Gibraltar Corruption

Is there still Rule of Law in Gibraltar? Is there corruption in the local police?

Are employees' Human Rights protected? Is there a mafia in Gibraltar?

How corrupt are the Courts in Gibraltar? Is Entain a bad employer?

Entain's instructions to play it very hard.

The very hard approach by David Dumas from Hassans against my claims was aimed at "pushing me over the edge", potentially hoping that I would commit suicide to end my case against GVC/Entain once and for all. At the request of 2 medical practicioners, I put this in writing to the first Tribunal Chairman, Kenneth Navas. Mr Dumas tried to convince the Chairman to remove my letter from the record, which the Chairman did not allow. A short time after this, Mr Dumas became the CEO of the Legal Services Regulatory Authority (LSRA). The LSRA is responsible for the regulation of the legal profession in Gibraltar and of the provision of legal services in or from within Gibraltar. Below, you can find my complete letter to the Chairman. It is worth mentioning here that Mr Dumas and the Hassans lawyers who came after him, always made sure that it was on record that everything they did, was under the instructions of Entain.

Bart Van Thienen
Wed 04/09/2019 08:41
To: (EMP) Wink-Sampere, Susan; (EMP) Fa, Lorraine;David Dumas QC; Oliver Heaton; Rose Cornelio
Clarifications re the 14th August 2019 Hearing for Case 17/2018
Dear Susan,

Could you please be so kind to forward this email to the Chairman for Case 17/2018? I copied in the Respondent.

Further to my 12th August 2019 letter to the Chairman, I found that the 14th August 2019 Directions Hearing was for a litigant-in-person very confusing and in my opinion did nothing to address the issues pointed out in my letter. I was apparently not alone with that perception as the Chairman used the word "messy" to describe the Hearing and the issues brought up in it. Some of the reasons for the chaotic course of the Hearing were the uncertainty if witness summons can be enforced and Hassans' frustrated mentioning of my mental health status. Throughout the Hearing I was under the impression that the Respondent's and Hassans' frustrations outweighed my rights as a victim trying to find justice.

I wish to repeat once again that the proceedings in the Employment Tribunal are not putting any unnecessary or extreme stress on me. The negative aspects regarding my mental health were caused by bullying during working hours at the Respondent's premises, not by these proceedings. The proceedings in the ET are part of the process of finding closure, this will help with the partial recovery of my present mental health problems. As such the proceedings in the Tribunal are an important part of the solution, not a part of the problem. That the proceedings involve Hassans and/or the Respondent claiming that there never has been any bullying, is something I accept although I clearly fully disagree with their point of view. What I do have a very big problem with, is the approach by the Respondent and/or Hassans to try to put me under extreme pressure, as thoroughly explained in my letter to the Chairman from 12th August 2019. That letter stands in its entirety and I see no reasons to retract any part of it.

My 12th August 2019 letter was a reply to Hassans' letter to the Chairman of 31st July 2019. Since I received that letter, I have had several counselling sessions with both the psychologist treating my depression and the Doctor helping me with my alcohol problem but also providing some counselling for my depression. I found out in the meantime that this psychologist is a legal expert who worked several years on various court cases. As the content of Hassans' letter did upset me deeply and the latest Hearing didn't bring any clarity on the situation, I brought these worries up during the counselling sessions. I wish to make clear first of all that none of the things discussed during these counselling sessions are a form of legal advice and the sessions are only aimed at giving the bullying and its ongoing negative impact a place in my life dominated by depression. One thing became very clear though; my Tribunal case is a very simple one as I was severely bullied over a longer period of time which caused mental health damage. The inordinate length of the proceedings is therefore only good for postponing the closure I need. Both the psychologist and the Doctor treating my alcohol problem, caused by the Respondent's behaviour during my employment, also concur with this view.

There exists no doubt in my mind that Hassans' 31st July 2019 letter was written and sent with the intent to cause me harm, described as "trying to push me over the edge" regarding the risk of suicide inherently connected to my depression. The word "coercion" was used to describe the content of the letter. This was another word that I didn't know and had to look up in the dictionary. That the Hassans lawyers are cowardly covering behind the "we are instructed by the Respondent" sentence is a strong sign that was pointed out to me. Hassans should have advised their client not to send such a letter and the words "immoral" and "unethical" came up in this context during the counselling sessions. It is very significant that both medical experts came independently to the same conclusion. It has been a shocking experience that I now have to live with the knowledge that some people have gone intentionally out of their way to try to kill me by trying to make me commit suicide.

