defence. The two trustees were elected at an AGM just a few weeks after the dispute leading to the court claim begun, but all knowledge of the dispute was deliberately withheld from them by the other eight trustees although we were only made aware of this by one of the excluded trustees after the summonses were issued.
51
One of the two trustees informed us after the summonses were served that they had been aware that a dispute of some kind existed, but not its nature, and they were not responsible for what took place because they were excluded whenever the dispute was discussed at meetings. This is a fact that the eight trustees admitted to in their joint defence. They wrote, “We had elected two new members at our AGM, to the committee, who asked to be fully briefed on this matter. We refused this request”. No explanation was given.
52
The dispute had begun in August 2012 and the AGM referred to was in the following October with the summonses not being taken out until the following April. Information had therefore been deliberately withheld from the two trustees for a lengthy period.
53
We were advised by a solicitor after they had read the defence statement that we should inform the court before being notified of the hearing date that the eight trustees had conspired to pervert the course of justice by deliberately lying in their defence statement. The solicitor also offered after reading the joint defence submission to present the claim at the court hearing because Paul was still extremely ill and unable to do so.
54
Obtaining documentary evidence that the eight trustees had lied took some time to obtain, and unfortunately our letter to the court crossed in the post with one from the court stating that a judge in the Hastings County Court where the claim was to be heard had said the court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the claim because it involved defamation of character (by Dave Burke) even though damages for defamation were not sought as part of the claim, and therefore the claim could not proceed to a hearing. We were subsequently informed that as the claim could not proceed that no action could be taken by the court in respect of the numerous untrue allegations in the joint defence statement.
Fifteen of the eight trustees' malicious, untrue allegations
copied from their defence statement now follow
Julie Eason’s request for the free use of St. Mary-in-the-Castle
Lie 1
"During the Claimant's tenure as part of the committee, the committee held a strategy day. The organisation celebrates its 10th anniversary this year, and decided at that strategy day (which the claimant did not attend) to try to hold a fund-raising event to both celebrate the anniversary and raise some core funds."
The Truth
The notes of the strategy day (no minutes were issued) make no mention whatsoever that a decision was made to hold a fund-raising event and to celebrate the tenth anniversary.
Lie 2
We consulted an events organiser, who advised us that that we should seek to secure a public building for this event, in order that we could retain the bar receipts, which we were advised was the simplest and most secure way to ensure the event was profitable.
The Truth
The committee did not consult an events organiser, Julie Eason took it upon herself after the strategy day to organise a fund-raising event, and the rest of the committee only became aware of this when she sent an email on August in which she said that she had received advice from a friend who was an events organiser and who had “...suggested that the first thing to do is to sweet talk the council into giving us St Marys in the Castle for free, so I am going to have a word with Simon Hubbard at the council and canvass the possibility of that, on a without prejudice basis.”
Lie 3
The trustees wrote in their joint defence Ms Eason one of the trustees of the committee at that time, approached a council officer that she knows vaguely, in a professional l capacity through her work in the Voluntary sector. This is we believe an entirely legitimate cause of action, We requested the free use of a public building (St. Mary-in-the-Castle) and were informed that the officer approached was not responsible for the building, but he signalled a willingness to try and support this request.”
The Truth
The trustees were led by Julie Eason in her email of August to believe that she would be “canvassing the possibility” of HRRA being given the free use of St. Mary-in-the-Castle, not making a request. Paul replied to the email on and advised against making a request because it was common knowledge that the council was rejecting all new requests to hire, which Julie Eason's was, and because he personally knew of potential hirers willing to pay a fee who had had their own requests rejected.
Lie 4
Julie Eason replied to Paul's email, copied her reply to the other trustees, and said that she had already made a request, not the enquiry she had previously claimed that she intended to make, for the free use of St. Mary-in-the-Castle, to Simon Hubbard, a senior council officer. Julie Eason claimed that Mr Hubbard had told her thought her request "stood a good chance of being accepted", and that he is“ canvassing for us”.
The Truth
Julie Eason's comments were extraordinary considering that all other requests were being rejected, but we had no reason at that time to disbelieve her. We wrote to Mr Hubbard and asked for clarification of the council's hire policy because we wished to switch the booking we had already made for our 25th anniversary event from the council-owned Slade Hall to St. Mary-in-the Castle if it was possible to do so.
Note:
In the joint defence submission the trustees alleged that following the receipt of our letter Mr Hubbard had contacted Julie Eason, disclosed the contents of our letter, and her request was then rejected. It was implied that our letter was responsible when the trustees categorically knew that it was not having received copies of our letter to Mr Hubbard, two copies of letters we received from him and one from Neil Dart, another senior council officer. six months prior to the court claim. The letters we received prove Julie Eason’s comments about what she claimed Mr Hubbard to have told her to completely lack credibility. The letters, that we have reproduced at paras x and X, prove that Julie Eason was told that her request was rejected because it was for a new booking, that she was told no new booking requests were being accepted, and that it was impossible for our letter to have had any consequences whatsoever for her request.
The following is an extract from one of Mr Hubbard’s letters which is reproduced in full in para)
“Because the tender process for SMIC is not complete it is impossible to say who a future operator will be. In the interim the Council will honour obligations to a limited number of regular bookings until the end of 2012. It is not possible for a future booking of any kind to be agreed in the circumstances. " Julie Eason’s request, a new one, was categorically rejected for the aforementioned reason.
Regarding the defendants claim that Mr Hubbard “signalled a willingness to try and support this request,” a letter we received from Neil Dart, another senior Council officer (see paragraph 18) states that the Council seeks to treat all organisations equally.
Julie Eason was clearly aware that there was a possibility of her request being rejected because in her second email of August she wrote that if her request was rejected that as she had what she described as "a good personal relationship with the chief executive of the county council" she "could ask for the use of the library and the town hall”
The claim therefore by the trustees in their defence that a bar was essential for the fund-raiser is not credible because Julie Eason had stated, and they had received the email from her, that she could request the use of the library or the town hall for the event neither of which has a bar.
Paul did not and could not have "written to the committee after seeing the minutes of the strategy day to try to persuade the other trustees not to contact the council " as alleged. The notes of the strategy day (minutes were not issued) contain no mention of requesting the free use of St. Mary-in-the-Castle and could not have because the advice to make a request had not been given at the time, and the trustees did not consult an events adviser. Julie Eason stated in her email of August that a friend of hers had advised her to "sweet talk the council into giving us St. Mary's for free", and that was the first mention of such a request.
Julie Eason was clearly aware that there was a possibility of her request being rejected because in her second email of August she wrote that if her request was rejected that as she had what she described as "a good personal relationship with the chief executive of the county council" she "could ask for the use of the library and the town hall. "
In her second email, Julie Eason also said that the event was to be a Victorian-style cabaret with the title "Tipping the Velvet. Neither the library nor the town hall has a bar, and a need to have one to have one was not mentioned in either of the emails.
Although it is alleged that “the rest of the committee disagreed” with Paul’s advice not to request the free use of St. Mary’s, Julie Eason did not state until her email of August 17th that she had been advised by a friend to make the request. Paul advised her not to do because he believed such a request was certain to be rejected, which it subsequently was , and was because no new bookings were being accepted. A fact that was common knowledge. On August 18th , the day after stating that she intended to request the free use of St. Mary-in-the- Castle Julie Eason wrote in an email that she had made a request the previous day. There was therefore no opportunity for the trustees to discuss the request and Paul's comments unless it was done clandestinely and without Paul’s knowledge which had been the case with other decisions.
The officer approached by Julie Eason was Simon Hubbard. Julie Eason alleged in an email that Mr Hubbard had told her he thought her request stood "a very good chance of being accepted" when he could not possibly have known if that was likely or not because as he stated in his letter to us, he was unaware of the Council’s hire policy and for that reason he had asked for the request to be made in writing , which Julie Eason had done, and was so that he could seek advice from a colleague. Mr Hubbard’s letter has already been reproduced with these comments. The advice he said he received was that no new bookings were being accepted, Julie Eason's request was rejected for that reason, she was categorically told that was the reason, but she has been totally unwilling to accept it despite being fully aware that we have three letters from the council stating our letter had played no part whatsoever in the rejection, and it was not possible for it to have done.
The allegations that have been made that our letter was responsible for the rejection are not true, not credible, extremely malicious and defamatory.
HRRA Lie 4
“The building in question (St. Mary’s) “was at that time being put out to tender. Despite this, the council did take a limited number of bookings.”
The Truth
The Council was not accepting any new bookings, which Julie Eason's was, and had not at that time put the building out for tender. A decision to do so was not made until a council meeting held some weeks later. The council’s letters previously reproduced state not only that no new bookings of any kind were being accepted but also that Julie Eason was categorically told this was the reason for the rejection of her request. This being so, each of the allegations made by HRRA that our letter was responsible for the rejection and undermined the request for the free use of St. Mary’s are untrue, and are known by HRRA to be untrue because copies of the Council's letters were provided to Mary Benton, HRRA's secretary.
Lie 5
“Following our approach to the council, Ms Eason was contacted by the council officer to whom the initial approach had been made, (Simon Hubbard) who explained the contents of the letter Mr Broadhurst had sent to him which questioned if it was proper for the council to consider our request. We then received a letter from the council saying that the request was denied.”
The Truth
The solicitor we consulted advised us that Mr Hubbard had no justification whatsoever for disclosing our letter . Why Mr Hubbard behaved as alleged we do not know, but it is a fact that our letter in no way whatsoever questioned if it was proper as the trustees alleged for the council to consider Julie Eason's request. We were told in a letter from Neil Dart, another senior council officer the Council could not have considered Julie Eason’s request because to do so would be counter to Council policy, and Mary Benton, HRRA's secretary had acknowledged the receipt of a copy the letter with other letters she had requested in September 2012 when the so-called investigation into the valid complaints about Julie Eason and Dave Burke had been made.
Defamatory allegations made by Dave Burke (HRRA’s chair)
HRRA Lie 6
“Mr Burke, then chair of the committee, wrote to Mr Broadhurst (after Julie Eason had told him about our letter to Mr Hubbard) to ask why he had written to the council which we saw as an act that essentially undermined the fund-raising strategy the committee had agreed. “
The Truth
Dave Burke did not write to Paul and ask why he had written to the Council, which he did after being told by Julie Eason that her request had been rejected, he alleged that our letter was responsible for the rejection along with two other untrue allegations, yet as we have previously stated letters from the Council prove that Julie Eason was categorically told that her request was rejected because no new bookings of any kind were being accepted.
Dave Burke had also alleged that our letter implied there were splits within HRRA and between HRRA and the Helpline and he regarded this as damaging. It was apparently not considered sufficiently malicious and harmful just to fabricate the allegation that our letter had caused Julie Eason's request to be rejected and so two other untrue allegations had been fabricated.
The solicitor we consulted had written to Dave Burke and informed him that his three allegations were untrue and defamatory, and requested that he withdraw them and apologise for having made them but he had refused to do so.
Our letter to Mr Hubbard made clear that it was written because we were enquiring if it would be possible to switch our booking for the Stade Hall to St. Mary’s. In no way whatsoever can it be truthfully claimed that the letter “essentially undermined the fund-raising strategy the committee had agreed” and for the following reasons. 1. The committee had not agreed during the strategy day to Julie Eason making a request for a free hire of St. Mary’s because Julie Eason's email of August 17th is proof that she had not at that time been advised by a fund-raiser to make the request. 2. Julie Eason only mentioned that she intended making a request for St. Mary’s in her email of August 17th, and on the 18th, she stated in another email that she had already made a request. There was no opportunity whatsoever for the committee to have considered the matter unless yet again a clandestine discussion took place by a clique within the committee as had occurred previously when decisions such as appointing Julie Eason as a co-chair had been made
HRRA Lie 7
“(Dave Burke) emailed Secretary of the Gay Helpline and presumably aware of a letter purported to be written on behalf of that organisation, hoping to resolve the matter. Mr Broadhurst claims that this constitutes libel which we strongly refute.”
The Truth
The eight trustees were fully aware that a solicitor, not Paul, had informed Dave Burke in a letter that his allegations were defamatory. We were assured by the solicitor we consulted that we had every right to have written to the council in the terms in which we had and we were later advised that our letter categorically did not "purport to have been written on behalf of the Helpline", it indisputably was on behalf of the Helpline. Paul has not claimed that Dave Burke’s allegations constituted libel, and the trustees know this full well. HRRA’s trustees were aware that Dave Burke had received the solicitor’s letter and that he had been told by the solicitor that his three allegations were defamatory but they made no mention of this anywhere in their defence statement
HRRA's Investigation into our complaints of gross misconduct
Acting on advice we received from Steve Manwaring, the Director of HRRA we made a formal complaint to HRRA’s trustees of gross misconduct by Julie Eason & Dave Burke and supplied at the request of the investigating panel consisting of Mary Benton, Gary Rolfe, and Barbara Martin a copy of our letter to Simon Hubbard together with copies of two letters we received from him and one from Neil Dart, another senior Council officer.
HRRA Lie 8
“The investigating committee sought his (Steve Manwaring, Director of Hastings Voluntary Action) advice throughout the complaints investigation) process as to what constituted best practices in complaints handling, and followed this. They considered evidence, obtained documents where these were relevant. The panel concluded that both Ms Eason and Mr Burke acted reasonably and within their remit as trustee and chair of HRRA, and found the complaint was not upheld. They reported to the whole committee and Mr Broadhurst.”
