So the drugs trial of pop star Tulisa, and the other connected drugs case too, cannot now go ahead because one of the main witnesses for the prosecution was found out to have lied to the court! Why then did this same principle not apply in the landmark Phurnacite group action case for hundreds of victims of cancers and other disease, where, towards the end of the trial one of the main defence, so called 'expert' witnesses, representing DECC in place of British Coal, who was professing to be an 'expert’ Toxicologist, was found out to NOT have ANY medical, biological or toxicological qualifications whatsoever?
Why is no one picking up on this when not only an entire workforce were polluted and subsequently poisoned by Europe’s Dirtiest Factory according to the Governments own inspectors, but an entire community too were for many decades? Many horrendous problems have been documented, including birth defects in children born in the area. The truth must be heard and justice must be done for the good people of Aberdare in the Cynon Valley in South Wales once and for all!
This landmark case, for hundreds of Phurnacite victims, was not the huge success that it was reported to be by press and others when the final judgement was published in October 2012. At best it was only 50% successful. If truth be known many victims sadly lost out, including many that never, possibly wrongly, made it to court. How can this evidence by a non expert not be considered flawed? The judge when faced with this problem, bizarrely chose to justify continuing to use him, as an 'epidemiologist', but by then he had already been relied upon heavily throughout, as an 'expert Toxicologist’ not an 'epidemiologist’, and had taken part/contributed to, some of the vital joint expert witness reports as a Toxicologist, and had given expert evidence in court as such, that he was clearly not qualified to do, that were relied upon in court. Nor did he have any experience of the coke oven industry.
The judge relied heavily upon his professed status as 'Professor’ at a university as her justification, her reason to continue to use this expert. Why, when clearly someone had lied to this extent for so long, to this extreme? Why did they trust him at all? Why at this point had his qualifications not been checked prior to the court case going ahead, as the law clearly states they are required to be by both sides, and why then did the court not check further when it was brought to the courts attention? Why were they even then so accepting when clearly lies had been told by someone? Why was this extremely serious matter just swept under the carpet to be forgotten? Why were many of the victims of the Phurnacite plant denied justice?
Not only did this so called 'expert’ witness not have any of the necessary qualifications to be a Toxicologist meaning he wasn't qualified to give expert opinion on causation of cancers or any there diseases, as was agreed on in court by the judge, since then we have found out using FOI requests, that he also had never been directly employed by the University he said he was, that the judge said he was too, that he was no longer entitled to use the title of Professor, be it Honorary or otherwise, since mid 2010 and that they have now completely wiped any reference to him off their website and off their records completely and are saying they can no longer answer any FOI questions about him because they have done this. Wonder why????
This lack of justice for the Phurnacite victims will of course impact further sadly on many other victims throughout the whole of the coke oven industry too in the future, who will lose out because of this judgement, what must surely be considered a flawed judgement under the circumstances surely? Hundreds if not thousands of victims, their widows and children will not now see justice done for them.
Why also is this so called 'expert’ who isn't qualified as a Toxicologist according to the judge, and who is no longer entitled to use the 'Professor title according to the University but still does, being allowed to continue to give expert evidence, including as a 'Toxicologist’ in other legal/court cases including those that he is not only not qualified to but has no relevant experience of either? How many more victims of possibly flawed expert evidence are there? How can this be called British justice?
So come on the proud people of Aberdare and beyond, demand that something is done about this for the sake of all those in your community who are Phurnacite victims that lost out because of this. Ask yourselves also why the promised update to the health study was never done after the initial one raised alarming concerns? Why has the still heavily polluted land, remediated only in part, once occupied by the Phurnacite plant, not been built on now for 25 years, when according to the Government land to build on is in such short supply and is badly needed, even to the extent that they are having to use vital green space land for this purpose?
Much evidence is available to prove that cancers such as stomach, bladder, lung, skin, colon, urinary tract, leukaemia and others too are caused by coke oven emissions of dust and fume. In our opinion evidence of this, including other vital evidence, was not put to the court. Why?
PJAG are calling on any victim, or their widows, or children of victims of those that have died already of cancer or respiratory disease due to their exposures, to come forward again, even if they were ever refused a claim by any firm of solicitors or lost a claim to come forward to demand that full justice is done for all victims, not just the fortunate few that were successful. This is a call not just to victims of the Phurnacite plant in Aberdare but to anyone throughout the whole coke oven industry who is a victim, wherever the plant may be.
Just don't rely on your MP who has already failed you. Your MP has had this information about this issue backed up with hard evidence supplied to her by the Phurnacite Justice Action Group and others for some time, but has chosen to turn her back on the Phurnacite victims just when they needed her the most. Possibly it's because of her embarrassment after initially conducting an ‘investigation’ but using the wrong name. This wasted many months. When this blatant error was pointed out she shamefully refused to acknowledge it or to rectify it and refused to raise it in Parliament as she had promised to, as requested by PJAG, who are seeking a judicial review and/or public inquiry into how this case was conducted.
PJAG would like it to known that they continue, as always, with their battle for the truth to be heard and for justice to be done for all victims.
Sent on behalf of PJAG.