Duty of HMCS to prosecute court officers

Dear Sir or Madam,

Is it the duty of HMCS to prosecute officers of the court under the
Misuse of Computer Act, or is it HMCS's duty to report the crime to
the Police.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

I HAVE COPIES OF FORGER COMPUTER RECORDS PREPARED BY A LIVERPOOL
COUNTY COURT OFFICE, DO YOU WISH ME TO SEND YOU COPIES TO HELP
DETERMINE MY FOI REQUEST ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear RUSSEL MEEK

WHY ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear RALPH MEEK

ARE THEY AND NOT YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR ANSWERING FOI REQUESTS AND ARE
NEITHER OF YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR REPORTING CRIMES BY STAFF OF HMCS TO
THE POLICE, WHO IGNORE ME ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Customer Services (CSHQ),

I REQUEST AN INTERNAL REVIEW

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear RUSSEL MEEK

FOR YOUR INFORMATION REGARDING THE LOSS OF SOME £50.000 TO £7,000
COMPENSATION AND DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO MY LETTER TO THE LORD
CHANCELLOR DATED NOVEMBER 6TH 2007:

"CRIME REPORT FORGERY OF COURT COMPUTER RECORDS

With regard to the attached letter from Mr Ross, Correspondence
Unit, the office of the Attorney General I wish to report the
criminal offence of forgery of the Liverpool county court computer
records:

THE OFFENCE

That an unknown officer, or officer’s, of HMCS did forge, by
alteration, the court computer records of claim 5LV53314 and by so
doing caused that computer to record information that was untrue in
breach of the Forgery and Computer Misuse Acts.

THE EVIDENCE

1. Acknowledgement of Service form from howarth goodman solicitors
dated 3/VIII/05

2. Copy of the genuine court computer record dated between May 11th
and August 5th 2005

3. Page two of form N244 filed on 10/VIII/05 by howarth goodman,
solicitors

4. Copy of the forged court computer record dated between May 11th
and September 20th 2005

5. Letter to myself from The Law Society dated December 12th 2005

6. Letter to myself from Brown Turner Solicitors dated July 1st
2005

7. Letter to the Lord Chancellor headed “Regarding the County Court
Record” dated November 6th 2007 filed at Liverpool county court.

THE FACTS

On June 22nd 2005 I obtained interlocutory judgement for latent
damage to my property against Maritime Housing Association by
default of acknowledgement of service, or a defence, being filed
within the time allowed by the CPR, this judgement is recorded on
the genuine court computer record on June 22nd 2005.

This judgement is not recorded on the forged court computer record
on June 22nd 2005 and became final on July 13th 2005.

On July 1st 2005 my solicitors, Brown Turner, sent Maritime Housing
Association a letter from my surveyor outlining progressive latent
defects in my property caused by the demolition of the party
boundary structure known as the ‘nib wall’ that had formally
abutted my gable wall giving it some support.

The entire matter up to July 1st 2005, as agreed by Brown Turner
and myself, is accurately outlined in the “Background” section of
the December 12th 2005 letter to me from The Law Society.

The genuine court computer record confirms the above and also
confirms that the acknowledgement of service dated 3/VIII/05, not
recorded on the genuine or forged court computer record, was
returned to howarth goodman on August 5th 2005 because the
‘regular’ judgement obtained by me against Maritime Housing
Association had, under the CPR, had been entered and not contested
in time and was therefore entered and final.

On 10/VIII/05 howarth Goodman filed their N244 application for
strike out of my claim based on CPR Part 13.3 confirming the date
of their Acknowledgement of Service had been dated 3/VIII/05 which,
they say they had filed in time but, as recorded on the genuine
court computer, the acknowledgement was due not on 3/VIII/05, but
on June 1st 2005. Proving in fact howarth goodman had no legal
right to acknowledge, or defend the claim or apply for the
‘regular’ judgement to be struck under CPR Part 13.3.

This application is not recorded on the forged court computer
record.

As advised by Mr Ross, I will copy this crime report to the
Ministry of Justice and file this letter at Liverpool county court
and copy it to the office of the Attorney General, howarth goodman,
solicitors, Brown Turner, solicitors, and The Law Society.

FORGERY AND COUNTERFEITING ACT 1981

1. The offence of forgery.

A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with
the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to
accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not
to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

2. The offence of copying a false instrument.

It is an offence for a person to make a copy of an instrument which
is, and which he knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with
the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to
accept it as a copy of a genuine instrument, and by reason of so
accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other
person’s prejudice.

3. The offence of using a false instrument.

It is an offence for a person to use an instrument which is, and
which he knows or believes to be, false, with the intention of
inducing somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so
accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other
person’s prejudice.

4. The offence of using a copy of a false instrument.

It is an offence for a person to use a copy of an instrument which
is, and which he knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with
the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as a copy of a
genuine instrument, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not
to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

8. Meaning of “instrument”.

(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, in this Part of this Act
“instrument” means

(a) any document, whether of a formal or informal character;

(d) any disc, tape, sound track or other device on or in which
information is recorded or stored by mechanical, electronic or
other means.

9. Meaning of “false” and “making”.

(1) An instrument is false for the purposes of this Part of this
Act

(a) if it purports to have been made in the form in which it is
made by a person who did not in fact make it in that form; or

(b) if it purports to have been made in the form in which it is
made on the authority of a person who did not in fact authorise its
making in that form; or

(c) if it purports to have been made in the terms in which it is
made by a person who did not in fact make it in those terms; or

(d) if it purports to have been made in the terms in which it is
made on the authority of a person who did not in fact authorise its
making in those terms; or

(e) if it purports to have been altered in any respect by a person
who did not in fact alter it in that respect; or

(f) if it purports to have been altered in any respect on the
authority of a person who did not in fact authorise the alteration
in that respect; or

(g) if it purports to have been made or altered on a date on which,
or at a place at which, or otherwise in circumstances in which, it
was not in fact made or altered; or

(h) if it purports to have been made or altered by an existing
person but he did not in fact exist.

(2) A person is to be treated for the purposes of this Part of this
Act as making a false instrument if he alters an instrument so as
to make it false in any respect (whether or not it is false in some
other respect apart from that alteration).

10. Meaning of “prejudice” and “induce”.

(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (4) below, for the purposes of
this Part of this Act an act or omission intended to be induced is
to a person’s prejudice if, and only if, it is one which, if it
occurs—

(a) will result—

(i) in his temporary or permanent loss of property; or

(ii) in his being deprived of an opportunity to earn remuneration
or greater remuneration; or

(iii) in his being deprived of an opportunity to gain a financial
advantage otherwise than by way of remuneration; or

(b) will result in somebody being given an opportunity—

(i) to earn remuneration or greater remuneration from him; or

(ii) to gain a financial advantage from him otherwise than by way
of remuneration; or

(c) will be the result of his having accepted a false instrument as
genuine, or a copy of a false instrument as a copy of a genuine
one, in connection with his performance of any duty.

(2) An act which a person has an enforceable duty to do and an
omission to do an act which a person is not entitled to do shall be
disregarded for the purposes of this Part of this Act.

(3) In this Part of this Act references to inducing somebody to
accept a false instrument as genuine, or a copy of a false
instrument as a copy of a genuine one, include references to
inducing a machine to respond to the instrument or copy as if it
were a genuine instrument or, as the case may be, a copy of a
genuine one.

(4) Where subsection (3) above applies, the act or omission
intended to be induced by the machine responding to the instrument
or copy shall be treated as an act or omission to a person’s
prejudice.

(5) In this section “loss” includes not getting what one might get
as well as parting with what one has."

I HOPE THIS ASSISTS TO DETERMINE HMCS's ROLE AS EMPLOYERS OF THE
OFFENDER(S).

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Customer Services (CSHQ),

PLEASE CONTACT THE CUSTOMER SERVICES DESK AT MARSH LANE POLICE
STATION, BOOTLE, LIVERPOOL 20, PHONE NUMBER 0151 777 3993 QUOTING
LOG NUMBER: 0901260417.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Customer Services (CSHQ),

Making or supplying articles for use in frauds

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies
or offers to supply any article—

(a) knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of
or in
connection with fraud, or

(b) intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission
of, fraud.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to
both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).

(3) Subsection (2)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if
the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.

8 “Article”

(1) For the purposes of—

(a) sections 6 and 7, and

(b) the provisions listed in subsection (2), so far as they relate
to articles for use in the course of or in connection with fraud,

“article” includes any program or data held in electronic form.

I HOPE THIS ASSISTS

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear RUSSEL MEEK

WHY/, ITS A SIMPLE ENOUGH QUESTION:

"Is it the duty of HMCS to prosecute officers of the court under
the
Misuse of Computer Act, or is it HMCS's duty to report the crime to
the Police."

HAVE MERSEYSIDE POLICE BEEN CONTACTED YET?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear KELLY TOMLIN

MYFOI REQUEST:

“Is it the duty of HMCS to prosecute officers of the court under
the
Misuse of Computer Act, or is it HMCS's duty to report the
crime to
the Police.”

I HAVE MADE THE FOLLOWING FILED AND SERVED REQUEST TO THE COURT

Claim 5LV53314 Robinson v Maritime Housing Association

Forged Court Computer Record

At some time after August 5th 2005, at the Queen Elizabeth II court
Liverpool, a court officer gave me a copy of the court computer
record in my claim against Maritime Housing Association.

On June 7th 2007, at the county court in Vernon Street Liverpool, a
court officer gave me a second copy of the court computer record in
my claim against Maritime Housing Association.

On examination of these two court computer records I found the
second of them to have been forged in that it differed in a very
significant way from the genuine one and did not record my regular
judgement against Maritime for their failure to acknowledge the
claim or defend it within the limitation period prescribed by the
CPR, nor did it record the order by the court, sent to Maritime
Housing Association refusing an application by them and informing
them that final judgement had been entered against them.

According to the genuine court computer record: I had been awarded
damages and costs against Maritime, which had been entered and
recorded in a regular judgement against them under the CPR. The
written evidence supports this.

According to the forged court computer record: I had not been
awarded judgement, and a regular judgement had not been entered.
The written evidence does not support this.

A court record is deemed without more to be conclusive evidence.

I have the genuine court computer record and the support documents
that confirm the judgement.

I have the forged court computer record that no support documents
confirm.

I have reported this matter to Merseyside Police as a crime.

Merseyside Police now wishes to interview me over this matter. To
assist the Police in this regard I require the court to inform me
which of the above computer records is now held on the court
computer,

the one showing my regular judgement against Maritime, or

the one showing no judgement against Maritime.

Given that all that is required to answer the above is for the
court computer to be checked. I ask for an answer to this request
within seven days or, in that time, a reason why this cannot be
given so that I can comply with the request for an interview with
the Police.

This letter has been copied to:

The Lord Chancellor
Jack Straw MP
The Attorney General
Merseyside Police
Howarth Goodman, solicitors acting in claim 5LV35514

Dated January 30th 2009

THE COURT HAS NOT RESPONDED AND MERSEYSIDE POLICE APPEAR TO BE
TREATING THIS CRIME REPORT AS A ‘COMPLAINT’ AND HAVE RESPONDED AS
FOLLOWS

Messages from Marsh Lane Police Station:

Monday January 26th 2009 at 3:18pm:

“Hello this is a message for a Mr Frederick Robinson, its customer
services desk at Marsh Lane Police Station here sir, could you
please contact our office on 0151 777 3992 quoting log reference
number: 0901260417. We need to arrange an appointment to get an
officer out to see you regarding your complaint. As I say, if you
contact the customer service desk on 0151 7773 992 as soon as
possible, would be obliged. Thank you very much, bye.”

Tuesday January 27th at 4:55pm:

“Hello this is a message for a Mr F Robinson, its customer services
desk at Marsh Lane Police Station here, can you please contact out
office as a matter of urgency on 0151 777 3992 quoting log
reference number: 0901260717. We’re required to arrange an
appointment officer to see you so we can get a statement regarding
the crime you wish to report. Thanks very much, bye.”

Wednesday January 28th at 10:31am:

“This is a message for Mr Robinson, it’s the police at Marsh Lane
customer service desk. If you could ring us on 0151 777 3992, quote
log number 417 of the 26th, thank you.”

I DID TELEPHONE THE POLICE AND POINTED OUT TO THEM I HAD NO
EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION EXCEPT THAT I HAD ALREADY PROVIDED, THE
POLICE AND ADVISED THEM THAT THEY SHOULD CONTACT THE LIVERPOOL
COUNTY COURT. I THEN WROTE TO THE COURT ON JANUARY 30TH 2009.

Tuesday February 3rd at 11:25am:

“This is a message for Mr Robinson, my name is constable
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, I’m ringing from the customer services desk at
Marsh Lane Police Station. Could you please contact our office, on
0151 777 3992 quoting log number 0901260417. I’m on duty from 0:700
‘til 15:00 today and 0:700 to 15:00 tomorrow. If you ask for me
personally ‘cos I need to speak to you regarding making an
appointment to take a statement from you. Received a letter from
you today that you sent to our Police Headquarters. It’s imperative
that I discuss this matter with you so we can progress any enquiry
– at this moment in time the log has been closed pending a letter
being sent to you, I’m now going to re-open this again, and if you
can speak to me directly I would be obliged, as I say, my name is
constable XXXXXXXXXXX and the telephone number is 0150 777 3992 log
reference number 0901260417. Thank you very much Mr Robinson.”

I HAVE NOT YET BEEN WRITTEN TO BY THE POLICE REGARDING THIS REPORT
AND HAVE WRITTEN THE FOLLOWING TO THEM.

February 10th 2009

Dear Sir or Madam

I have received two telephone messages from Marsh Lane customer
Services XXXX.

The second message refers to my report of forged court documents
and the need to interview me, despite my lack of knowledge as to
the criminals involved. Your officer has stated he has re-opened
the log on the matter but is unwilling to take the matter further
without interviewing me.

I am awaiting a letter from Marsh Lane regarding the matter.

I would remind you that when I reported my forged computer Council
Tax account to the Police, the matter was investigated and a
Council Officer interviewed without me being involved.

As you know, it was the Attorney General’s office that told me to
report the matter to the Police and I have written to the court
attempting to have them disclose what their computer record reveals
and had no response.

This letter will be filed at Liverpool county court and copied to:

The Attorney General
The Lord Chief Justice
The Lord Chancellor
The Home Secretary

AS THE EMPLOYEES OF A FORGER SURELY IT IS NOW THE DUTY OF HMCS TO
REPORT THE CRIME, GIVEN THE POLICE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE LORD
CHIEF JUSTICE THE LORD CHANCELLOR NOR THE HOME SECRETARY ARE TAKING
NO NOTICE OF MY REPORT.

YOUR RESPONSE WHILE IN POSSESSION OF THE FACTS IS:

“Thank you for your e-mail to my colleague Russell Meek. This is
not a matter for HMCS to deal with. It is entirely a matter for you
to contact the police should you wish to do so.”

CLEARLY I CANNOT “DEAL” WITH THE MATTER AS I HAVE, AS YOU ARE WELL
AWARE, NO POWER TO ACCESS ANY EVIDENCE HELD BY HMCS, OR IDENTIFY
THE FORGER AND THEREFORE MY FOI REQUEST:

“Is it the duty of HMCS to prosecute officers of the court under
the
Misuse of Computer Act, or is it HMCS's duty to report the
crime to
 the Police.”

REMAINS UNANSWERED AS DOES MY CRIME REPORT.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear KELLY TOMLIN

YOUR RESPONSE:

"Thank you for your e-mail. I can only suggest that you contact the
court directly to find out which computer record is correct.
Otherwise it maybe a matter for the police."

APPEARS TO IGNORE THE I HAVE DONE EXACTLY WHAT YOU SUGGEST AND TOLD
YOU THAT IN MY E MAIL OF TODAY WHICH STATED:

MYFOI REQUEST:

“Is it the duty of HMCS to prosecute officers of the court under
the
Misuse of Computer Act, or is it HMCS's duty to report the
crime to
the Police.”

I HAVE MADE THE FOLLOWING FILED AND SERVED REQUEST TO THE COURT

Claim 5LV53314 Robinson v Maritime Housing Association

Forged Court Computer Record

At some time after August 5th 2005, at the Queen Elizabeth II court
Liverpool, a court officer gave me a copy of the court computer
record in my claim against Maritime Housing Association.

On June 7th 2007, at the county court in Vernon Street Liverpool, a
court officer gave me a second copy of the court computer record in
my claim against Maritime Housing Association.

On examination of these two court computer records I found the
second of them to have been forged in that it differed in a very
significant way from the genuine one and did not record my regular
judgement against Maritime for their failure to acknowledge the
claim or defend it within the limitation period prescribed by the
CPR, nor did it record the order by the court, sent to Maritime
Housing Association refusing an application by them and informing
them that final judgement had been entered against them.

According to the genuine court computer record: I had been awarded
damages and costs against Maritime, which had been entered and
recorded in a regular judgement against them under the CPR. The
written evidence supports this.

According to the forged court computer record: I had not been
awarded judgement, and a regular judgement had not been entered.
The written evidence does not support this.

A court record is deemed without more to be conclusive evidence.

I have the genuine court computer record and the support documents
that confirm the judgement.

I have the forged court computer record that no support documents
confirm.

I have reported this matter to Merseyside Police as a crime.

Merseyside Police now wishes to interview me over this matter. To
assist the Police in this regard I require the court to inform me
which of the above computer records is now held on the court
computer,

the one showing my regular judgement against Maritime, or

the one showing no judgement against Maritime.

Given that all that is required to answer the above is for the
court computer to be checked. I ask for an answer to this request
within seven days or, in that time, a reason why this cannot be
given so that I can comply with the request for an interview with
the Police.

This letter has been copied to:

The Lord Chancellor Jack Straw MP The Attorney General Merseyside
Police Howarth Goodman, solicitors acting in claim 5LV35514

Dated January 30th 2009

THE COURT HAS NOT RESPONDED AND MERSEYSIDE POLICE APPEAR TO BE
TREATING THIS CRIME REPORT AS A ‘COMPLAINT’ AND HAVE RESPONDED AS
FOLLOWS

Messages from Marsh Lane Police Station:

Monday January 26th 2009 at 3:18pm:

“Hello this is a message for a Mr Frederick Robinson, its customer
services desk at Marsh Lane Police Station here sir, could you
please contact our office on 0151 777 3992 quoting log reference
number: 0901260417. We need to arrange an appointment to get an
officer out to see you regarding your complaint. As I say, if you
contact the customer service desk on 0151 7773 992 as soon as
possible, would be obliged. Thank you very much, bye.”

Tuesday January 27th at 4:55pm:

“Hello this is a message for a Mr F Robinson, its customer services
desk at Marsh Lane Police Station here, can you please contact out
office as a matter of urgency on 0151 777 3992 quoting log
reference number: 0901260717. We’re required to arrange an
appointment officer to see you so we can get a statement regarding
the crime you wish to report. Thanks very much, bye.”

Wednesday January 28th at 10:31am:

“This is a message for Mr Robinson, it’s the police at Marsh Lane
customer service desk. If you could ring us on 0151 777 3992, quote
log number 417 of the 26th, thank you.”

I DID TELEPHONE THE POLICE AND POINTED OUT TO THEM I HAD NO
EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION EXCEPT THAT I HAD ALREADY PROVIDED, THE
POLICE AND ADVISED THEM THAT THEY SHOULD CONTACT THE LIVERPOOL
COUNTY COURT. I THEN WROTE TO THE COURT ON JANUARY 30TH 2009.

Tuesday February 3rd at 11:25am:

“This is a message for Mr Robinson, my name is constable
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, I’m ringing from the customer services desk at
Marsh Lane Police Station. Could you please contact our office, on
0151 777 3992 quoting log number 0901260417. I’m on duty from 0:700
‘til 15:00 today and 0:700 to 15:00 tomorrow. If you ask for me
personally ‘cos I need to speak to you regarding making an
appointment to take a statement from you. Received a letter from
you today that you sent to our Police Headquarters. It’s imperative
that I discuss this matter with you so we can progress any enquiry
– at this moment in time the log has been closed pending a letter
being sent to you, I’m now going to re-open this again, and if you
can speak to me directly I would be obliged, as I say, my name is
constable XXXXXXXXXXX and the telephone number is 0150 777 3992 log
reference number 0901260417. Thank you very much Mr Robinson.”

I HAVE NOT YET BEEN WRITTEN TO BY THE POLICE REGARDING THIS REPORT
AND HAVE WRITTEN THE FOLLOWING TO THEM.

February 10th 2009

Dear Sir or Madam

I have received two telephone messages from Marsh Lane customer
Services XXXX.

The second message refers to my report of forged court documents
and the need to interview me, despite my lack of knowledge as to
the criminals involved. Your officer has stated he has re-opened
the log on the matter but is unwilling to take the matter further
without interviewing me.

I am awaiting a letter from Marsh Lane regarding the matter.

I would remind you that when I reported my forged computer Council
Tax account to the Police, the matter was investigated and a
Council Officer interviewed without me being involved.

As you know, it was the Attorney General’s office that told me to
report the matter to the Police and I have written to the court
attempting to have them disclose what their computer record reveals
and had no response.

This letter will be filed at Liverpool county court and copied to:

The Attorney General The Lord Chief Justice The Lord Chancellor The
Home Secretary

AS THE EMPLOYEES OF A FORGER SURELY IT IS NOW THE DUTY OF HMCS TO
REPORT THE CRIME, GIVEN THE POLICE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE LORD
CHIEF JUSTICE THE LORD CHANCELLOR NOR THE HOME SECRETARY ARE TAKING
NO NOTICE OF MY REPORT.

YOUR RESPONSE WHILE IN POSSESSION OF THE FACTS IS:

“Thank you for your e-mail to my colleague Russell Meek. This is
not a matter for HMCS to deal with. It is entirely a matter for you
to contact the police should you wish to do so.”

CLEARLY I CANNOT “DEAL” WITH THE MATTER AS I HAVE, AS YOU ARE WELL
AWARE, NO POWER TO ACCESS ANY EVIDENCE HELD BY HMCS, OR IDENTIFY
THE FORGER AND THEREFORE MY FOI REQUEST:

“Is it the duty of HMCS to prosecute officers of the court under
the
Misuse of Computer Act, or is it HMCS's duty to report the
crime to
 the Police.”

REMAINS UNANSWERED AS DOES MY CRIME REPORT.

According to the genuine court computer record I won my case and
stood to obtain some £50,000 to £70,000:

I "lost" my case according to the forgery of the court computer and
with it some £50.000 to £70,00.

I REFER YOU TO THE "EQUAL TREATMENT BENCH BOOK"

Chapter 1.3 Unrepresented parties - Key points

The ‘litigant in person’

Most unrepresented parties are stressed and worried, operating in
an alien environment in what for them is a foreign language. They
are trying to grasp concepts of law and procedure about which they
may be totally ignorant. They may well be experiencing feelings of
fear, ignorance, frustration, bewilderment and disadvantage,
especially if appearing against a represented party. The outcome of
the case may have a profound effect and long-term consequences upon
their life.
They may have agonised over whether the case was worth the risk to
their health and finances, and therefore feel passionately about
their situation.

Role of the judge

Judges and those who chair tribunals must be aware of the feelings
and difficulties experienced by unrepresented parties and be ready
and able to help them, especially if a represented party is being
oppressive or aggressive. Maintaining patience and an even-handed
approach is also important where the unrepresented party is being
oppressive or aggressive towards another party or its
representative or towards the court. The judge should, however,
remain understanding so far as possible as to what might lie behind
their behaviour. Maintaining a balance between assisting and
understanding what the unrepresented party requires, while
protecting their re p resented opponent against the problems that
can be caused by the unrepresented party ’s lack of legal and
procedural knowledge, is the key.

1.3.1 Introduction

There are a number of reasons why individuals may choose to
represent themselves rather than instruct a lawyer. Many do not
qualify for public funding, either financially or because of the
nature of their case. Some cannot afford a solicitor and even
distrust lawyers. Others believe that they will be better at
putting their own case across.

This section aims to identify the difficulties faced (and caused)
by litigants in person before, during and after the litigation
process, and to provide guidance to judges with a view to ensuring
that both parties receive a fair hearing where one or both is not
represented by a lawyer. This chapter supplements and should be
read in conjunction with Chapter 1.1.

Subject to the law relating to vexatious litigants, everybody of
full age and capacity is entitled to be heard in person by any
court or tribunal which is concerned to adjudicate in proceedings
in which that person is a part y. But on the whole those who
exercise this personal right find that they are operating in an
alien environment. The courts and tribunals have not traditionally
been receptive to their needs.All too often the litigant in person
is regarded as a problem for judges and for the court system rather
than a person for whom the system of civil justice exists.

Lord Woolf, Access to Justice, Interim Report June 1995

It is curious that lay litigants have been regarded … as problems,
almost as nuisances for the court system. This has meant that the
focus has generally been upon the difficulties that litigants in
person pose for the courts rather than the other way around.

Prof. John Baldwin, Monitoring the Rise of the Small Claims Limit

Unrepresented parties are likely to experience feelings of fear,
ignorance, anger, frustration and bewilderment. They will feel at a
profound disadvantage, despite the fact that the outcome may have a
profound effect and long-term consequences on their lives. The aim
of the judge or tribunal chair should be to ensure that the parties
leave with the sense that they have been listened to and had a fair
hearing – whatever the outcome.

In what follows, the term ‘unrepresented party’ encompasses those
preparing a case for trial, those conducting their own case at
trial and those wishing to enforce a judgment or to appeal.

Disadvantages faced

The disadvantages faced by unrepresented parties stem from their
lack of knowledge of the law and court pro c e d u re. For many
their perception of the court environment will be based on what
they have seen on the television and in films. They tend to:

be unfamiliar with the language and specialist vocabulary of legal
proceedings;
have little knowledge of the procedures involved and find it
difficult to apply the rules even if they do read them;
lack objectivity and emotional distance from their case;
be unskilled in advocacy and unable to undertake cross-examination
or test the evidence of an opponent;
be ill-informed about the presentation of evidence;
be unable to understand the relevance of law and regulations to
their own problem, or to know how to challenge a decision that they
believe is wrong.

All these factors have an adverse effect on the preparation and
presentation of their case. Equally, there are other unrepresented
parties who are familiar with the requirements of the process.

Numbers

Increasing numbers of people are now also representing themselves
in the civil and family courts.

The small claims procedure in the county court is designed
specifically to assist the public to pursue claims without recourse
to legal representation and has created a huge increase in the
number of unrepresented parties. The vast majority of defended
civil actions in the county court are dealt with under this pro c e
d u re and it is a sign of its success that its jurisdiction was
increased (subject to certain exceptions in personal injury cases)
from claims of up to £1,000, to claims of up to £5,000. With the
consent of the parties, cases of a certain type can encompass
substantially greater claims. Public funding has never been
available for small claims.

Unrepresented parties also appear with increasing frequency in the
Court of Appeal in criminal, civil and family cases. Some have re p
resented themselves at first instance. Others, having had lawyers
appear for them in the court below, take their own cases on appeal,
often through a withdrawal of public funding after the first
instance hearing.

Ways to help

The aim is to ensure that unrepresented parties understand what is
going on and what is expected of them at all stages of the
proceedings – before, during and after any attendances at a
hearing.

This means ensuring that:
the process is (or has been) explained to them in a manner that
they can understand;
they have access to appropriate information (e.g. the rules,
practice directions and guidelines – whether from publications or
websites);
they are informed about what is expected of them in ample time for
them to comply;
wherever possible they are given sufficient time according to their
own needs.

1.3.2 Particular areas of difficulty

Those who are involved in legal proceedings without legal
representation may face a daunting range of problems of both
knowledge and understanding.

Language

English may not be the first language of the unrepresented party in
the courts of England and Wales and they may have particular
difficulties with written English. Any papers received from the
court or from the other side may need to be translated. The court
may need to adjourn in order to ensure that a mutually acceptable
translator can attend the proceedings to explain to the
unrepresented party in their own language what is taking place, and
to assist in the translation of evidence and submissions.

It is worth noting that there are free tools available on the
internet that provide instant translations, free of charge, in most
languages – see, for example, www.google.com/language_tools

Further guidance on the use of interpreters is included in Appendix
1 Interpreters at the end of this part.

Intellectual range

Unrepresented parties come from a variety of social and educational
backgrounds. Some may have difficulty with reading, writing and
spelling. Judges should:

be sensitive to literacy problems and pre p a red where possible to
offer short adjournments to allow a litigant more time to read or
to ask anyone accompanying the litigant to help them to read and
understand documents;
exercise and be seen to exercise considerable patience when
unrepresented parties demonstrate their scant knowledge of law and
procedure;
not interrupt, engage in dialogue, indicate a preliminary view or
cut short an argument in the same way that they might with a
qualified lawyer.

Unrepresented parties often believe that because they are aggrieved
in some way they automatically have a good case. When explaining
that there is no case, bear in mind that this will come as a great
disappointment to a litigant who has waited for their day in court
for some time.

Information

Some unrepresented parties are unaware of the explanatory leaflets
available at the court or of the lists of advice agencies. Citizens
Advice may be able to offer assistance with case preparation.

Many unrepresented parties believe that the court staff are there
to give legal advice. Under the Courts Charter court staff can only
give information on how a case may be pursued; they cannot give
legal advice under any circumstances.

1.3.3 Before the court appearance

Statements of case and witness statements

Unrepresented parties may make basic errors in the preparation of
civil cases by:
failing to choose the best cause of action or defence;
overlooking limitation periods;
not appreciating that they are witnesses in their own cases;
failing to file their own witness statements in advance of trial
(and not understanding that in consequence they may not be able to
give evidence).

The individual’s level of knowledge should be taken into account in
civil cases when deciding whether to make allowances for such
failures. A flexible approach ought to be adopted where possible,
even if this involves an adjournment.

Some of these problems are addressed in the Protocols of the Civil
Procedure Rules (CPR). The Court Service has produced a new series
of leaflets for unrepresented parties in the light of the CPR.

Directions and court orders

Unrepresented parties often do not understand pre-hearing
directions (in particular those imposing time deadlines and ‘unless
orders’) or the effect of court orders so:

ensure that they leave a directions hearing appreciating exactly
what is required of them;
involve them in the process of giving those directions (e.g. asking
them how much time they need to take a particular step and why) so
that they realise that the directions relate to the conduct of
their own case;
explain fully the precise meaning of any particular direction or
court order.

Sometimes they believe that if the other side has failed to comply
with such directions, that in itself is evidence in support of
their own case, or the opponent should be prevented from defending
or proceeding further. They often feel upset at what they regard as
an over-tolerant attitude by the courts to delays by solicitors.

Documentary evidence

A common problem is lack of understanding about the use and
application of documents and bundles. Experience shows that
unrepresented parties:

tend not to make sufficient use of documentary or photographic
evidence in their cases;
fail to appreciate the need for maps and plans of any location
relevant to the case.

Preliminary hearings represent an opportunity to give guidance on
these matters.

Disclosure of documents

The duty to disclose documents is frequently neglected by
unrepresented parties.
Some will have little or no appreciation that they should adopt a
‘cards on the table’ approach. Consequently there can be delay,
either because of the need to adjourn or because the judge or the
other side requires time at the hearing to read recently disclosed
documents.
When a pre-trial hearing takes place, a short clear explanation of
the duty of disclosure and the test as to whether or not a document
needs to be disclosed helps both parties and the court in terms of
time saved.

Preparing bundles

Many unrepresented parties do not have access to office facilities
and have difficulties in photocopying documents, preparing bundles
and typing witness statements. They have little concept of the need
for documents to be in chronological order and paginated. Putting
the case back is often the sensible course to take, in the event of
litigants coming to court with their bundles in other than proper
order.

Producing documents

All too often unrepresented parties do not bring relevant documents
with them to the hearing. The court or tribunal is faced with the
comment: ‘I can produce it – it is at home’, but it is then too
late and an adjournment is likely to be expensive and will usually
be refused.

The party should have been warned in advance not only to disclose
relevant documents to the other side but to produce the originals
at the hearing.

Sources of law

Most unrepresented parties do not have access to legal textbooks or
libraries where such textbooks are available and may not be able to
down-load information from a legal website. Why not let an
individual, accompanied by a member of the court staff, have access
to the court library or to a particular book?

Sometimes unrepresented parties do not understand the role of case
law and are confused by the fact that the judge or tribunal appears
to be referring to someone else’s case.

A brief explanation of the doctrine of precedent will enable an
unrepresented party to appreciate what is going on and why.
A represented party’s lawyer should be told to produce any
authorities to be relied on at the outset.
An unrepresented party must be given proper opportunity to read
such authorities and make submissions in relation to them.

Live evidence

Judges and tribunal chairs are often told: ‘All you have to do is
to ring Mr X and he will confirm what I am saying.’ When it is
explained that this is not possible, unrepresented parties may
become aggrieved and fail to understand that it is for them to
prove their case.

They should be informed at an early stage that they must prove what
they say by witness evidence so may need to approach witnesses in
advance and ask them to come to court.
The need for expert evidence should also be explained and the fact
that no party can call an expert witness unless permission has been
given by the court, generally in advance.

When there is an application to adjourn, bear in mind that
unrepresented parties may genuinely not have realised just how
important the attendance of such witnesses is. If the application
is refused a clear explanation should be given.

Adjournments

Un represented parties may not appreciate the need to obtain an
adjournment order if a hearing date presents them with
difficulties.

It is a common misconception that it is sufficient to write to the
court without consulting the other side, merely asking for the case
to be put off to another date, or that no more than a day’s notice
of such a request is required.
Conversely, unrepresented parties may find it difficult to
understand why cases need to be adjourned if they over- run because
of the way in which they or others have presented their cases, or
why their cases have not started at the time at which they were
listed.

Guilty pleas

At the plea stage, where an unrepresented defendant pleads guilty,
take great care to ensure that the defendant understands the
elements of the offence with which they are charged, especially if
there is, on the face of it, potential evidence suggesting that the
defendant may have a defence to the charge.

1.3.4 The hearing

The judge or chair of a tribunal is a facilitator of justice and
may need to assist the unrepresented party in ways that are not
appropriate for a party who has employed skilled legal advisers and
an experienced advocate. This may include:

attempting to elicit the extent of the understanding of that party
at the outset and giving explanations in everyday language;
making clear in advance the difference between justice and a just
trial on the evidence (i.e. that the case will be decided on the
basis of the evidence presented and the truthfulness and accuracy
of the witnesses called).

Explanations by the judge

Basic conventions and rules need to be stated at the start of a
hearing.

The judge’s name and the correct mode of address should be
clarified.
Individuals present need to be introduced and their roles
explained.
Mobile phones must be switched off, or at least in silent mode.
An unrepresented party who does not understand something or has a
problem with any aspect of the case should be told to inform the
judge immediately so that the problem can be addressed.
The purpose of the hearing and the particular matter or issue on
which a decision is to be made must be clearly stated.
A party may take notes but the law forbids the making of personal
tape-recordings.
If the unrepresented party needs a short break for personal
reasons, they only have to ask.
The golden rule is that only one person may speak at a time and
each side will have a full opportunity to present its case.

Particular difficulties

Difficulties often arise for unrepresented parties in getting to
the court, being nervous and incoherent, coping with the jargon
used and forms of address. All these issues are
addressed in Chapter 1.1.

Purpose of hearing

The purpose of a particular hearing may not be understood. For
example, the hearing of an application to set aside a judgment may
be thought to be one in which the full merits
of the case will be argued. The procedure following a successful
application should be clearly explained, such as the need to serve
the proceedings on the defendant, for a full defence to be filed
and directions which may be given thereafter so that the parties
know what is going to happen next.

The judge’s role

It can be hard to strike a balance in assisting an unrepresented
party in an adversarial system. An unrepresented party may easily
get the impression that the judge does not pay sufficient attention
to them or their case, especially if the other side is represented
and the judge asks the advocate on the other side to summarise the
issues between the parties.

Explain the judge’s role during the hearing.
If you are doing something which might be perceived to be unfair or
controversial in the mind of the unrepresented party, explain
precisely what you are doing and why.
Adopt to the extent necessary an inquisitorial role to enable the
unrepresented part y fully to present their case (but not in such a
way as to appear to give the unrepresented party an undue
advantage).

The real issues

Many unrepresented parties will not appreciate the real issues in
the case. For example, a litigant might come to court believing
that they are not liable under a contract because it is not in
writing, or that they can win the case upon establishing that the
defendant failed to care when the real issue in the case is whether
or not the defendant’s negligence caused the loss.

At the start of any hearing it is vital to identify and if possible
establish agreement as to the issues to be tried so that all
parties proceed on this basis. Time spent in this way can shorten
the length of proceedings considerably.

Compromise

Unrepresented parties may not know how to compromise or even that
they are allowed to speak to the other side with a view to trying
to reach a compromise.

Tell them, particularly in civil proceedings, that the role of the
court is dispute resolution – explanations as to forms of
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) may be appropriate.
Ask them whether they have tried to resolve their differences by
negotiation and, if possible, spell out the best and worst possible
outcomes at the outset. This can lead to movement away from the
idea that to negotiate is a sign of weakness.
Remind them to tell the court in advance if their case has been
settled.

Advocacy

Often unrepresented parties phrase questions wrongly and some find
it hard not to make a statement when they should be
cross-examining. Explain the difference between evidence and
submissions, and help them put across a point in question form.

Unrepresented parties frequently have difficulty in understanding
that merely because there is a different version of events to their
own, this does not necessarily mean that the other side is lying.
Similarly, they may construe any suggestion from the other side
that their own version is not true as an accusation of lying. Be
ready to explain that this is not automatically so.

Where one party is represented, invite this advocate to make final
submissions first, so that an unrepresented party can see how it
should be done.

Criminal cases

Under Article 6(3) of the European Convention of Human Rights,
everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to defend
him or herself in person or through legal assistance of his or her
own choosing or, if he or she has not sufficient means to pay for
legal assistance, to be given it free where the interests of
justice so require.

Those who dispense with legal assistance do so, almost always,
because they decline to accept the advice which they have been
given, whether as to plea or the conduct of the trial. A firm hand
almost always persuades such defendants that they are much better
advised to retain their representatives. If this does not work the
problem for the judge is to do with retaining control over the
proceedings rather than sensitive explanation to the defendant of
the rules of procedure and evidence.

Cross-examination

Throughout a trial a judge must be ready to assist a defendant in
the conduct of their case. This is particularly so when the
defendant is examining or cross-examining witnesses and giving
evidence:

always ask the defendant whether they wish to call any witnesses;
be ready to restrain unnecessary, intimidating or humiliating
cross-examination;
be prepared to discuss the course of proceedings with the defendant
in the absence of the jury before they embark on any
cross-examination;
note the statutory prohibitions on cross-examination by an
unrepresented defendant.

Conduct of the defence

Paragraph 5 of the Practice Direction Crown Court (Defendant’s
Evidence) [1995] 2 Cr App R 192 puts a duty on a judge to address
an unrepresented defendant at the conclusion of the evidence for
the prosecution and in the presence of the jury as follows:

You have heard the evidence against you. Now is the time for you to
make your defence. You may give evidence on oath, and be
cross-examined like any other witness. If you do not give evidence
or, having been sworn without good cause, refuse to answer any
question, the jury may draw such inferences as appear proper. That
means they may hold it against you. You may also call any witness
or witnesses whom you have arranged to attend court. Afterwards you
may also, if you wish, address the jury by arguing your case from
the dock. But you cannot at that stage give evidence. Do you now
intend to give evidence?

Summing up

In the course of summing up a case to a jury in which the defendant
is unrepresented, tell the jury that it was always open to
defendants to re p resent themselves and that the jury should bear
in mind the difficulty for defendants in properly presenting their
case. In some cases, such comments may be more appropriate at the
outset.

Adjournments

Sometimes a defendant in a criminal case becomes an unrepresented
party during the case either by reason of the defendant’s
representatives withdrawing or because they are dismissed by the
defendant.

Bear in mind that you may exercise your discretion in deciding
whether or not to grant an adjournment to enable fresh legal
representatives to be instructed.
That decision should be based on what is in the interests of
justice having regard to the interests of the witnesses, the public
and the defendant, the stage reached in the trial and the likely
ability of the defendant to conduct the defence case properly.
Bear in mind also the duty to warn a defendant against any course
that might not be in that defendant’s best interests, but if the
defendant decides to go on alone, allow them to do so.

1.3.5 Assistance and representation

A party to civil or family proceedings may wish to be assisted by a
‘friend’ at a hearing or even represented by a person without
rights of audience.

In a climate where legal aid is virtually unobtainable and lawyers
disproportionately expensive, the McKenzie friend and lay
representative make a significant contribution to access to
justice. But reported cases tend to concentrate upon reasons why
they should not be allowed rather than circumstances where they may
be of assistance to a party and the court. The judge has to
identify those situations where such support is beneficial and
distinguish circumstances where it should not be allowed.

In addition the need for a litigation friend must be recognised and
this has changed with the introduction of a new mental capacity
jurisdiction (see further Chapter 5.4, section 5.4.3).

‘McKenzie friend’

This term refers to an assistant or friend (whether lawyer or not)
who assists in presenting the case by taking notes, quietly making
suggestions or giving advice. The role differs from that of the
advocate in that the McKenzie friend does not address the court or
examine any witnesses and is generally permitted at trials or full
hearings although the ‘friend’ can be excluded if unsuitable (e.g.
someone who is pursuing their own or an unsuitable agenda). It may
be less appropriate to allow such assistance in private (chambers)
hearings because the judge generally then provides more assistance
to an unrepresented party.

A McKenzie friend may not act as the agent of the litigant in
relation to the proceedings nor manage the case outside court (e.g.
by signing court documents).

The Court of Appeal summarised the principles in Paragon Finance
plc v Noueiri [2001] EWCA Civ 1402, [2001] 1 WLR 2357, as follows:

A McKenzie friend had no right to act as such: the only right was
that of the litigant to have reasonable assistance.

A McKenzie friend was not entitled to address the court: if he did
so, he would become an advocate and require the grant of a right of
audience.

As a general rule, a litigant in person who wished to have a
McKenzie friend should be allowed to do so unless the judge was
satisfied that fairness and the interests of justice did not so
require. However, the court could prevent a McKenzie friend from
continuing to act in that capacity where the assistance he gave
impeded the efficient administration of justice.

See also R v Bow County Court ex p Pelling [1999] 1 WLR 1811 and Re
G (Chambers proceedings: next friend) [1999] 2 FLR 59, CA.

A differently constituted Court of Appeal in Re O (Children): Re
W-R (A Child): Re W (Children) [2005] EWCA Civ 759; [2005] 2 FLR
967 (Thorpe LJ, Wall LJ) has since offered this guidance in family
proceedings:

There is a strong presumption in favour of a litigant in person
being allowed the assistance of a McKenzie friend. A request should
not be refused without compelling reasons, even where the
proceedings relate to a child and are being heard in private.
The fact that the unrepresented party appears to be capable of
conducting his case doe snot begin to outweigh the strong
presumption in favour of allowing such assistance.
The fact that a proposed McKenzie friend belongs to an organisation
that promotes a particular cause is no reason for not allowing him
to undertake the role.
It was not for the litigant in person to justify his desire to have
a McKenzie friend but for the objecting party to rebut the
presumption in favour of allowing it.
There is no justification for refusing to allow a McKenzie friend
simply because it is a directions hearing.
Proposed McKenzie friends should not be excluded from the courtroom
or chambers whilst the application for assistance is being made.
The proposed McKenzie friend should produce a short CV or statement
about himself confirming that he has not interest in the case and
understands his role and the duty of confidentiality.

In February 2005, the President of the Family Division produced
guidance to judges in family proceedings and this is reproduced in
the following pages.

Rights of audience

The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, section 27 regulates the
right to appear in court. General rights of audience (advocacy
rights) are granted to duly qualified barristers or solicitors (and
certain others) and employees of solicitors may appear at hearings
in ‘private’. In addition:

the court may refuse to hear a person (for reasons which relate to
him as an individual) who would otherwise have a right of audience
but must give reasons;
a court has discretionary power to grant an unqualified person a
right of audience in relation to particular proceedings before that
court;
a special provision is made for lay representatives in the small
claims track of the county court. There is a right of audience in
the presence of the party at the hearing itself but the court may
in its discretion hear a lay representative in the absence of the
party – Civil Procedure Rules 1998, PD27 para. 3.2; Lay
Representatives (Right of Audience) Order 1999.

Lay representative

The term ‘lay representative’ relates to a person who does not
possess advocacy rights and may not even be a lawyer, but to whom
the court grants a right of audience on behalf of a party in
relation to the proceedings before that court. The party must apply
at the outset o a hearing if he wishes an unqualified individual to
be granted a right of audience, and parties cannot consent to an
unqualified person exercising a right of audience – Clarkson v
Gilbert [2002] 2 FLR 839 (CA); D v S (Rights of Audience) [1997] 2
FCR 206; [1997] 1 FLR 724 (CA).

It may, however, be appropriate to grant a right of audience on a
one-off basis (e.g. where a party is inform and cannot afford the
services of a lawyer). The following guidance was offered by Lord
Woolf in Clarkson v Gilbert & ors (see above):

“Now that legal aid was not available as readily as it had been in
the past, there were going to be situations where litigants were
forces to bring proceedings in person where they would need
assistance. ... litigants in person had to indicate why they needed
some other person who was not qualified to act on their behalf. ...
it would be for them to satisfy the court that it was appropriate.
If somebody’s health did not, or might no enable them to conduct
proceedings themselves, and if they lacked means, those were the
sort of circumstances that could justify a court saying that they
should have somebody who could act as an advocate on their behalf.
... the objections to someone setting themselves up as an
unqualified advocate did not exist where a husband was merely
seeking to assist his wife.”

But the party should still be present unless there is a justifiable
reason for absence. It may even in some circumstances be helpful to
a court or tribunal to recognise the representative as Neuberger J.
pointed out in Izzo v Philip Ross & Co (2001) The Times, 9 August
2001:

“In some circumstances common sense and experience suggests that a
relatively inarticulate and unknowledgeable litigant prompted at
every turn results in the case taking far longer than if the friend
speaks directly for him. Every time the court raises a point or
puts a point to the litigant in person it has to be explained to
the litigant which often takes longer than explaining it to his
friend. Then the litigant has to have the answer explained to him
by the friend, whereafter the litigant passes the answer to the
court. This is a process which self-evidently prolongs the hearings
and, like chinese whispers, is fraught with potential
misunderstanding.”

Once the privilege has been granted it is difficult to withdraw it
even if the representative turns out to be unsuitable. Problems
arise where an unqualified person is seeking to provide general
advocacy services, or appears to be pursuing a separate agenda. In
Paragon Finance plc v Noueiri (see above) the Court of Appeal
offered guidance:

The discretion to grant rights of audience to individuals who did
not meet the stringent requirements of the 1990 Act were only to be
exercises in exceptional circumstances and after careful
consideration.
The courts had to consider carefully whether to grant rights to
individuals who made a practice of seeking to represent otherwise
unrepresented litigants.
The person to be represented should normally justify the request
and be present at the hearing when personal interests are involved.

Conducting litigation

There is a distinction between the conduct of litigation on behalf
of a party and advocacy at hearings. The former relates to the
claim form, statement of case and any applications made during the
course of the hearing. A ‘statement of truth’ will generally be
required to support such documents and must be signed by the party
(or litigation friend) or teh legal representative – CPR
r.22.1(6)(a). Special provision is made in respect of companies –
see PD 22 para 3 and r.39.6.

The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, section 28 regulates the
right to conduct litigations.

In Paragon Finance plc v Noueiri (see above) the Court of Appeal
also offered the following guidance as to right of an unqualified
person to conduct litigation in the courts on behalf of a party:
the existence of such right is determined solely in accordance with
Part II of the 1990 Act;
section 28(2)(c) permits a court to grant an otherwise unqualified
person the right to conduct litigation in relation to particular
proceedings and to remove that right if it is being abused;
the grant of the right should be carried out having regard to the
same considerations as the grant of a right of audience.

Attorneys

The court controls its own procedures and principles for agency do
not apply, so a power of attorney cannot confer a right to conduct
litigation or of audience – Gregory v Turner, R (on application of
Morris) v North Somerset Council [2003] EWCA Civ 183; [2003] 1 WLR
1149 (CA).

Official Solicitor

The Official Solicitor represents parties prior to proceedings who
are without capacity, deceased or unascertained when no other
suitable person or agency is able and willing to do so. The purpose
is to prevent a possible denial of justice and safeguard the
welfare, property or status of the party.

He usually becomes formally involved when appointed by the Court,
and may act as his own solicitor, or instruct a private firm of
solicitors to act for him. The vision statement of the Official
Solicitor’s Office is:

“... to be an organisation delivering high quality customer focused
legal services for vulnerable persons, where those services need to
be provided by the public sector ...”

Enquiries are frequently made by the judiciary and members of the
legal profession and the Official Solicitor can be contacted at:

81 Chancery Lane
London WC2A 1DD
DX 141150 London/Chancery Lane WC2
Tel.: 020 7911 7127
Fax.: 020 7911 7105
Email: [email address]
Website: www.offsol.demon.co.uk

Representing adults who lack capacity

An order directing the Official Solicitor to act as a legal
representative in a civil court for an incapacitated party will
either be made with his prior consent or only take effect if his
consent is obtained. The Official Solicitor needs to be satisfied
that his involvement will be consistent with the Vision Statement
and in appropriate cases he will also require security that his
charges and expenses will be met before agreeing to act.

Assisting the civil courts

The Official Solicitor may also be called on to give confidential
advice to judges, to instruct counsel to appear before a judge to
assist the court as advocate to the court, or to investigate any
matter on which the court needs a special report. A common enquiry
requested is to ascertain the mental capacity of a party to
proceedings before the court.

Guidance from the President’s Office – McKenzie Friends

Where proceedings are held in open court, it is clear from the
principles set out in Court of Appeal decisions that a litigant who
is not legally represented has the right to have reasonable
assistance from a layperson, sometimes called a McKenzie Friend
(“MF”).
A litigant in person wishing to have the help of a MF should be
allowed to do so unless the judge is satisfied that fairness and
the interests of justice do not so require. The presumption in
favour of permitting a MF is a strong one.
A litigant in person should inform the court at the outset of a
hearing that he intends to exercise his right to a MF. He should
also indicate who his MF will be.
The court may refuse to allow a MF to act or continue to act in
that capacity where the judge forms the view that the assistance he
has given, or may give, impedes the efficient administration of
justice. However, the court should also consider whether a firm and
unequivocal warning to the litigant and/or MF might suffice in the
first instance.
If a judge decides in the exercise of his or her discretion to
refuse to allow a MF to assist the litigant in person he should
give the litigant reasons for his refusal. The litigant may appeal
that refusal, but the MF has no standing to appeal such a refusal.

What a McKenzie Friend May Do

Provide moral support for the litigant
Take notes
Help with case papers
Quietly give advice on:
points of law or procedure;
issues that the litigant may wish to raise in court;
questions the litigant may wish to ask witnesses.

What a McKenzie Friend May Not Do

A MF has no right to act on behalf of a litigant in person. It is
the right of the litigant to use the assistance of a MF if he so
requires.
A MF is not entitled to address the court, nor examine any
witnesses. If he does so he becomes an advocate and requires the
grant of a right of audience.
A MF may not attend a closed court unless the litigant has received
permission from the court for the MF to do so at the start of a
hearing.
A MF may not act as the agent of the litigant in relation to the
proceedings nor manage the litigant’s case outside of court, for
example, by signing court documents.

Rights of Audience

Sections 27 and 28 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 govern
exhaustively rights of audience and the right to conduct
litigation. They provide the court with a discretionary power to
grant lay individuals such rights.
A court may grant an unqualified person a right of audience in
exceptional circumstances only and only after careful
consideration. The litigant must apply at the outset of a hearing
if he wishes the MF to be granted a right of audience or the right
to conduct the litigation.

Personal Support Unit & Citizens’ Advice Bureau

Litigants in person should also be aware of the services provided
by local Personal Support Units and Citizen’s Advice Bureaux. The
PSU at the Royal Courts of Justice in London can be contacted on
020 7947 7701, by email at [email address] or at the enquiry desk.
The CAB at the Royal Courts of Justice in London can be contacted
on 020 7947 6880 or at the enquiry desk.

1.3.6 After the hearing

Having won or lost the case, the unrepresented party will need to
understand what has happened and the options available or steps
that can still be taken.

Explaining the decision

Unrepresented parties often do not understand the outcome of the
case and the reasons for it. The following guidance is particularly
important, therefore, if they have lost.

Always set out clearly the reasons for the decision.
If possible, provide an unrepresented party with a copy of the
order before leaving the court.
If judgment is reserved, or the order is to be sent on, tell the
unrepresented part y approximately when they can expect to hear
further from the court and why there may be a delay.

Costs

Unrepresented parties are frequently unaware that they may recover
costs, either from public funds in criminal matters or from the
losing side in civil cases. If such party is entitled to costs but
says nothing, consider drawing the question of costs to their
attention, without offering advice, so that any relevant costs
application can be made. If an application is made that an
unrepresented party pays the costs, an explanation must be given
with an opportunity to argue against this.

Appeal

Unless the unrepresented party has been wholly successful in the
case, explain the requirement to seek leave to appeal, if
applicable. Tell the unrepresented party to consider their rights
of appeal, but explain that the court cannot give any advice as to
the exercise of those rights.

Enforcement

An unrepresented party may be wholly unaware of the fact that
although a civil judgment has been secured, it still has to be
enforced. It is important, therefore:

to explain this in general terms at the end of the case and to make
it clear that the court cannot advise on enforcement, but that
leaflets are available at the court office;
to explain the alternatives and that, short of giving advice, the
court staff are always willing to try to help on matters of
enforcement.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Kelly Tomlin

YOUR RESPONSE'S FEBRUARY 19TH 2009:

1. "Thank you for your e-mail. I can only suggest that you contact
the court directly to find out which computer record is correct.
Otherwise it maybe a matter for the police."

WHICH YOU KNOW I HAVE DONE

2. "Thank you for your e-mails. As your e-mails were Freedom of
Information Requests Mr Meek rightly sent your e-mail to the Access
Rights Team and they will reply to you in due course. It is not
something we can answer as it is not in our remit."

I TRUST YOU ARE CONFIRMING THE ANSWER TO MY REQUEST:

"Is it the duty of HMCS to prosecute officers of the court under
the
Misuse of Computer Act, or is it HMCS's duty to report the crime to
the Police."

IS THAT AS THE EMPLOYER OF A FORGER, HMCS HAS NO LEGAL OBLIGATION
TO REPORT THAT PERSON TO THE POLICE AND IS CONTENT TO CONTINUE TO
ALLOW THAT PERSON, AS A SUSPECTED CRIMINAL, TO REMAIN UNREPORTED
AND PERHAPS TO CONTINUE FORGING PUBLIC RECORDS ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Kelly Tomlins

I REFER YOU TO THE FOLLOWING FROM THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE
ACT 1984: EVIDENCE FROM COMPUTER AND DOCUMENTARY RECORDS

S.68

(1) Subject to section 69 below, a statement in a document shall be
admissible in any proceedings as evidence of any fact stated
therein of which direct oral evidence would be admissible if--

(a) The document is or forms part of a record compiled by a person
acting under a duty from information supplied by a person (whether
acting under a duty or not) who had, or may reasonably be supposed
to have had, personal knowledge of the matters dealt with in that
information; and

(b) any condition relating to the person who supplied the
information which is specified in subsection (2) below is
satisfied.

(2) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above are--

(a) that the person who supplied the information--

(i) is dead, or by reason of his bodily or mental condition unfit
to attend as a witness; 


(ii) is outside the United Kingdom and it is not reasonably
practicable to secure his attendance; or

(iii) cannot reasonably be expected (having regard to the time
which has elapsed since he supplied or acquired the information and
to all the circumstances) to have any recollection of the matters
dealt with in that information;

(b) that all reasonable steps have been taken to identify the
person who supplied the information but that he cannot be
identified; and


(c) that, the identity of the person who supplied the information
being known all reasonable steps have been taken to find him, but
that he cannot be found

(3) Nothing in this subsection shall prejudice the admissibility of
any evidence that would be admissible apart from this section

s. 69.

(1) In any proceedings, a statement in a document produced by a
computer shall not be admissible as evidence of any fact stated
therein unless it is shown--

(a) that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the
statement is inaccurate because of improper use of the computer;

(b) that at all material times the computer was operating properly,
or if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly
or was out of operation was not such as to affect the production of
the document or the accuracy of its contents; and

(c) that any relevant conditions specified in rules of court under
subsection (2) below are satisfied

(2) Provision may be made by rules of court requiring that in any
proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by
virtue of this section such information concerning the statement as
may be required by the rules shall be provided in such form and at
such times as may be so required

s. 74:--

(3) In any proceedings where evidence is admissible of the fact
that the accused has committed an offence, in so far as that
evidence is relevant to any matter in issue in the proceedings for
a reason other than a tendency to show in the accused a disposition
to commit the kind of offence with which he is charged, if the
accused is proved to have been convicted of the offence … he shall
be taken to have committed that offence unless the contrary is
proved.

(4) Nothing in this section shall prejudice . . .

(a) the admissibility in evidence of any conviction which would be
admissible apart from this section; or

(b) the operation of any enactment whereby a conviction or a
finding of fact in any proceedings is for the purposes of any other
proceedings made conclusive evidence of any fact

Exclusion of unfair evidence

s. 78.--

(1) In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on
which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to
the court that, having regard to all the circumstances in which the
evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have
such an adverse affect on the fairness of the proceedings that the
court ought not to admit it.

(2) Nothing in this section shall prejudice any rule of law
requiring a court to exclude evidence

Schedule 3 Part I

1. Section 68 (1) above applies whether the information contained
in the document was supplied directly or indirectly but, if it was
supplied indirectly, only if each person through whom it was
supplied was acting under a duty; and applies also where the person
compiling the record is himself the person by whom the information
is supplied.

6. Any reference in section 68 above or this Part of this Schedule
to a person acting under a duty includes a reference to a person
acting in the course of any trade, business, profession or other
occupation in which he is engaged or employed or for the purposes
of any paid or unpaid office held by him.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Kelly Tomlin

I REFER YOU TO CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN JULY 5TH 2006 AND JULY 12TH
2007.

ON JULY 5TH 2006 I WROTE AND FILED AT COURT A LETTER TO THE OFFICE
OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ENTITLED “REPORT OF FALSIFIED LAND
RECORDS.” DETAILING WITH COPIES, HOW THE MAPPING OF THE LAND SOLD
TO MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION AS KEPLER STREET SEAFORTH, HAD BEEN
CONVEYED AND REGISTERED USING FORGED MAPPING.

ON JULY 11TH 2006 THE COURT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“District Judge Fitzgerald has asked me to write to you and
acknowledge receipt of the document that you filed on 5th July
2006, i.e. Report of Falsified Land Records and a letter from the
Information Commission dated 25th November 2003.”

SHAYNE BROWN, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGED MY REPORT ON JULY 12TH 2006 STATING:

“Thank you for your letter regarding the Report of Falsified
Records…the Department for Communities and Local Government has
considered your letter but unfortunately it does not have
responsibility for the issue raised. However, we have forwarded
your letter today to the Department of Constitutional Affairs.”

I FILED THIS LETTER AT COURT

ON JULY 17TH 2006 I FILED AND SERVED ON MARITIME HOUSING
ASSOCIATION AND SEFTON COUNCIL A “CRIME REPORT” TO MERSEYSIDE
POLICE REGARDING THE FORGED MAPPING USED TO REGISTER THE LAND AT
KEPLER STREET SEAFORTH, AND COPIED IT TO THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER,
MR PRESCOTT FOR FORWARDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTITUIONAL
AFFAIRS.

ON JULY 24TH 2006, MS FOX, THE LAND REGISTRIES ASSISTANT TO LAWYERS
FROM LONDON, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Your complaint has been forwarded to the Land Registry by the
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as the matter falls within its
remit.”

ON JULY 27TH I WROTE TO SHAYNE BROWN AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SENDING HIM MORE EVIDENCE.

ON AUGUST 4TH 2006, MRS WEAVER FROM THE LAND REGISTRIES COVENTRY
OFFICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY “LETTER TO THE OFFICE
OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER” STATING:

“My understanding from your letter…is that there has been some
fraudulent alteration of one or more of the title plans and that
the Land Registry has conspired to make these alterations…some
background…may prove useful. The boundary that you are querying is
between your property, number 19, and what was formally number 21
Lime Grove. Number 21 was purchased by The Mayor Aldermen and
Burgesses of the Borough of Crosby on 2 September 1960…the
application for registration of the Council was lodged on 10 August
1964…it was included in title LA45086. It was included in that
title from that time until it was sold again…to Maritime Housing
Association on 24th December 1993. At that time it was removed from
title LA45086 and registered under title MS351603.”

THIS STATEMENT NEGATES THE TWO FILED PLANS OF TWO TITLES FILED AS
MS351603 THAT HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM TITLES LA45086 AND LA45343 IN
MARCH AND APRIL 1977.

ON AUGUST 17TH 2006 I FILED AT COURT THE FORGED MAPPING OF THE LAND
SOLD AT KEPLER STREET AND COPIED TO:

SEFTON MBC

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

THE LAND REGISTRY BIRKENHEAD

THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

WILLIAM ELSBY, SOLICITOR FOR FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION

AND ASKED JUDGE FITZGERALD THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:

“The party boundary structure ‘the nib wall’ was, was according to
you demolished between March and September 1994, from the above,
how do you determine this.”

ON AUGUST 16TH 2006, MR WILLIAMS, SEFTON COUNCILS TECHNICAL
SERVICES DIRECTOR, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“I can confirm that the Council will not have provided any
information which contributed to the production of the Ordnance
Survey plan referred to, nor any other Ordnance Survey plan.”

ON AUGUST 17TH 2006, MR JOHN POWELL, FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMNET WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter of 21 July with enclosures copied to
this Department about structural defects regarding your property. I
am sorry to read about the problems you are currently experiencing
and appreciate this must be a difficult situation for you.
Unfortunately, this Department cannot get involved in individual
cases or questions of possible court decisions. I would suggest
that you continue to seek legal advice.”

ON AUGUST 17TH 2006, MS ELWOOD, SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR,
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“The Council is unable to confirm any detail in relation to the
party boundary structure “the nib” as requested…Mr George Barr, the
property manager referred to in Maritime Housing Association
Limited’s letter of March 4th 1999, is now deceased and therefore I
am unable to take this matter any further.”

ON AUGUST 21st 2006, MR JOHN POWELL, FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMNET WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter, received on 15 August, about
difficulties encountered with the boundary wall of your property.
This has been passed to this Department because of our
responsibility for housing…this Department has no power to
intervene in private property disputes of this nature…planning
functions, such as formulating development plan policies,
determining planning applications and enforcing planning control
are best carried out by the democratically elected district and, in
certain cases, county councils…if you are unhappy with the conduct
of the local authority, you may wish to complain via their own
complaints procedure. If you are not satisfied…you might wish to
take your case to the Local government Ombudsman can investigate
whether there has been maladministration.”

ON AUGUST 21ST 2006. MR IAN FLOWERS OF THE LAND REGISTRIES LONDON
OFFICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“The Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) has referred your
copy letter of 17 July to this office. However, I regret that the
issues you have raised do not fall within the jurisdiction of the
Land Registry. I will send a copy of this letter to the DCA for
their reference.”

ON AUGUST 30th 2006, MR JOHN POWELL, FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENET WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your further letter of 25 August with enclosures
about maps affecting your property…this Department cannot get
involved with private property disputes. I would suggest that you
seek legal advice in order to resolve this matter.”

ON AUGUST 31ST 2006, MS ELWOOD, SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR,
SENT ME A TERRIER MAP, REFERENCE LA076317 2005, PREPARED BY THE
COUNCILS ON SEPTEMBER 4TH 2006 AND WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME
REGARDING LAND, DONATED TO ME IN APRIL 1994 BY MARITIME HOUSING
ASSOCIATION, (BUT SUBSEQUENTLY FENCED OFF ALONG MY GABLE WALL AFTER
THE PLANNING APPLICATION STAGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT – ON THE WRITTEN
INSTRUCTION OF THE COUNCIL) WHICH IS NOT SHOWN ON THE TERRIER MAP:

“I thank you for your letter 31st August 2006 in which you sought
information regarding a 1 metre strip of land. I am enclosing a
plan from which you can clearly be seen the area in which you are
interested.”

ON SEPTEMBER 4TH 2006 MR WILLIAMS, SEFTONS TECHNICAL SERVICES
DIRECTOR WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“I refer to your letter of 21st August 2006 and would advise that I
will not enter into any further correspondence in the matters
raised in this letter.”

ON SEPTEMBER 8TH 2006 I WROTE, AND FILED AND SERVED A FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION REQUEST TO MS ELWOOD FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE
COUNCIL’S POWERS TO CHANGE THE BOUNDARIES OF MARITIMES LAND IN
1994, AND COPIED IT TO:

FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION
MARITIME HOIUSING ASSOCIATION
THE LAND REGISTRY BIRKENHEAD

ON SEPTEMBER 18TH 2006 I WROTE THE FOLLOWING IN A FOURTEEN PAGE
VERY DETAILED LETTER TO MR POWEL FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMNET STATING, INTER ALIA, THE FOLLOWING
FACT REGARDING THE TITLES OF THE LAND:

False Land Records

“With regard to your letter dated September 12th 2006 and the
transcripts of telephone conversations with The Land Registry in
Birkenhead (The Registry) which I presume you have received by
recorded delivery.

As of today I do not know who owned the land registered at Kepler
Street and Maple Grove Seaforth (the land MS351603) between
December 24th 1993 and August 31st 1994, nor evidently do Sefton
MBC (Sefton) or Maritime Housing Association (Maritime). I present
the following conflicting fact which I have been given and compare
them with the actual facts of the matter. I give letter references
in square brackets, and where appropriate print in bold what I
consider to be pertinent points. While the purpose of this letter
is to highlight the matter of land ownership, it cannot be done
without reference to the demolition of the party boundary structure
or the supposed insurance claims made by myself. I will keep these
to a minimum. What follows is only a small percentage of the events
begun in 1977 or earlier.

The Information

Maritime are averred to have become the "owners" of 'the land
MS351603' on December 24th 1994 by Maritime, Sefton and The
Registry, Fawley Construction. On October 19th 2005 District Judge
Bellamy made the following statement regarding the 'land MS352603'.

"On 6th September 2000 Mr Robinson, by virtue of a Land Registry
search ascertained the Maritime Housing Association were the
registered proprietors of the above land from January 1994."

The ownership by Maritime is stated by The Registry to have been
triggered by the transfer document dated December 24th 1994 but,
the title number MS351603 is not recorded on that document,
instead, a title number is said to be awaiting designation. The
title numbers of LA45343 and LA45086 are used to identify 'the
land' that is sold to Maritime by Sefton…

The Titles

Title LA45086 was filed in March 1977 using OS SJ3396 dated 1969.

Title LA45343 was filed in April 1977 using section B of OS SJ3396
dated 1966. Section A of this map would show the land as it was
prior to the demolition of the area of land comprising; Peach
Grove, Birch Street, Alder Street, Vine Grove, Vine Street, Plum
Street, Date Street and Kepler Street circa 1966.

On January 21st 1994, by virtue of the transfer documents The
Registry aver that Maritime, the owners of the land from December
24th 1993, became the "registered proprietors" of the land 'greened
out', i.e. outlined in green and, stated by The Registry to have
been carried out on January 21st 1994 from the filed title plans of
titles LA45343 and LA45086.

Title LA45086

On February 3 2006 I obtained the Property Register from The
Registry. At 1 of this document it is recorded that 'the land'
inter alia is:

"The freehold land shown edged in red on the plan of the above
title...being...Lime Grove 1 to 27 (odd numbers) "

Numbers 1 to 27 Lime Grove are shown on OS SJ3396 dated 1966 and
comprise of the terrace 1 to 19 Lime Grove, a large detached house
numbered 21 Lime Grove and a further three house terrace numbered
23 to 27 Lime Grove.

The proprietary register records that on September 9th 1992.

"The land edged in green on the filed plan has been removed from
this title and registered under the title number or numbers shown
in green on the said plan."

This 'greening out by The Registry is recorded on Section B of OS
SJ3396 dated March 1975 and the new title number is recorded as
MS351603 [edged in red on the title plan] which pre dates the filed
plan of March 1977 and clearly uses a different version of OS
SJ3396 than the 1966 version. The registered proprietors are
recorded as Sefton MBC at The Town Hall, Orial Road Bootle on May
12th 1976.

Fact

By September 25th 1992 two separate parcels of land were registered
as owned by Sefton under the same 'unique' title number MS351603 -
from different versions of OS SJ3396 - at two separate Council
locations. These being those 'greened out' of OS SJ3396 dated 1966,
and OS SJ3396 dated 1967, and both filed and recorded under the
same title number on May 12th 1976.

Registration of MS351603

On February 4th 2003, The Registry sent me a filed plan of MS351603
dated August 31st 1994. This plan comprises of; the amalgamated
title plans of LA45343 dated May 12 1976 and; the amalgamated title
plans of LA45086 dated May 12 1976 as recorded above.

It appears that Maritime may not have filed the August 31st 1994
registration - another fact withheld from me by The Registry - and
did in fact have the completed site registered to them in 'mid
1995'. The Registry refuse to disclose any detail about this
registration.

I look forward to a constructive response from you, or better,
someone with more authority, i.e. The Deputy Prime Minister.

ON SEPTEMBER 25TH 2006 THE ASSISTANT LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN
ROSEMARY AGNEW WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE
06/C/07976/RA/DH:

“The Local Government Ombudsman has asked me to consider your
complaint against Sefton Council and write to you…after checking
with the Council it appears that your complaint has not yet been
dealt with through the Council’s complaint procedure. So: I will
send a copy of your complaint to the Council and ask the Chief
Executive to put it through the Council’s own complaint procedure,
to keep you informed of the progress, and to let you know the
outcome.”

ON OCTOBER 3RD 2006, LYNN ROWLAND FROM THE REGISTRY IN BIRKENHEAD
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “21 LIME GROVE,
SEAFORTH:

“In order for us to deal with your query, could you please provide
us with the reference on the letter sent to you by the Coventry
Land Registry. This will enable us to call up any previous
correspondence.”

ON OCTOBER 12TH 2006 MR GIBSON, SEFTON’S PRINCIPLE LEGAL ASSISTANT
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “REFUSAL NOTICE
(VEXATIOUS REPEATED REQUESTS).”: [CAPITALISATION ADDED)

“Further to your numerous letters regarding YOUR NIB WALL and the
title to your property AND ADJOINING PROPERTY. I write to inform
you that your request for information will not be processed. I have
decided that your request is vexatious and repeated requests have
been responded to over the years…the reason I have concluded your
request is vexatious and that repeated requests have been received
and responded to is that the council has spent hundreds of man
hours dealing with your requests REGARDING YOUR PROPERTY 17 LIME
GROVE, and the INSURANCE CLAIM WHICH YOU ALLEGE WAS NOT MADE.”

ON OCTOBER 17TH 2006, SALLY WALKER, PERSONAL ASSISTANT, FROM THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS OFFICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER
REFERENCE O6/100048/SPC/sw:

“Please note you complaint has been allocated the above new
reference number…we have at the moment more complaints than we can
give our investigators but will allocate your complaint as soon as
we can…we will contact you again when your complaint has been
allocated…please note we may copy to the council any papers you
have sent us about your complaint. This is to inform the Council
that your complaint has been brought to our attention

ON OCTOBER 18TH 2006, CATHY HOWKINS, CASEWORKER AND ADVICE OFFICER
FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLOWING TO ME, REGARDING
MY LETTER TO SEFTON COUNCIL DATED JULY 5TH 2006, USING THE RFERENCE
END0124895 STATING: (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“Your letter refers to a request for assessment (REFERENCE:
03-36599/06/AD) THAT YOU SUBMITTED TO THIS OFFICE A NUMBER OF YEARS
AGO WHICH FOCUSED ON THE PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA BY SEFTON MBC.
WE WERE UNABLE TO TAKE ACTION IN RESPECT OF YOUR REQUEST FOR
ASSESSMENT AS WE CONCLUDED THAT THE INFORMATION IN QUESTION DID NOT
FALL UNDER THE SCOPE OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998. WE REACHED
THIS DECISION BECAUSE WE WERE OF THE OPINION THAT THE INFORMATION
THAT THE COUNCIL DID NOT PROVIDE TO YOU DID NOT FORM PART OF A
RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM. YOU HAVE ASKED US TO PROVIDED FURTHER
INFORMATION ABOUT THE INFORMATION THAT IS NOT HELD UNDER A RELEVANT
FILING SYSTEM. I can only repeat the Information that MR DAMMS, the
caseworker who completed the assessment, provided to you. During
the course of our investigations, SEFTON MBC CONFIRMED THAT THE
‘MISSING DOCUMENTATION (THE INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED TO
YOU IN RESPONSE TO YOUR DATA SUBJECT ACCCESS REQUEST) WAS NOT HELD
IN A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM…we can only confirm that it is OUR
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ‘MISSING’ DOCUMENTS WERE NOT HELD IN A
RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM.”

ON OCTOBER 23RD 2006 MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME
HEADED “COMPLAINT AGAINST THE POLICE.:

“It is my role on behalf of the Chief Superintendent…to conduct
investigations into such matters…I would be grateful if you would
contact me…in order to arrange a suitable appointment to discuss
the matter in detail,”

ON OCTOBER 24TH 2006 I FILED AND SERVED A LETTER I HAD WRITTEN TO
MERSEYSIDE POLICE ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION OF WHICH “COMPLAINT
AGAINST THE POLICE” THEY REFERRED TO.

ON OCTOBER 25TH 2006, PATRICK BROUGH, THE LAND REGISTRAR AT
BIRKENHEAD WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “21 LIME
GROVE.” (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“We have on file a full copy of the comprehensive letter written to
you on 4 August by Mrs D M Weaver, the Land Registry at our
Coventry office. As Mrs Weaver made clear in the final paragraph of
that letter, it contained Land Registries definitive response on
the issues you had raised in respect of titles LA45086, LA45343 and
MS351603. I do not therefore propose to enter into any further
correspondence regarding the matter. It would NOT in any event be
appropriate for the Land Registry to comment on QUESTIONS THAT YOU
HAVE ASKED IN CORRESPONDENCE WITH SEFTON BOROUGH COUNCIL AND WHICH,
THEY HAVE, FOR REASONS STATED IN THEIR RECENT LETTER TO YOU,
REFUSED TO ANSWER.”

ON NOVEMBER 2ND 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER EFERENCE ENO124895.”:

“I refer to your letter of 30 October…the Information Commission’s
Office conducted an assessment in respect of Sefton Council
following a complaint that you submitted to us in 2003. However, in
the course of our investigations we were not supplied with any of
your personal data. We based our of our assessment on the
correspondence that both you and Sefton provided to us in the
course of our investigation. However, Sefton Council never provided
us with any of the documents that you had requested from them…you
have enclosed a print out of your council tax account with your
letter. You have asked us to confirm whether this document will not
be personal data…because it is not part of a relevant filing
system…it appears that the council holds your council tax records
on computer. For the purpose of the DPA this information is likely
to be your personal data and as such you have a right of access to
this data…if the Council held a paper copy of this information at
the time of your request, and this document was not held in a
relevant filing system, you would not have been entitled to a copy
of this information under the DPA.”

ON NOVEMBER 10TH 2006 I RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING FROM MERSEYSIDE
POLICE under the reference TK/ih/6VDDW ACKNOWLEDGEING MY LETTER
DATED NOVEMBER 9TH 2006:

“I have forwarded your letter to Chief Superintendent XXXX, Area
Commander for Sefton…Constable xxxx will reply to you directly.”

ON NOVEMBER 9TH 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE ENO124895.” IN ANSWER TO
MY LETTTER OF NOVEMBER 6TH 2006 COPIED TO (CAPITALIATION ADDED):

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT

SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DEPARTMENT

CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

BOOTLE MAGISTRATES COURT

“ The advice that we provided to Sefton Metropolitan Borough
Council following the assessment we conducted IN 2004 regarding the
COMPLAINT that you submitted to our office about Sefton Council.
The outcome of OUR ASSESSMENT was explained to you when we
concluded our investigation…I can confirm that the Freedom of
Information Act does not provided an individual with the right to
have INACCURATE DATA amended…I can confirm that we have now closed
this case and that the large volume of correspondence that you have
enclosed with your last letter will be HELD ON FILE for information
only…we will be in touch with you shortly regarding the subject
access request that you made to this office on 21 October 2006.”

ON NOVEMBER 16th 2006, FAYE SPENCER, SENIOR CASEWORK AND ADVICE
MANAGER FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME
UNDER EFERENCE FOII/486SAR/310.” (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“You first of all asked us for copies of all the correspondence
and, if any, faxes emails and telephone conversations regarding
[your] REQUESTS to the Commission…given that your letter of 21
October 2006 was only concerned with…case reference 03/36599/06…we
have supplied you with the communications WE EXCHANGED WITH SEFTON
COUNCIL in relation to 03/36599/06.”

03/36599/06 WAS A “REQUEST” REGARDING THE INFORMATION WITHHELD BY
SEFTON COUNCIL DATED BETWEEN JANUARY 1ST AND DECEMBER 31ST 1994
WHICH, HAD NO CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER DATA OF FORGED MAPPING.