The Truth
The investigating panel had disregarded the letters from the council proving that Julie Eason’s request was rejected because no new bookings of any kind were being accepted and that she had categorically been told this. They were aware that a solicitor the Helpline was forced to consult had written to Dave Burke informing him that his three allegations were untrue and defamatory. Any investigation that disregards incontrovertible proof of the validity of a complaint that has been made, which was the case in this instance, can truthfully be described as a sham, and which HRRA’s investigation indisputably was. The comment that the investigating panel “reported to the whole committee" is a lie because by the eight trustees own admission in their defence statement two trustees were deliberately denied any information at all concerning the dispute.
When our complaints were rejected Mr Manwaring advised us that we had the right to appeal, but the trustees refused to allow us to do so. Mr Manwaring subsequently offered to act as a mediator, and both the Helpline and HRRA agreed to mediation but HRRA then failed to cooperate and withdrew from the process. The trustees lied extensively in their defence about the mediation, and this will be dealt with later in this statement.
The eight defendants’ untrue allegation of defamation by Paul Broadhurst. our chairman
HRRA Lie 9
“The defendant have not made defamatory statements about the claimant. This in marked contrast to the conduct of the claimant.”
The Truth
The eight trustees knew full well that a solicitor had written a letter to Dave Burke informing him that the three allegations he had made in his emails were untrue and defamatory. At no time has Paul ever made any defamatory allegations whatsoever about any trustee of HRRA.
HRRA's untrue allegations concerning Simon Hubbard
HRRA Lie 10
“The council officer (Simon Hubbard) who had indicated an intention to try and support our entirely reasonable request, was also receiving prolific correspondence from the complainant.”
The Truth.
This allegation by the trustees is yet another lie. Mr Hubbard received only three letters, but the number of the letters we wrote to him is irrelevant to HRRA’s defence and if a council employee made any disclosure to a trustee of HRRA that Mr Hubbard had received correspondence from us they had no right whatsoever to have done so.
Mr Hubbard's letters to us are proof that he had categorically not indicated to Julie Eason any intention whatsoever to support her request.
Mediation
The court expects parties to a dispute to attempt to resolve a claim without the need for a court hearing, and both parties to the claim were made aware of this by the court at the outset of the claim. Had the claim proceeded, the court mediation service would have contacted both parties, which the eight trustees were made aware of by the court, and they were also informed that it would take the form of mediation by phone, not 'face to face' meetings.
Steve Manwaring, the Director of Hastings Voluntary Action had made an offer both to the Helpline and to HRRA to act as a mediator several months before the summonses were issued and his offer was was accepted by both parties. it became evident though that HRRA had no intention of co-operating. Co-operation would have required HRRA to be truthful about what Julie Eason had been told when her request for the free of St. Mary-in-the-Castle was rejected.
The following untrue allegations concerning mediation were made by the eight defendants in their defence submission.
HRRA Lie 12
"Mr Manwaring attempted to bring the parties together at mediation, but despite a willingness from HRRA trustees to sit down and discuss, this was not shared by the complainant who made it clear he was open to shuttle diplomacy but not sitting down with HRRA. After several months of this process getting nowhere, Mr Manwaring advised HRRA that he was no longer willing to continue with this process as he could not see common ground on which to resolve the dispute, nor did he believe that Mr Broadhurst was seeing mediation as an attempt to resolve the complaint, as he was discussing the complaint openly with a wide number of key figures in the community, whilst demanding that HRRA did not discuss the matter with others. In Mr Manwaring’s view, he did not see a potential resolution to the dispute being achieved through mediation.”
The Truth
Once again, the trustees lied with extreme malice. Mr Manwaring told Roger, the Helpline secretary, when he offered to mediate, that he was aware that Paul was very ill, and he said he considered it inappropriate for him to participate in the mediation at that time, and they mutually agreed that Roger would participate.
Roger subsequently received an email from Mr Manwaring in which he said that he had made three emailed requests to Dave Burke to attend a meeting and had received no replies. Had Dave Burke attended a meeting he would have been required to state exactly what Julie Eason had said to him following the rejection of her request for a free hire of St. Mary’s, and he had been made aware of this.
Paul made no demand whatsoever to HRRA that they did not discuss the matter with others, it is not credible that he did so because he had done nothing wrong, and he was not, as alleged, discussing the matter with anyone except for stating as he had every right to do given the untrue, extremely malicious and defamatory allegations made about him that were freely circulating in the public domain and had already trashed his reputation that he had been the victim of lies and considerable malice.
The following email sent from Mary Benton, HRRA secretary, to Paul on 11 January is indisputable evidence that HRRA was responsible for the termination of mediation-
“It is now felt by the committee that mediation is unlikely to provide a satisfactory outcome and therefore we no longer wish to be involved in such action. As far as we are concerned, this matter is now concluded, and we will no longer be responding to any other correspondence on this subject."
We have an email sent on January 17th from Mr Manwaring to Roger in which he confirms that Mary Benton, HRRA’s secretary, had informed him that HRRA was withdrawing from mediation..
HRRA Lie 13
“Despite our own endeavours to keep the matter private, to protect Mr Broadhurst’s reputation at his request this was not reciprocal, and Mr Broadhurst was undermining our organisation.
The Truth.
No request was ever made by Paul to keep the matter private; he had no reason to do so because he had done nothing wrong; his reputation and the Helpline’s had been deliberately trashed by HRRA lies, and the allegation that he was undermining HRRA is yet another one.
HRRA Lie 14
“We feel genuinely sorry that someone who was a trustee of our organisation has done so much damage to it, during the past twelve months.”
The Truth.
Paul has in no way whatsoever caused HRRA to suffer any “damage", at any time. The allegation is both extremely malicious, and vindictive, and we believe it along with numerous other allegations made by HRRA trustees in their joint defence to be defamatory.
HRRA Lie 15
“The defendants deny that they have breached a duty of care to the Complainant as alleged. The defendants deny that a duty of care exists."
"The Defendants have at all material times acted reasonably as trustees.”
The Truth.
A duty of care is a legal obligation that each of HRRA's trustees indisputably owes to each of their members. The defendants’ actions prior to the court claim, including Dave Burke’s defamatory allegations, his refusal to retract and apologise for having made them as requested by the solicitor we consulted, and the trustees untrue allegations made throughout their defence submission are proof that they have acted with malice and vindictiveness over a prolonged period. They have categorically not acted as they have alleged “at all material times reasonably as trustees", and it is a fact that they deliberately breached their duty of care with the sham investigation carried out by Mary Benton, Gary Rolfe, and Barbara Martin which alleged that both Julie Eason and Dave Burke had acted within their remits as trustees when incontrovertible proof had been supplied to them that they had categorically not acted reasonably as trustees, but with considerable malice.
May 2013
"Mr Broadhurst wrote to the committee after seeing the minutes of the strategy day, to try to persuade us not to contact the council. Mr Broadhurst stated his view that we should not approach the council, which the rest of the committee disagreed with.”
.
Lie 1
“The defendants deny that they have breached a duty of care to the Complainant as alleged. The defendants deny that a duty of care exists."
"Even if such a duty of care exists the Defendants deny they are in breach of a duty of care."
"The defendants have at all material times acted reasonably as trustees."
The Truth
A duty of care is a legal obligation that each of HRRA's trustees indisputably owe and to each of their members., of which Paul is one. The defendants’ actions prior to the court claim, including Dave Burke’s defamatory allegations, his refusal to retract and apologise for having made them as requested by the solicitor we consulted, and the trustees untrue allegations made throughout their defence submission are proof that they have acted with malice and vindictiveness over a prolonged period. They have categorically not acted as they have alleged “at all material times reasonably as trustees", and it is a fact that they deliberately breached their duty of care with the sham investigation carried out by Mary Benton, Gary Rolfe, and Barbara Martin which alleged that both Julie Eason and Dave Burke had acted within their remits as trustees when incontrovertible proof had been supplied to them that they had categorically not acted reasonably as trustees, but with considerable malice.
Lie 2
"The Defendants deny being involved in a campaign of smears and lies against the Claimant as alleged...have not made defamatory statements about the Claimant."
The Truth
Dave Burke untruthfully alleged in an email that Paul had written a letter to Hastings Borough Council "in such terms" that Julie Eason's request for the free use of St. Mary-in-the-Castle had been rejected and he further falsely alleged that the letter implied splits within HRRA and between HRRA and the Helpline. After these allegations entered the public domain we consulted a solicitor who wrote to Dave Burke informing him that his allegations were untrue and defamatory and requesting him to retract and apologise for them but he refused to do so. All eight of the trustees are aware of what occurred.
Lie 3
"The committee held a strategy day and decided at that strategy day to hold a fund-raising event. We consulted an events organiser, who advised us that we should seek to secure a public building for this event, in order that we could retain the bar receipts. Ms Eason one of the trustees at that time, approached a council officer that she knows vaguel. We requested the free use of a public building, and were informed the officer approached was not responsible for the building but he signalled a willingness to try and support this request, which we believe is an entirely proper thing to do."
The Truth
In her email message in which she gave an account of the conversation that she had had with the council officer referred to, who is Simon Hubbard, Julie Eason had been extremely economical with the truth. She said that Mr Hubbard had told he thought her request stood a good chance of being accepted but the reality was that he was totally unaware of the council's hire policy, he had no control over bookings, and he had asked Julie Eason to put her request in writing, which she had done, which was so that he could seek advice from a colleague who dealt with bookings. It is a fact that Julie Eason had made her request to the wrong person. The advice Mr Hubbard was given by his colleaguewas that the council was not accepting any new bookings and the request was rejected for that reason and no other.
The claim that an events organiser had advised securing a public building in order to retain the bar receipts conflicts with comments in another email from Julie Eason to each of HRRA's trustees in which she stated that if her request was rejected that as she had what she described as a good personal relationship with the chief executive of the county council she could ask for the use of the library, and the town hall, neither of which has a bar.
Lie 4
"Mr Broadhurst wrote to the committee after seeing the minutes of the strategy day, to try and perduadeus not to contact the council. He was, we understand, involved in the committe for the bukilding in question, which as as he rightly states was being put out to tender.Despie this, the council did take a limited number of bookingd. Mr Broadhurst stated his view that we shoukd not approach the council, which the rest of the committe diadgreed with."
The Truth
Each of the comments is untrue. No minutes of the strategy day were issued, only notes, and the notes contained no mention of contacting the council because the advice to do so had not been given at that time. Julie Eason only mentioned that she had received the advice to contact the council a week later.
Paul was not as alleged involved in "a committee for the building" and it was not a that stage being put out to to tender because the council had not made a decision about the building's future, the decision to seek tenders for the running of the building was not made until a later council meeting.The council was categorically not taking any new bookings, which Julie Eason was, and the letters previously reproduced pro ve that Julie Eason was catergortically told this was the reason for the rejection of her request.
The committee did not disagree that a request should be made to the council; no comments regarding the request that Paul was aware of were ever made.
Lie 5
"Following our approach to the council, Ms Eason was contacted by the council officer (Simon Hubbard) to whom the initial approach had been made, who explained the contents of the letter Mr Broadhurst had sent him, which questioned whether it was proper for the council to consider our request. The Claimant's letter asks if HRRA is receiving preferential treatment and if so the perceived justification for making HRRA a special case. We then received a letter from the council saying that the request was denied. Mr Burke, then Chair of the committee wrote to Mr Broadhurst to ask why he had written to the Council which we saw as an act that the essentially undermined the fundraising strategy the committee had agreed. Mr Broadhurst claims that this constitutes libel, which we strongly refute".
The Truth
Paul has not at any time claimed that he was sent an email by Dave Burke that constitutes libel.
We were advised by our solicitor that there was absolutely no justification whatsoever for the contents of our letter to have been disclosed. We had asked in the letter why Julie Eason had as she claimed to have been told her request "stood a good chance of being accepted" when it was common knowledge that requests to hire and pay for use of the building were being rejected and yet HRRA's request for the free use seemed likely to be accepted which would certainly be preferential treatment. We also made clear that we wanted if at all possible to switch the booking we had made the following month to St. Mary-in-the-Castle .
Julie Eason was categorically told that her request was rejected because it was for a new booking and no such requests were being accepted. We have been assured in letters from the council that our letter to Mr Hubbard was not in any way responsible for the rejection and it was impossible for it to have that consequence.
Dave Burke did not make enquiries to Paul as to why he had written to the council he falsely alleged in an email to Roger, our secretary that the letter was responsible for the claim being rejected and that it implied splits within HRRA and between HRRA and the Helpline.
Lie 6
“Following our approach to the council, Ms Eason was contacted by the council officer to whom the initial approach had been made, (Simon Hubbard) who explained the contents of the letter Mr Broadhurst had sent to him which questioned if it was proper for the council to consider our request. We then received a letter from the council saying that the request was denied.”
The Truth
The solicitor we consulted advised us that Mr Hubbard had no justification whatsoever for disclosing our letter to Julie Eason. Why he behaved as he did we do not know, but it is a fact that our letter in no way whatsoever questioned if it was proper as the trustees alleged for the council to consider Julie Eason's request. We had been told in a letter the Council could not consider Julie Eason’s request because to do so would be counter to Council policy, and Mary Benton, HRRA's secretary had acknowledged the receipt of a copy of it and of other letters she had requested in September 2012 when the so-called investigation into the valid complaints about Julie Eason and Dave Burke had been made
Nowhere in their six-page defence statement did the trustees have the honesty to admit they had seen the correspondence , and implied, whereas previously they had untruthfully alleged, that our letter was responsible for the rejection. They now lied by alleging that they regarded our letter as "undermining" their request when they were fully aware it had not and could not have done so.