The Chairman mentioned during the latest Hearing that he wasn't surprised about Hassans' letter but understands my point of view, but then said that he thought that I needed to tone down my language as he was sympathetic towards Hassans unhappiness and that Hassans is expected to deal with the case in a manner that benefits their client. As stated before, I accept and understand that Hassans have to play their role and that that involves denying that my claims are real and that that will lead to some communications and statements that I will obviously dislike. Apparently it is kind of normal that between lawyers such letters like the Hassans' 31st July 2019 letter are sent. That it is a standard procedure between lawyers, doesn't make it legal though, as I clearly point out in my 12th August 2019 letter. Mr Dumas then brought up during the Hearing that it would be helpful if I would have a lawyer who could function as a buffer for the potential negative impact of such letters. The reality is that I do not have a lawyer as I cannot afford one, so Hassans should have kept that in mind before sending any offending and unnecessarily upsetting letters. As mentioned before; Hassans could have done this in a different way, e.g. during a Without Prejudice meeting. The Chairman brought up in this context that my use of the word "laughable" is unhelpful. That Mr Dumas during the last two Hearings said that I am wasting his time with my claims in this Tribunal is acceptable though? In my opinion, Mr Dumas' allegation that I am a time-waster is not very helpful either. I politely ask the Chairman to take Mr Dumas' choice of words up with him too.

During the latest Hearing, Mr Dumas then stated that I am trying to hold this Tribunal to ransom with my suicide threats and that he didn't find my mentioning of suicide normal. The Chairman agreed with Mr Dumas that it is very uncomfortable and both Mr Dumas and the Chairman asked if I am medically fit to conduct these proceedings. In this context the Chairman said that he accepts that I am under great emotional stress and he asked himself if the Tribunal has a duty of care for a litigantin-person possibly taking his own life. The Chairman said that he knows from experience with mental health cases that closure is very important. It must be made very clear here that I have never threatened to commit suicide, as Mr Dumas said. I have only mentioned that the heightened risk of suicide is part of the medical condition I have but I have also clearly stated that I am following expert medical treatment and till this moment these experts have not seen any immediate dangers as that would have led me to go on suicide watch, something I would definitely have requested in case it was needed. My medical condition at this moment is that my depression is mostly contained but letters like the Hassans' 31st July 2019 letter, intended to harm me, are not helpful. My medical treatment recently has mainly focused on undoing the harm caused by that letter.

It is sadistic that the 31st July 2019 Hassans letter was an attempt, confirmed by two medical experts, to "push me over the edge" and make me commit suicide. When I dare to mention that, I stand accused by the same Hassans of "holding the Tribunal to ransom with threats of suicide", the same people from Hassans who sent me the letter trying to make me commit suicide. Immoral and unethical are very polite words for this way of dealing with my claims used by the medical experts. Unfortunately Hassans' effort resulted in a further postponing of the exchange of witness statements date, so it seems like the Respondent is actually having some further success with their strategy of postponing and stalling the proceedings by creating confusion.

When the Chairman adjourned the Hearing sine die for at least 2 weeks, we are now 3 weeks further, I had the feeling that Hassans got what they wanted and my points have not been taken on board yet. I repeat that every word of my 12th August 2019 letter to the Chairman stands. I also repeat that I have no immediate action planned against Hassans' letter, although I see that they have created several further reasons for an appeal if the outcome of these proceedings would not be just and fair.

In how far this Tribunal has a Duty of Care for litigants-in-person or not, remains to be seen as I don't know. I do know of the Tribunal's Duty for just and fair proceedings. The rest of the care I need is professionally provided by medical experts and I do not think that the Tribunal can do much more to improve the level of care I need. In this context, the psychologists and medical experts are unanimously making it very clear to me that my only option is to continue the proceedings, even if that means appeals in the Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights, as I will never be able to work again. The medical experts are now focusing on this aspect and make me accept the changed reality for the rest of my life. There is therefore no immediate risk of me committing suicide.

I hope this allays some of the Chairman's worries and dispels Hassans' smoke and mirrors game. The Chairman also advised me to "not make things personal" regarding the defence's lawyers. I can assure all involved that I am trying my very best not to make things personal, what makes it difficult though is that I know Mr Dumas personally for many years. And what to say about my shock when I was considering filing a complaint against Mr Dumas about the 31st July 2019 letter at the Gibraltar Bar Council, only to find out Mr Dumas' undeclared conflict of interest as he is the Chairman of that Bar Council. Without making it personal, Mr Dumas being the Chairman of the Gibraltar Bar Council under which the Chairman falls as a lawyer, is a situation in which I feel very uncomfortable. I also wish to point out Hassans' sneaky way of obtaining my personal income and savings data via a Hassans related contact in the local Government. Another conflict of interest but this one explains clearly where their strategy of postponing and stalling the procedures to make me run out of money originates. I have to disappoint Hassans and the Respondent though as the data they obtained are not up to date (they are over 4 years old) and do not reflect the reality of my present finances which allow me to continue these proceedings as long as it will take.

As a last point of interest I wish to refer to the very recent Gibraltar Employment Tribunal judgement in the claim against the GHA. This judgement has not been published yet so I do not have all details but in general lines the GHA was found guilty of bullying for one single incident of inappropriate behaviour. How does that one single incident compare to my horrendous ordeal spanning a whole year and reflected in a 206 pages witness statement? No wonder that Hassans were trying so hard to have the witness statements exchange date postponed. It is a pity that they succeeded in doing so once again.

I therefore request that the Chairman at his earliest convenience starts to speed up the proceedings that at this moment have come to a complete and unacceptable standstill.

Yours sincerely,

Bart Van Thienen

All information published in this website is in the public domain or reflects the opinion of the author. As such this website's content is protected by Art 10. of the Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006, Protection of freedom of expression:
"Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference."