Action on 'perverting the course of justice'

Dear Ministry of Justice,

1. I would like to know exactly what the Ministry of Justice will
do in respect of 'officers of the court' who deliberately pervert
the course of justice?

2. Where such officers do not hold the requisite qualification to
practice in the court at all, who has the remit to remove them from
the court arena?

3. What punishment is due to such people?

4. If any punishment is due, for practising in the court, without
the necessary qualifications, is such punishment actually
administered?

5. How many such punishments have been administered, annually,
during the last 5 years?

6. Where a social worker has deliberately fabricated her evidence,
what punishment is due?

7. Have any social workers actually been punished by the Court
system during he last 5 years, for fabricating evidence against the
interests of adults or children?

8. If so, how many - and with what range of punishment?

9. Where such evidence as they presented to the Court, has resulted
in a perversion of the course of justice, what steps are taken to
set matters right, for the unfortunate, wronged person/people whom
they have acted against?

10. At what cost to the person who has been wronged, is such action
taken? ie Does such setting right, include further Hearings, for
which that wronged person would have to pay?

11. If not, what would happen?

I must make it clear that these questions are not only to establish
'what is the law', but to establish what actually happens in
practice.

Yours faithfully,

Charlotte Peters Rock

Dear Mr Holden,

I regret the long delay in replying, which was caused by severe
family problems.

The only clarification which I can give, would be in offereing the
names of those Court Officers to someone who will genuinely pick up
the matter, investigate Manchester Family Court and the actions of
its officers thoroughly and ensure that the law is complied with.

Can you tell me that you are in a position to do that? If not you,
then who?

I look forward to hearing further from you.

Yours sincerely,

Charlotte Peters Rock

Dear Ministry of Justice,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Justice's
handling of my FOI request 'Action on 'perverting the course of
justice''.

It seems to me that there is a deliberately perverse reasoning
concerning the perfectly clear questions which were asked.

That is not reasonable under the legal circumstance of Freedom of
Information Legislation, which requires your FOI officers to act
with due diligence and open the interpretation to include
reasonable recommendations about where to find the information,
should your department be genuinely unable to supply it.

The questions asked -and which have already been kicked from pillar
to post, as first one then another Government Department refused to
give an adequate response - are as follows:

1. I would like to know exactly what the Ministry of Justice will
do in respect of 'officers of the court' who deliberately pervert
the course of justice?
(This asks for What the Law says, and what the MoJ - and in this
case HMCS - actually does in such circumstances.If the answer is
'nothing', then that is the answer I would expect to be given.)

2. Where such officers do not hold the requisite qualification to
practice in the court at all, who has the remit to remove them from
the court arena?
(This asks for What the Law says, and what the MoJ - and in this
case HMCS - actually does in such circumstances.If the answer is
'no-one', then that is the answer I would expect to be given.But if
there is a job title, which has the remit to act, then I wish to be
told what that job title is.)

3. What punishment is due to such people?
(This asks for What the Law says, and what the MoJ - and in this
case HMCS - actually does in such circumstances. If the answer is
'no punishment', then that is the answer I would expect to be
given.)

4. If any punishment is due, for practising in the court, without
the necessary qualifications, is such punishment actually
administered?
(This asks for What the Law says, and what the MoJ - and in this
case HMCS - actually does in such circumstances.If the answer is
'no punishment is administered', then that is the answer I would
expect to be given.)

5. How many such punishments have been administered, annually,
during the last 5 years?
(If the answer is 'no punishment has been administered over the
last five years', then that is the answer I would expect to be
given.)

6. Where a social worker has deliberately fabricated her evidence,
what punishment is due?
(This asks for What the Law says, and what the MoJ - and in this
case HMCS - actually does in such circumstances.If the answer is
'no punishment is expected or administered', then that is the
answer I would expect to be given.)

7. Have any social workers actually been punished by the Court
system during the last 5 years, for fabricating evidence against
the interests of adults or children?
(If the answer is 'no punishment is in place or has been
administered over the last five years', then that is the answer I
would expect to be given.)

8. If so, how many - and with what range of punishment?
(This asks for What the Law says, and what the MoJ - and in this
case HMCS - actually does in such circumstances; and to how many.
If the answer is 'no punishment', then that is the answer I would
expect to be given.)

9. Where such evidence as they presented to the Court, has resulted
in a perversion of the course of justice, what steps are taken to
set matters right, for the unfortunate, wronged person/people whom
they have acted against?
(This asks for What the Law says, and what the MoJ - and in this
case HMCS - actually does in such circumstances. If the answer is
'no steps have been taken to set matters right for the unfortunate
wronged person/people whom they have acted against', then that is
the answer I would expect to be given.)

10. At what cost to the person who has been wronged, is such action
taken? ie Does such setting right, include further Hearings, for
which that wronged person would have to pay?
(This asks for What the Law says, and what the MoJ - and in this
case HMCS - actually does in such circumstances. If the answer is
'there is no method of setting right' or 'it would cost the wronged
person/people the price of their time and legal help at their own
expense, to return to Court', then that is the answer I would
expect to be given.)

I have made the explanations which are in brackets - above - so
that anyone, who understands the English language, cannot fail to
understand exactly what your obtuse Mr Holden has chosen not to
understand.

I now repeat, that I want a full internal review to be conducted
about the appallingly bad customer relations, which I have been
forced to experience. I also want an answer to the questions above.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ac...

Yours sincerely,

Charlotte Peters Rock