Lie 7
“Mr Burke, then chair of the committee, wrote to Mr Broadhurst (after Julie Eason had told him about our letter to Mr Hubbard) to ask why he had written to the council which we saw as an act that essentially undermined the fund-raising strategy the committee had agreed. “
The Truth
Dave Burke did not write to Paul and ask why he had written to the Council, which he did after being told by Julie Eason that her request had been rejected, he alleged that our letter was responsible for the rejection along with two other untrue allegations, yet as we have previously stated letters from the Council prove that Julie Eason was categorically told that her request was rejected because no new bookings of any kind were being accepted. Dave Burke had also alleged that our letter implied there were splits within HRRA and between HRRA and the Helpline and he regarded this as damaging. It was apparently not considered sufficiently malicious and harmful just to fabricate the allegation that our letter had caused Julie Eason's request to be rejected and so two other untrue allegations had been fabricated.
The solicitor we consulted had written to Dave Burke and informed him that his three allegations were untrue and defamatory, and requested that he withdraw them and apologise for having made them but he had refused to do so.
Our letter to Mr Hubbard made clear that it was written because we were enquiring if it would be possible to switch our booking for the Stade Hall to St. Mary’s. In no way whatsoever can it be truthfully claimed that the letter “essentially undermined the fund-raising strategy the committee had agreed” and for the following reasons. 1. The committee had not agreed during the strategy day to Julie Eason making a request for a free hire of St. Mary’s because Julie Eason's email of August 17th is proof that she had not at that time been advised by a fund-raiser to make the request. 2. Julie Eason only mentioned that she intended making a request for St. Mary’s in her email of August 17th, and on the 18th, she stated in another email that she had already made a request. There was no opportunity whatsoever for the committee to have considered the matter unless yet again a clandestine discussion took place by a clique within the committee as had occurred previously when decisions such as appointing Julie Eason as a co-chair had been made
Lie 8
“(Dave Burke) emailed Secretary of the Gay Helpline and presumably aware of a letter purported to be written on behalf of that organisation, hoping to resolve the matter. Mr Broadhurst claims that this constitutes libel which we strongly refute.”
The Truth
The eight trustees were fully aware that a solicitor, not Paul, had informed Dave Burke in a letter that his allegations were defamatory. We were assured by the solicitor we consulted that we had every right to have written to the council in the terms in which we had and we were later advised that our letter categorically did not purport to have been written on behalf of the Helpline, it indisputably was on behalf of the Helpline. Paul has not claimed that Dave Burke’s allegations constituted libel, and the trustees know this full well. HRRA’s trustees were aware that Dave Burke had received the solicitor’s letter and that he had been told by the solicitor that his three allegations were defamatory but they made no mention of this anywhere in their defence statement
Acting on advice we received from Steve Manwaring, the Director of HRRA we made a formal complaint to HRRA’s trustees of gross misconduct by Julie Eason & Dave Burke and supplied at the request of the investigating panel consisting of Mary Benton, Gary Rolfe, and Barbara Martin a copy of our letter to Simon Hubbard together with copies of two letters we received from him and one from Neil Dart, another senior Council officer.
Lie 9
“The investigating committee sought his (Steve Manwaring, Director of Hastings Voluntary Action) advice throughout the complaints investigation) process as to what constituted best practices in complaints handling, and followed this. They considered evidence, obtained documents where these were relevant. The panel concluded that both Ms Eason and Mr Burke acted reasonably and within their remit as trustee and chair of HRRA, and found the complaint was not upheld. They reported to the whole committee and Mr Broadhurst.”
The Truth
The investigating panel had disregarded the letters from the council proving that Julie Eason’s request was rejected because no new bookings of any kind were being accepted and that she had categorically been told this. They were aware that a solicitor the Helpline was forced to consult had written to Dave Burke informing him that his three allegations were untrue and defamatory. Any investigation that disregards incontrovertible proof of the validity of a complaint that has been made, which was the case in this instance, can truthfully be described as a sham, and which HRRA’s investigation indisputably was. The comment that the investigating panel “reported to the whole committee" is a lie because by the eight trustees own admission in their defence statement two trustees were deliberately denied any information at all concerning the dispute.
When our complaints were rejected Mr Manwaring advised us that we had the right to appeal, but the trustees refused to allow us to do so. Mr Manwaring subsequently offered to act as a mediator, and both the Helpline and HRRA agreed to mediation but HRRA then failed to cooperate and withdrew from the process. The trustees lied extensively in their defence about the mediation, and this will be dealt with later in this statement.