ON NOVEMBER 24TH 2006 I RECEIVED TWO ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FROM THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN DATED NOVEMBER 22ND 2006, THE FIRST
REFERENCED 06/C/10048.SPC3: THE SECOND REFERENCED 06/C/10048/RA.

ON NOVEMBER 22ND 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION
COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER EFERENCE ENO124895.”:

“It would appear that you are in dispute with the council over
whether you owe, or have ever owed, council tax payments…it is not
the role of the Information Commissioners Office to assess whether
or not an individual is liable for council tax payments and we have
neither the resources or expertise to do so…the amount of money
that you owe in council taxes has been considered by the
Magistrates Court and you have been issued with two liability
orders. The Information Commissioner’s Office would be unable to
overturn a decision that has been made by the courts…you have
indicated that you have made a subject access request to access
your computer records, but that you have ‘been unable to obtain
them’…you could consider a complaint if you felt the council had
not responded to your request in accordance with the Data
Protection Act 1998. However, you would need to provide us with a
copy of your request letter …and any other correspondence from the
council relating to your request…it would appear that the Local
Government Ombudsman is better placed to consider your complaint
about whether the council has correctly assessed your council tax
liability.”

ON NOVEMBER 24TH 2006 I SENT MS HOWKINS THE INFORMATION SHE HAD
REQUESTED AND COPIED IT TO:

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT FOA JUDGE FITZGERALD AND HH JUDGE STEWART

BOOTLE MAGISTRATES COURT

THE CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

MR SPARROW AS THE ipcc

MS SEEKS LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

ON NOVEMBER 29TH 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION
COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE ENO124895.”:

“It would appear that you have pursued the matter through the
courts…before we can take any action in respect of your complaint
to this office we need you to provide us with details of the courts
response to your claim against the council…we would be grateful if
you could provide details of the outcome of your court case,
including copies of any correspondence that you have received from
the court in respect of this matter. Once we have received this
additional information from you we will consider how best to
progress your complaint.”

ON DECEMBER 4TH 2006 I WROTE AGAIN TO THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
ENCLOSING 22 ITEMS OF EVIDENCE REGARDING THE FALSE LAND RECORDS AND
FORGED MAPPING AND COPIER TO:

LORD FALCONER

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

And with part of the evidence to:

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT FAO HIS HONOUR JUDGE MACKAY

CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

ipcc

THE LAW SOCIETY

LEGAL DIRECTOR SEFTON COUNCIL

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

CEO HALIFAX BUILDING SOCIETY

THE HOUSING CORPORATION

ON DECEMBER 5TH 2006, TED POWELL, RESEARCH ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY
PRIME MINISTER WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter to John Prescott MP to which I am
replying on his behalf…the matters you have raised are the
responsibility of the Department of Communities and Local
Government. I have therefore passed your correspondence to that
Department so that your concerns may be addressed in more detail.”

ON DECEMBER 8TH 2006 THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN ACKNOWLEDGED MY
CORRESPONCE UNDER 06/C/10048/SPC3.

ON DECEMBER 14TH 2006 I WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO LORD FALCONER,
ENCLOSING SEVENTY FOUR PAGES OF EVIDENCE, AND COPIED TO:

THE LAW SOCIETY

SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

“The court and the Government appear not to be able to deal with
the deceit which over the years have escalated to the present
state, absorbing tens of thousands of pounds of public money, and
occurred seemingly centered on the unlawful sale of land by Sefton
Council to Maritime housing Association in 1993/4. It is quite
clear that some parties in this matter should be sent to prison
rather than the threat of prison, loss of my home and massive
unfounded costs and fallacious liability orders for Council Tax,
obtained by perjury, being used against myself in full view of the
authorities…the matter now needs to go to the Court of Human Rights
as a matter of great urgency and not be passed around like a bad
smell. Please note it is the duty of senior members of the
Government to keep the courts independent and not let them become
subverted from within, or from without.”

ON 13TH DECEMBER MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME
REFERENCED Misc AND HEADED “COMPLAINT ABOUT THE POLICE”:

“I refer to the above matter in relation to your on-going issues
and various correspondences…I have reviewed the matter once again
and would refer you to the letter sent to you by D/I xxxv.”

THE ENCLOSED LETTER DATED DECEMBER 1ST 2005 HEADED “LETTERS OF
COMPLAINT” STATED:

“I have indicated on several occasions there are no criminal
offences committed by any party against you or your property in
relation to your claim for damages. This is a civil matter between
yourself and other parties. The allegation of perjury against
members of staff of Sefton Council was investigated and there were
no offences committed. As indicated by Superintendent xxxx in his
letter to you we are not prepared to communicate with you any
further. You should refer all of your future correspondence to
those parties you hold responsible for damage.”

ON DECEMBER 19TH 2006, NATALIE JADE HOLE, CUSTOMER LIASON UNIT, FOR
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WROTE THE
FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter of 7 December addressed to the Rt Hon
Ruth Kelly MP regarding false land records. The Department of Local
Government does not have responsibility for the issue you have
raised. Your letter has therefore been sent to the Department for
Constitutional affairs.”

ON December 21st 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION
COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER EFERENCE ENO124895.”:

“Thank you for your letter of 5 December 2006 in response to my
request of 29 November 2006…you are seeking access to your council
tax records …we will only consider whether or not the council
responded to your subject access request of 15 November 2005 in
accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998…I
have therefore written to the council to ask it to confirm whether
it has provided you with the information that you requested. If the
council has not provided you with this data, I have asked it to
confirm whether it will now do so, if the council does not intend
to provide you with the information that you have requested, I have
asked it to clarify the exemption within the Act upon which it is
relying to withhold this data.”

ON JANUARY 10TH 2007, MR DANNY O’ SULLIVAN, OF HMSC’S CUSTOMER
SERVICES UNIT, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE CSU/20492:

“Thank you for your letter of 14 December 2006 addressed to the
Department for Constitutional Affairs. We will send you a reply by
30 January 2007…if we decide your letter is best answered by
another office, we will write and tell you where your letter has
been transferred.”

ON JANUARY 11TH 2007 I WROTE TO THE HOME SECRETARY, JOHN REID
REGARDING THE REFUSAL OF MERSEYSIDE POLICE TO ACCEPT EVIDENCE OF
FORGED TITLE MAPS BY THE LAND REGISTRY.

ON JANUARY 11TH 2007, BELINDA DAWKINS, OF THE LAND REGISTRIES
CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM IN LONDON WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER
REFERENCE CSG 38 – 07 IN RESPONSE TO “COPY LETTERS AND DOCUMENTS”
SENT TO THE LAND REGISTRY:

“An inspection of our system indicates that 19 Lime Grove is not
registered therefore we would not have any documents relating to
the property on our files.”

ME ON JANUARY 15TH 2007 WITH REGARD TO FURTHER COPY CORRESPONDENCE
AND A ‘FEEDBACK FORM’ MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO
UNDER REFERENCE YV000098:

“Your letter will be forwarded to the Area Commander at Sefton for
his attention. You should receive a response within 21 days.”

ON JANUARY 17TH 2007, JEREMY DONALDSON, HEAD OF THE LAND REGISTRY
AGENCY CASE REVIEW TEAM WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME, ON BEHALF OF
PETER COLLIS, CHIEF REGISTRAR, IN RESPONSE TO MY LETTER OF JANUARY
12TH TO MS DOWKIN IN A LETTER HEADED “TITLE NUMBER MS361603 LAND AT
KEPLER STREET AND MAPLE CLOSE, SEAFORTH” UNDER REFERENCE
ACRT/700/06/118/JRD”

“I refer you to the letter dated 4 August 2006 from Mrs Weaver…I
have nothing to add to what Mrs Weaver said.”

ON JANUARY 26TH 2007 KERRRY LOCK, OF THE HOME OFFICE DIRECT
COMMUNICATIONS UNIT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME ON BEHALF OF JOHN
REID UNDER REFERENCE T1944/7:

“Thank you for your letter…regarding your wish to formally report a
crime to the police…the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police is
responsible for the day to day operational management of the force
and not the Home Secretary…Ministers do not have the authority to
intervene in operational matters. If you wish to make a
complaint…contact their Professional Standards
department…alternatively you can make your complaint through the
Merseyside Police Authority…or the …ipcc.”

ON JANUARY 29TH 2007, DINESH BHATT,FROM THE CUSTOMER SERVICES UNIT
OF HMCS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER REFERENCED CSU/20492:

“We are the third tier in Her Majesty’s Court Service…we
investigate complaints concerning the administration of HMCS. We
cannot investigate complaints concerning judicial fraud…I note that
you have already reported the matter of fraud to Merseyside
Police.”

ON FEBRUARY 1ST 2007, LEIGH TAPPIN, OF THE MINISTERIAL
CORRESPONDENCE UNIT OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “TRANSFER LETTER”
UNDER REFERENCE 83360:

“The issue raised is outside of the remit of this department.
Consequently, I have forwarded your letter to the HM Land Registry,
so that they can consider its contents.”

ON FEBRUARY1ST 2006, ANGELA ELLISON FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE ENDO124895.:

“We have now received a response from the council’s Data Protection
Officer. He states that the Revenue Manager has indicated that your
request was answered at the time…the Revenue Manager has also
stated that the council hold hard copies of the documents if
required and, in view of this…I shall ask for them to be copied to
you again.”

ON FEBRUARY 2ND 2007 I WROTE TO THE CHIEF CONSABLE OF MERSEYSIDE
POLICE REGARDING THE FORGED MAPPING USED IN THE SALE OF THE LAND AT
KEPLER STREET / MAPLE CLOSE, SEAFORTH AND COPIED TO:

JOHN REID, HOME SECRETARY

LORD FALCONER

MERSEYSIDE POLICE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

ipcc

LEGAL DEPARTMENT SEFTON COUNCIL

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

THE LAW SOCIETY

ON FEBRUARY 6TH 2007 MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE TO ME IN A LETTER
REFERENCED SI/lh6VDDW THANKING ME FOR MY “COMPLAINT” OF FEBRUARY
2ND 2007 AND STATING:

“I have forwarded your letter to Chief Superintendent xxxx, Area
Commander for the Sefton area, as he is the officer who has been
dealing with your investigation.”

ON FEBRUARY 16TH 2006, ANGELA ELLISON FROM THE INFORMATION
COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE ENDO124895.”:

“There is no evidence that the Council have concealed records.”

ON FEBRUARY 16TH 2007, MRS S HACKNEY, SECRETARY, WROTE TO ME FROM
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS OFFICE UNDER THE REFERENCE
006/C/10048/CSO/SH STATING:

“Your complaint has now been allocated to Mr Oxley.”

ON FEBRUARY 16TH 2007, MR OXLEY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS
INVESTIGATOR WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER THE REFERENCE
06/C/10048/CSO STATING. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“I RECALL that you submitted a complaint about the issue of YOUR
NIB WALL to the Ombudsman IN 1995…I have considered what you have
submitted with your current complaint and it is my view that this
concerns basically THE SAME ISSUE…I understand that the Police…are
no longer prepared to communicate further with you on this matter…I
can see no benefit in investigating your complaint [because] this
is a PRIVATE MATTER and not one of public administration.”

ON FEBRUARY 27TH 2007, SUSAN HOLLERAN WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME
FROM THE ROYAL COURT OF JUSTICE UNDER REFERENCE 0375/02/07
REGARDING A LETTER I HAD WRITTEN TO THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE:

“The contents of your letter concerning Maritime Housing
Association have been noted…if you wish to take the matter further
you may like to consider seeking legal advice. I am afraid that
this office nor the Lord Chief Justice is in a position to offer
such advice.”

ON FEBRUARY 28TH 2007, ANGELA ELLISON FROM THE INFORMATION
COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME in answer to a letter to her
dated February 28th 2007 UNDER REFERENCE ENDO124895.”:

“There is nothing further that I can add to my previous comments.”

ON MARCH 12TH 2007, MR OXLEY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS
INVESTIGATOR WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER THE REFERENCE
06/C/10048/CSO REGARDING MY ALLEGED COMPLAINT DATED 1995, AND THE
LIABILITY ORDERS OBTAINED BY SEFTON FOR NONE EXISTENT COUNCIL TAX
LIABILITIES, STATING. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“You have asked in your latest letter for RECORD OF YOUR COMPLAINT
which you say was not made at that time because the OWNERSHIP of
the nib wall was not at that time established…there are NO RECORDS
of the decision on your compliant…are RECORDS of the complaint
numbers your complaints…these are 95/C/04896…I DO RECALL the
complaint about the OWNERSHIP of the nib wall…I informed you that
YOU had made complaint on this subject AT THAT TIME…writing to you.
There was no decision on the OWNERSHIP of THE WALL as that was NOT
RELEVANT, what WAS relevant was that this was A PRIVATE MATTER
between you and the Council OR the housing association…I note that
you complained that the council officers COMMITTED PERJURY…and that
you complained about this CRIMINAL OFFENCE to Merseyside Police.
You also challenged the competency of the Magistrates Court and
APPEALED TO THE CROWN COURT which was unable to help you…I am
sending a copy of this letter and the letter of February 19th to
the Council’s Chief Executive.”