Lie 10
“The defendant have not made defamatory statements about the claimant. This in marked contrast to the conduct of the claimant.”
The Truth
The eight trustees knew full well that a solicitor had written a letter to Dave Burke informing him that the three allegations he had made in his emails were untrue and defamatory. At no time has Paul ever made any defamatory allegations whatsoever about any trustee of HRRA.
Lie 11
“The council officer (Simon Hubbard) who had indicated an intention to try and support our entirely reasonable request, was also receiving prolific correspondence from the complainant.”
The Truth.
This allegation by the trustees is yet another lie. Mr Hubbard received only three letters, but the number of the letters we wrote to him is irrelevant to HRRA’s defence and if a council employee made any disclosure to a trustee of HRRA that Mr Hubbard had received correspondence from us they had no right whatsoever to have done so.
Mr Hubbard's letters to us are proof that he had categorically not indicated to Julie Eason any intention whatsoever to support her request.
The court expects parties to a dispute to attempt to resolve a claim without the need for a court hearing, and both parties to the claim were made aware of this by the court at the outset of the claim. Had the claim proceeded, the court mediation service would have contacted both parties, which the eight trustees were made aware of by the court, and they were also informed that it would take the form of mediation by phone, not 'face to face' meetings.
Steve Manwaring, the Director of Hastings Voluntary Action had made an offer both to the Helpline and to HRRA to act as a mediator several months before the summonses were issued and his offer was was accepted by both parties. it became evident though that HRRA had no intention of co-operating. Co-operation would have required HRRA to be truthful about what Julie Eason had been told when her request for the free of St. Mary-in-the-Castle was rejected.
Lie 12
"Mr Manwaring attempted to bring the parties together at mediation, but despite a willingness from HRRA trustees to sit down and discuss, this was not shared by the complainant who made it clear he was open to shuttle diplomacy but not sitting down with HRRA. After several months of this process getting nowhere, Mr Manwaring advised HRRA that he was no longer willing to continue with this process as he could not see common ground on which to resolve the dispute, nor did he believe that Mr Broadhurst was seeing mediation as an attempt to resolve the complaint, as he was discussing the complaint openly with a wide number of key figures in the community, whilst demanding that HRRA did not discuss the matter with others. In Mr Manwaring’s view, he did not see a potential resolution to the dispute being achieved through mediation.”
The Truth
Once again, the trustees lied with extreme malice. Mr Manwaring told Roger, the Helpline secretary, when he offered to mediate, that he was aware that Paul was very ill, and he said he considered it inappropriate for him to participate in the mediation at that time, and they mutually agreed that Roger would participate.
Roger subsequently received an email from Mr Manwaring in which he said that he had made three emailed requests to Dave Burke to attend a meeting and had received no replies. Had Dave Burke attended a meeting he would have been required to state exactly what Julie Eason had said to him following the rejection of her request for a free hire of St. Mary’s, and he had been made aware of this.
Paul made no demand whatsoever to HRRA that they did not discuss the matter with others, it is not credible that he did so because he had done nothing wrong, and he was not, as alleged, discussing the matter with anyone except for stating as he had every right to do given the untrue, extremely malicious and defamatory allegations made about him that were freely circulating in the public domain and had already trashed his reputation that he had been the victim of lies and considerable malice.
The following email sent from Mary Benton, HRRA secretary, to Paul on 11 January is indisputable evidence that HRRA was responsible for the termination of mediation -
“It is now felt by the committee that mediation is unlikely to provide a satisfactory outcome and therefore we no longer wish to be involved in such action. As far as we are concerned, this matter is now concluded, and we will no longer be responding to any other correspondence on this subject."
We have an email sent on January 17th from Mr Manwaring to Roger in which he confirms that Mary Benton, HRRA’s secretary, had informed him that HRRA was withdrawing from mediation. .
Lie 13
“Despite our own endeavours to keep the matter private, to protect Mr Broadhurst’s reputation at his request this was not reciprocal, and Mr Broadhurst was undermining our organisation.
The Truth.
No request was ever made by Paul to keep the matter private; he had no reason to do so because he had done nothing wrong; his reputation and the Helpline’s had been deliberately trashed by HRRA lies, and the allegation that he was undermining HRRA is yet another one.
Lie 14
“We feel genuinely sorry that someone who was a trustee of our organisation has done so much damage to it, during the past twelve months.”
The Truth.
Paul has in no way whatsoever caused HRRA to suffer any “damage", at any time. The allegation is both extremely malicious, and vindictive, and we believe it along with numerous other allegations made by HRRA trustees in their joint defence to be defamatory.
May 2013