THERE WAS NO APPEAL TO THE CROWN COURT.

ON MARCH 13TH 2007, BELINDA DAWKINS, OF THE LAND REGISTRIES
CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM IN LONDON WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING
TITLE MS 351603 UNDER REFERENCE CSG 38 – 07 ON BEHALF OF PETER
COLLIS, HEAD REGISTRAR, IN RESPONSE TO A LETTER SENT TO THE LAND
REGISTRY ON MARCH 8TH 2007. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“ON THE FIRST POINT I can confirn that the Land Registry was
supplied with the August 1994 version of Ordnance Survey map OS
SJ3396NW which CORRESPONDED with title MS351603 – 21 Lime Grove…on
the second point…if you want a response…please contact the
appropriate land registry office which deals with your area.”

ON MARCH 12TH 2007, MS ANNE SEEEKS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER THE REFERENCE 06/C/10048/CSO
REGARDING A LETTER DATED MARCH 16TH 2007:

“I have asked Mr Corney, an Assistant Ombudsman to review the file
on your complaint on my behalf. Mr Corney does not manage Mr Oxley
and has not previously been involved with your complaint. He will
complete the review and write to you as quickly as possible. His
decision will be final.”

ON MARCH 22ND I WROTE A COMPLAINT TO MS SEEKS REGARDING MR OXLEY
HEADED “MALICIOUS MIS-STATEMENT – BREACH OF DUTY”, POINTING OUT TO
HER THERE WAS NO COMPLAINT BY ME TO THE OMBUDSMAN IN 1995
REFERENCED 95/C/03824.”

ON MARCH 22ND 2007, MR CORNEY, ASSISTANT OMBUDSMAN WROTE THE
FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE 06/C/10048/RJC/jm. (CAPITALISATION
ADDED):

“ I have read the PAPERS and see nothing to suggest that the
decision was wrong, the only point I would accept is that complaint
95/c/03824 WAS NOT MADE IN 1995, as it was IN FACT received in this
office on 10 January 1996…Mr Oxley is also quite correct…about the
LIABILITY ORDER for NONE payment of Council Tax…there is no way in
which the Ombudsman can overturn the decision of a Magistrates
Court, which has been REINFORCED IN TURN BY THE CROWN COURT. ”

ON MARCH 26TH 2007, LEIGH TAPPIN, OF THE MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE
UNIT OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS WROTE THE
FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “TRANSFER LETTER” UNDER
REFERENCE 154306:

“Thank you for your letter dated 16/3/07 addressed to Lord
Falconer…the issue raised is outside the remit of this department.
Consequently, I have forwarded your letter to the DCLG.”

ON MARCH 27TH 2007, MR PATRICK BROUGH THE REGISTRAR AT BIRKENHEAD
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME, WITH REGARD TO A LETTER AND DOCUMENTS
DATED MARCH 20TH 2007, UNDER THE REFERENCE CL145/03.
(CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“I have nothing to add to the COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION which Mrs
Weaver gave you except to say…title MS351603 was FIRST registered
on 21 January 1994 and not on 25 September as YOU SUGGEST.”

ON MAY 4TH 2007, KELLY TOMLIN, OF HMSC’S CUSTOMER SERVICES UNIT,
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE CSU/20492:

““Thank you for your letter of 14 April 2007 addressed to Lord
Falconer…if we decide your letter is best answered by another
office, we will write and tell you where your letter has been
transferred.”

On May 8TH 2007, ANNE SEEKS, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN WROTE
THE FOLLOWING TO ME, REGARDING A LETTER DATED APRIL 23RD 2007,
UNDER REFERENCE 06/10048/AS/CRB and changing the date for the 1995,
1996 complaint C/04896 to 1999:

“Both Mr Oxley and Mr Corney have explained why your complaint will
not be investigated. Their decisions are correct…I have to tell you
that the file relating to complaint 99/C/04896 was destroyed some
time ago and I cannot therefore comply with your request.”

ON MAY 14TH 2007, SUSAN HOLLERAN FROM THE JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE
ROYAL COURT OF JUSTICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING EVIDENCE
I HAD SENT TO THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OVER THE “LAST MONTHS”
REFERENCED 0160/05/07. CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“The contents of those letters concerning damage to YOUR WALL have
been noted……if you wish to take the matter further you may like to
consider seeking legal advice. I am afraid that this office nor the
Lord Chief Justice is in a position to offer such advice.”

ON MAY 18TH 2007 PAULA MULLIN OF HMCS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN
A LETTER HEADED ”CLAIM NUMBERS 5LV53314 & 6L50690 UNDER REFERENCE
CSU21318 AND, REGARDING “LETTERS OF 14 APRIL, ADDRESSED TO LORD
FALCONER. LORD GOLDSMITH & LORD PHILLIPS WHICH HAD BEEN PASSED TO
HMCS BECAUSE:

“This office is responsible for dealing with all correspondence in
relation to the administration within the courts in England and
Wales.”

ON MAY 31ST 2007, KAREN ROUSE, OF THE HOME OFFICE DIRECT
COMMUNICATIONS UNIT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY LETTER
OF MAY 31ST 2007:

“The matters raised in your letter are now the responsibility of
the Ministry of Justice. Your letter has therefore been transferred
to the new Ministry of Justice.”

ON MAY 31ST 2007, SARAH MASTERSON, OF THE HOME OFFICE DIRECT
COMMUNICATIONS UNIT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE
T16299/7 REGARDING “YOUR POLICE COMPLAINT.”:

“I can see from your letter that you have raised a complaint with
the Chief Constable and the…IPCC and are not satisfied with the
response you have received…the IPCC is an independent body and
therefore, if you are not satisfied with their investigation, you
will need to seek independent legal advice.”

ON JUNE 12TH 2007 I WROTE A ‘ROUND ROBIN’ LETTER REGARDING THE
FALLACIOIUS INSURANCE CLAIMS W215732 AKA RR98XN AKA AT01939, TO:

LORD FALCONER

LORD PHILLIPS

THE HOME SECRETARY

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

THE INFORMATION COMMISSION

THE LAW SOCIETY

ON JUNE 26TH 2007, HIESH DARJEE, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER
REFERENCED 070626/J24 – 54/018673/07”

“Thank you for your letter concerning council tax. As the issues
you have raised is the responsibility of this Department…I have
been asked to reply…I am afraid that the administration and
collection of council tax is the responsibility of the local
authority and it would not be appropriate for ministers or
officials from this Department to intervene in individual cases
between a local authority and its taxpayers.”

On June 27th 2007, BERNARD McNALLY FROM THE CUSTOMER SERVICES TEAM
OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLLOWING TO ME UNDER
REFERENCE INFO166270:

“Thank you for your “round robin letter” regarding Sefton Borough
council. The information you have provided will be kept on our
files for information only.”

ON JUNE 28TH 2007, H JARMAN FROM THE CASE RECEPTION UNIT OF THE
INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE
INFO166461:

“Thank you for your correspondence received at this office on 14th
June 2007 regarding your information request to Sefton MBC. The
information you have provided will be kept on our files for
information only.”

ON JULY 9TH 2009 LANDSEARCH LIMITED EMAILED ME CONFIRMING THEIR
CONTRACT WITH ME TO SUPPLY ME WITH TITLES LA 45086, LA 45343 AND
TITLE MS351603.

JUST OVER A YEAR SINCE MY LETTER TO JOHN PRESCOTT REGARDING THE
FORGED MAPPING, MARY ROSE MULLINER,LAWYER FROM THE LAND REGISTRY,
TELFORD, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “TITLE NUMBER
LA45086.”:

“The point made by you in your letter of 13 June 2007 as to the
erasure of the Crown copyright date. The 1977 title plan for
LA43086 is based on more than one edition of the Ordnance Survey.
The first sheet within which former LA45086 is to be found, is
based on a 1966 edition, and the second and third sheets, within
which second sheet your property is found, is based on a 1970
edition. Where more than one edition is being used it would be
inappropriate to refer a crown copyright date.”

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Kelly Tomlin

I refer you to The Prosecutor Pledge

Where there is an identifiable victim the prosecutor will:

Take into account the impact on the victim or their family when
making a charging decision.

In doing so the prosecutor will ensure that the charge adequately
reflects the criminality of the offending. Where there are
identified victims the prosecutor will, when selecting a charge,
listen to the voice of the victim through their witness statement
and, where the numbers of victims allow, through the victim
personal statement.

Inform the victim where the charge is withdrawn, discontinued or
substantially altered.

The prosecutor will establish with each victim whether they wish to
be kept informed of the withdrawal or dismissal of charges and will
write and keep them so informed if they do.

Where practical, seek a victim’s view or that of the family when
considering the acceptability of a plea.

In deciding on the acceptability of pleas the prosecutor will keep
in mind any views expressed by any of the witnesses who are
considered to be victims.

Address the specific needs of a victim and where justified seek to
protect their identity by making an appropriate application to the
court.

The prosecutor will form a judgment and, where appropriate, make an
application for “special measures” to ensure that victims are able
to give “best evidence” before the court. In appropriate
circumstances the prosecutor may also make an application to
protect the identity of the victim or prevent inappropriate
reporting in the media.

Assist victims at court to refresh their memory from their written
or video statement and answer their questions on court procedure
and processes.

A member of prosecution staff will introduce themselves to the
victim at court and whilst not permitted to discuss their evidence
will answer any questions on procedure and processes. The victim
will also be given an opportunity to read their statement or see
their video taped statement before giving evidence.

Promote and encourage two-way communications between victim and
prosecutor at court.

The prosecutor will ensure that during the course of the court
hearing any victim who so requests is kept informed of the progress
of the case. The prosecutor will promote two-way communication to
enable a victim to pass to the prosecutor any information that may
assist in the conduct of the prosecution or have a bearing on an
assertion made by the defence.

Protect victims from unwarranted or irrelevant attacks on their
character and may seek the court’s intervention where cross
examination is considered to be inappropriate or oppressive.

The prosecutor will be alert during the course of the trial to
unwarranted or irrelevant attacks on the victim’s character and may
seek the court’s intervention where, for example, the prosecutor
considers that cross-examination by the defence is inappropriate or
oppressive.

On conviction, robustly challenge defence mitigation which is
derogatory to a victim’s character.

At the sentencing stage, the prosecutor will challenge any
assertion by the defence in mitigation which is derogatory to a
victim’s character and which is considered either false or
irrelevant to proper sentencing considerations.

On conviction apply for appropriate order for compensation,
restitution or future protection of the victim.

The prosecutor will always consider making any relevant application
for ancillary orders such as compensation or restitution and where
appropriate and justified on the evidence encourage the court to
impose a restraining order for the future protection of the victim.

Keep victims informed of the progress of any appeal, and explain
the effect of the court’s judgment.

Where a case is the subject of an appeal to the Court of Appeal
(Criminal) Division the prosecutor will ensure that any identified
victims are advised of the hearing and that the grounds on which
the appeal is made and the effect of the court’s judgement are
properly explained.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH CONFIRMING OR DENYING MY FOI REQUEST:

"Is it the duty of HMCS to prosecute officers of the court under
the
Misuse of Computer Act, or is it HMCS's duty to report the crime to
the Police."

WHICH IS NOT ANSWERED BY:

"Thank you for your e-mail. I can only suggest that you contact the
court directly to find out which computer record is correct.
Otherwise it maybe a matter for the police."

"Thank you for your e-mail to my colleague Russell Meek. This is
not a matter for HMCS to deal with. It is entirely a matter for you
to contact the police should you wish to do so."

"Thank you for your e-mail. I have forwarded it to the Data Access
and Compliance Unit for them to reply direct."

"Thank you for my e-mail. I have forwarded it to the Data Access
and Compliance Unit for them to deal with direct."

"Thank you for your e-mail. it may be helpful if I explain that if
a customer makes a Freedom of Information request it is procedure
for us to pass that request onto the unit that deals with such
requests."

"Thank you for your e-mail. I have forwarded your latest e-mails
onto the data Access and Compliance Unit for them to reply direct."

"Thank you for your e-mails. As your e-mails were Freedom of
Information Requests Mr Meek rightly sent your e-mail to the Access
Rights Team and they will reply to you in due course. It is not
something we can answer as it is not in our remit."

"Thank you for your e-mail. I have repeatedly explained that we
cannot help you. Consequently, as there is nothing for us now to
respond to administratively, I cannot see what use there would be
in engaging in further protracted correspondence in this matter.
Therefore, unless any further correspondence received raises new
issues specifically in relation to the administrative handling of
your case, it will simply be placed on file without an
acknowledgement or reply. If, however, you still remain
dissatisfied with the administrative handling of your case you have
the right to refer your complaint via a Member of Parliament to the
Office of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for
review. Please find the link below:"

AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE I REQUEST AN INTERNAL REVIEW.

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Her Majesty's Courts
Service's handling of my FOI request 'Duty of HMCS to prosecute
court officers'.

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson