Make and explore Freedom of Information requestsFollow this request
There is 1 person following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Documentation Relating to PC Appeal No 70 of 1997
To Privy Council Office by david schiller 26 April 2008
Political Control of the Judiciary
To Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) by david schiller 27 December 2010
Justice - The Highest Court in the Land
To British Broadcasting Corporation by david schiller 29 January 2011
Deputy Chief Constable
To Police Service of Northern Ireland by david schiller 26 December 2010
Crime investigation following allegations relating to and including Privy Council Appeal No 70 of 19977
To Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) by david schiller 13 April 2008
Justice - The Highest Court in the Land
To Channel Four Television Corporation by david schiller 19 February 2011
Thefts at construction sites
To Police Service of Northern Ireland by Claire Evans 2 December 2011
All guidance given to PSNI from the Home Office and/or any other third parties concerning what details which can be passed on to a victim(s) - Martin McGartland - 1991 IRA kidnapping case
To Police Service of Northern Ireland by Martin McGartland 22 December 2010
Single or Dual DV Risk Assessments
To Police Service of Northern Ireland by Advocacy Fund DV1 28 October 2011
Investigating Employees
To Police Service of Northern Ireland by maggie rankin 17 May 2010
Refusal of police to investigate
david schiller made this Freedom of Information request to Police Service of Northern Ireland
The request was partially successful.
From: david schiller
22 June 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
The following precised text was sent to the PSNI last month:-
ftao Chief Constable
Newrv Court: Perversion of Justice
Dear Sir,
Last March I telephoned the PSNI in Newry and spoke to a DC
regarding allegations that in dealing with a Case one or more local
Judges had acted knowingly and deliberately to pervert Justice and
I sought an interview with the officer. It was suggested that if
the officer had doubts about the nature of the allegations he could
check a similar case which a DC, now retired, had dealt with a few
years ago
A letter to Ardmore on the 27th March was not answered and one of
the 5th May asking whether it was intended to ignore the alleged
criminal conduct was answered to the effect that my complaint 'is
not criminal' and will not be investigated by the PSNI
No legitimate explanation or reason as to how the matter has been
deemed 'not criminal' has been given
Without a legitimate explanation the PSNI must be deemed to be
(inter alia) an accessory after the fact and your consideration of
this matter is hereby requested
Yours faithfully,
--
What information did the PSNI base its decision that the matter was
'not criminal' on?
Sincerely, D A Schiller
Police Service of Northern Ireland
22 June 2009
June 22, 2009
Dear D A Schiller,
FREEDOM of INFORMATION ACT 2000
I write in connection with your request for information dated June 22,
2009 which was received by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI)
on June 22, 2009. I note you seek access to the following information:
Various questions regarding Newry Court - Perversion of Justice.
This request will be dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. A response should be sent to you within 20 working
days. The Freedom of Information team will advise you in writing if there
are any delays in responding to your request and will keep you advised of
progress.
In the event where the cost of complying with the request would exceed the
"appropriate level", which is fixed at £450, as stated in the Freedom of
Information Regulations 2004, it is the policy of the PSNI to close the
request. You will however be notified of this decision and given an
opportunity to refine and resubmit the request.
If your request requires either full or partial transference to another
public authority in order to answer your query, again, you will be
notified.
If you have any queries regarding your request please write or contact the
Freedom of Information Team on 028 9070 0164. Please remember to quote the
reference number listed above in any future communications with the
Freedom of Information Team.
If you are dissatisfied in any way with the handling of your request, you
have the right to request a review.You should do this as soon as possible,
or in any case within two months of the date of issue of this letter.In
the event that you require a review to be undertaken, you can do so by
writing to the Head of Freedom of Information, PSNI Headquarters, 65 Knock
Road, Belfast, BT5 6LE or by emailing [email address].
If following an internal review, carried out by an independent decision
maker, you were to remain dissatisfied in any way with the handling of the
request you may make a complaint,under Section 50 of the Freedom of
Information Act, to the Information Commissioner*s Office and ask that
they investigate whether the PSNI has complied with the terms of the
Freedom of Information Act. You can write to the Information Commissioner
at Information Commissioner*s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. In most circumstances the Information
Commissioner will not investigate a complaint unless an internal review
procedure has been carried out, however the Commissioner has the option to
investigate the matter at his discretion.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Gordon Reid
A/Head of Freedom of Information
show quoted sections
Police Service of Northern Ireland
21 July 2009
Subject: F-2009-01663
July 21, 2009
Dear Mr Schiller,
FREEDOM of INFORMATION ACT 2000
I write in connection with your request for information dated June 22,
2009 which was received by the Police Service of Northern Ireland on June
22, 2009 concerning:
Newry Court - Perversion of Justice.
This is to inform you that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has now
completed its search for the information you requested and the answer to
your question is as follows.
Question
What information did the PSNI base its decision that the matter was 'not
criminal' on?
Answer
Requests for information via Freedom of Information are for 'recorded
information' and this definition means that your request taking the form
of a question, which is seeking a member of the Service to express an
opinion is as such not a valid request for recorded information held by
the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
Under the Act we are obliged to advise and assist and I contacted the
officer who was involved in making the decision that the matter was 'not
criminal'. The Inspector has advised that they made the decision based on
their knowledge of the Law and over 20 years experience.
If you have any queries regarding your request or the decision please do
not hesitate to contact me on 028 9070 0164. When contacting the Freedom
of Information Team, please quote the reference number listed at the
beginning of this email.
If you are dissatisfied in any way with the handling of your request, you
have the right to request a review.You should do this as soon as possible,
or in any case within two months of the date of issue of this letter.In
the event that you require a review to be undertaken, you can do so by
writing to the Head of Freedom of Information, PSNI Headquarters, 65 Knock
Road, Belfast, BT5 6LE or by emailing [PSNI request email]
If following an internal review, carried out by an independent decision
maker, you were to remain dissatisfied in any way with the handling of the
request you may make a complaint,under Section 50 of the Freedom of
Information Act, to the Information Commissioner's Office and ask that
they investigate whether the PSNI has complied with the terms of the
Freedom of Information Act. You can write to the Information Commissioner
at Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. In most circumstances the Information
Commissioner will not investigate a complaint unless an internal review
procedure has been carried out, however the Commissioner has the option to
investigate the matter at his discretion.
Please be advised that PSNI replies under Freedom of Information may be
released into the public domain via our website @ [1]www.psni.police.uk
Personal details in respect of your request have, where applicable, been
removed to protect confidentiality.
Yours sincerely
Mr Gordon Reid
A/Head of Freedom of Information
show quoted sections
References
Visible links
1. file:///tmp/outbind:/13/www.psni.police.uk
From: david schiller
27 July 2009
Dear Mr Reid,
Your response to my request for information is acknowledged, viz:-
1 “Requests for information via Freedom of Information are for
'recorded information' and this definition means that your request
taking the form of a question, which is seeking a member of the
Service to express an opinion is as such not a valid request for
recorded information held by the Police Service of Northern
Ireland”
Response: No Opinion has been sought from anybody. The PSNI have
stated as a fact that a particular act is 'not criminal' and have
been asked what information led them to that Decision. Unless the
PSNI claim to have established the act was not criminal without any
information the first duty under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act is to promptly confirm it has the information
requested
It is noted that no exemptions, which would apply to any criminal
investigation that the PSNI had a duty to conduct, have been
claimed regarding the request
Notwithstanding the foregoing the mere fact that information
requested may relate to an Opinion does not render the request
invalid
2 “Under the Act we are obliged to advise and assist and I
contacted the officer who was involved in making the decision that
the matter was 'not criminal'. The Inspector has advised that they
made the decision based on their knowledge of the Law and over 20
years experience”
Response: “...... knowledge of the Law and over 20 years
experience” and no investigation?
Notwithstanding the irrelevance of the status of the accused and
the PSNI's duty to investigate 'It was suggested that if the
officer had doubts about the nature of the allegations he could
check a similar case which a DC had dealt with a few years ago'
In the case referred to the PSNI advised the Metropolitan Police
they should have a proper investigation into the matter which
involves allegations relating to the perversion of justice by a
committee consisting of five 'members of the judiciary' : the Case
is pending
Perhaps the PSNI have a different interpretation of 'investigation'
to my own, but perhaps not? viz:
Whilst awaiting your prompt response to this request an incident
took place involving a car being 'fire-bombed' in the driveway of a
house opposite in an apparent attempt to murder or 'recklessly
warn' a mother and her young child In response to an emergency call
the Fire Brigade, having apparently decided not to declare the
matter 'No Fire' without investigating, attended 'promptly' and
extinguished the fire
Later the PSNI attended to ask questions and presumably
'investigate'
If the PSNI is claiming to have, within its ranks, an officer
capable of making a decision as to the legality or otherwise of a
particular act without any investigation or information it is
indeed a rare talent and the 'force' is to be congratulated on the
quality of the particular officer referred to (surely there can't
be more than one?)
Whether such 'decision-making process' would stand up to a judicial
review regarding its acceptance is problematical although I am
aware of at least one local judge who is able to make 'Decisions'
without allowing any evidence to get in the way of 'due process'
The response to my request has a 'Gillespien' feel to it,
characterised by 'kicking the issue into the long grass' such
practice being facilitated by passing the case over to an 'appeals
systems' which in the authors experience merely 'rubber-stamps'
mal-practice of this type of case:-
Prior to the necessity to invoke the FoI Act a letter was sent to
the Chief Constable seeking his 'consideration' of the matter The
letter was answered to the effect that ACC Gillespie had been
requested to deal with it and to contact me. Gillespie didn't
contact me or investigate choosing simply to fabricate evidence and
refer the matter to the Police Ombudsman on the fallacious basis
that I had made a Complaint against the police and I copy an
excerpt from a letter sent to the Ombudsman following Gillespies
referral of the matter to that office: -
“Perhaps it would be helpful if I added an explanation as to why
the PSNI were initially involved: Last October 'The Lord Chief
Justices' Office was contacted about the handling of a case by a
Judge but in March correspondence with that office was held in
abeyance because if a complaint against a Judicial Office Holder
concerns criminal conduct the guidelines state it to be 'primarily
a matter for the police and the appropriate authorities': thus the
police were contacted.... ”
The response to the request for information can reasonably be
described as prevarication and smacks of assisting in the
perversion of justice or of separately acting to pervert justice
Certainly the response of the PSNI couldn't reasonably be described
as having the pursuit of Justice as it's prime motive
D A Schiller
Police Service of Northern Ireland
30 July 2009
Dear Mr Schiller,
Thank you for your email of 27 July 2009 relating to your FOI response
which was forwarded on 21 July 2009.
Firstly, I would like to state that it is the duty of a Public Authority
under Section 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to inform the
person requesting information in writing:
(a) Whether it holds information of the description specified in the
request, and
(b) If that is the case, to have that information communicated to the
person requesting it
In your original request of 22 June 2009 you asked the following
question:
What information did the PSNI base its decision that the matter was 'not
criminal' on?
Within the response provided on 21 July 2009, you were advised of the
following:
"Under the Act we are obliged to advise and assist and I contacted the
officer who was involved in making the decision that the matter was 'not
criminal'. The Inspector has advised that they made the decision based
on their knowledge of the law and over 20 years experience."
The PSNI therefore made its decision based on the circumstances as
described by you to the detective constable with whom you spoke about
the matter. Consideration was also given to the content of a letter
forwarded by you and addressed to the Senior Officer, CID Newry on 27
March 2009. It is firmly believed by police at Newry that the way to
address your complaint is via your solicitor as a civil matter.
In giving consideration to your original question I believe that the
PSNI Freedom of Information staff has been open and transparent in
responding to your request. I would strongly refute your suggestion that
the response could in any way be described as prevarication, or, in
assisting in the perversion of justice or of separately acting to
pervert justice.
I note within your email the serious comments concerning Deputy Chief
Constable Gillespie and I have forwarded a copy of your email to the
Deputy Chief Constables Office for attention in this regard.
If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request, and this
email has not addressed your concerns, you have the right to request a
review. You can formally request an independent review by writing to the
Head of FOI, PSNI Headquarters, 65 Knock Road, Belfast BT56LE or by
email to zFOI.
If following an internal review, carried out by an independent decision
maker, you were to remain dissatisfied in any way with the handling of
the request you may make a complaint,under Section 50 of the Freedom of
Information Act, to the Information Commissioner's Office and ask that
they investigate whether the PSNI has complied with the terms of the
Freedom of Information Act. You can write to the Information
Commissioner at Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water
Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. In most circumstances the Information
Commissioner will not investigate a complaint unless an internal review
procedure has been carried out, however the Commissioner has the option
to investigate the matter at his discretion.
Gordon Reid
AHead of Freedom of Information
show quoted sections
From: david schiller
3 August 2009
Dear Mr Reid,
Thank you for your response
Perhaps I should first explain why it was necessary for you to '..
strongly refute your suggestion that the response could in any way
be described as prevarication, or, in assisting in the perversion
of justice or of separately acting to pervert justice'
It is assumed that you gather information on which to base a
response to any request for information from relevant Police
Officers? that being the case there is no implied criticism of any
'Freedom of Information staff' and your statement that '..In giving
consideration to your original question .. the PSNI Freedom of
Information staff has been open and transparent in responding' is
accepted.
What is not accepted is the actual 'Response' to my request which
has to be considered as a response from the 'PSNI' ; who drafted it
is irrelevant and I believe my comments to be appropriate
You have added to the original explanation as to how the decision
was made, viz: 'The PSNI therefore made its decision based on the
circumstances as described by you to the detective constable with
whom you spoke about the matter'
No information was given to the DC other than one or two people had
perverted justice and the purpose of the call was to arrange for a
statement to be taken and the matter discussed in detail.
To assist the police in what they clearly felt uneasy about a
'precedent' was given
It would be more accurate to say 'The PSNI therefore made its
decision based on a total disregard for the circumstances as
described by you to the detective constable with whom you spoke
about the matter'
The Decision remains said to be based on :- 'their knowledge of the
Law and over 20 years experience and no investigation'
You say that 'Consideration was also given to the content of a
letter forwarded by you and addressed to the Senior Officer, CID
Newry on 27 March 2009' :
Presumably you refer to my letter to DC Riordan which ends with :-
Clearly the proper authority to investigate allegations of criminal
acts is the Police but if that is not your opinion please let me
know so I can progress the matter. I know you are not aware of the
details of the allegations!
A reply was received from Inspector M Craig saying 'With reference
to your letters of the 27th March and 5th May 2009, we wish to
advise that your complaint is not criminal and therefore will not
be investigated by Police. However, if you wish to progress the
matter, you should do so via your Solicitor'
As you say it is the duty of the PSNI to inform me in writing
whether it holds information of the description specified in the
request, and if it does to communicate it to me.
I am unsure whether you still claim not to have to communicate the
information sought or whether you have now disclosed it all ; it
maybe only an academic point since it appears that the PSNI have
gone out of their way to avoid acquiring any relevant information
and have declared the matter 'No Crime'
Given the similarities regarding judgements being made before
evidence is taken, I copy below an edited excerpt of the text of a
letter sent to the Newry Court after the first 'hearing' of the
case in October last :-
'In Nov 2007 the Claimant was told that only the amount agreed for
berthing would be paid unless a legal basis for demanding the fees
was provided: none was or has been and instead of dismissing the
Claim the Court asked the Claimant to obtain and bring proof of a
statutory basis for the claim at another hearing set for the 24th
October 2008 The Defendant asked for a copy of any such legal basis
without response...The Court said…it will find in favour of the
Claimant unless the Defendant takes the Defence to a higher court
...It also suggested the NMDC decision could be judicially
reviewed....A Judgement given without and/or before a 'hearing'
coupled with the lack of a proper appeal process must be of
concern'
Finally, all this debate, correspondence and argument is due to the
simple fact that the PSNI refused to comply with their duty to
investigate alleged criminal acts
Police Service of Northern Ireland
4 August 2009
Dear Mr Schiller
Thank you for your email of Monday 3rd August.
PSNI hold no further information for disclosure surrounding the question
originally asked by you. In view of this do you wish to request a review
which as you are aware is your right. Disatisfaction or complaint with
operational police decisions is a matter for investigation by the Police
Ombudsman.
Yours sincerely
Gordon Reid
A/Head of Freedom of Information
show quoted sections
From: david schiller
10 August 2009
Dear Mr Reid,
Thank you for your post
This matter is clearly set to continue unresolved for some time and
I will record my understanding of what we do not dis-agree on :-
1 If an allegation of crime by a member of the judiciary is
involved the guide lines of the Lord Chancellors (Complaints)
Office state it to be primarily a matter for the police to
investigate; thus the PSNI were contacted with a request for an
appointment to supply details of alleged crime and to make a
statement : the request was refused
2 The PSNI has withdrawn the claim that the request was 'invalid'
and have now disclosed all the information on which their
'Decision' was based:- ie they made the decision that the complaint
was 'not criminal' based on their knowledge of the Law and over 20
years experience and circumstances described to the detective
constable'
3 The PSNI were referred to a precedent
–
You say that 'Disatisfaction or complaint with operational police
decisions is a matter for investigation by the Police Ombudsman' :-
Following the PSNI's refusal to investigate the Chief Constable was
asked to 'consider' the handling of the matter which resulted in
the Assistant Chief Constable referring it directly to the
Ombudsman by way of a letter consisting mainly of bunkum but
including fabricated and misleading 'evidence'
The referral of the matter to the Ombudsman was premature,
pre-emptive and predictably effective '...by passing the case over
to an 'appeals systems' which in the authors experience merely
'rubber-stamps' mal-practice of this type of case:-
The Ombudsmans office has indicated it is not concerned with the
failure of the police to investigate or with fabricated evidence
being submitted to it and has now asked for details, not given to
the police, regarding the allegations so it can determine whether
there is any misconduct on the part of any individual police
officer
In the circumstances there appears no reasonable alternative than
(private) criminal proceedings against both those originally
accused and those subsequently intent on obstructing justice. In
the writers experience that will necessitate the DPP 'taking over
and discontinuing' such proceedings 'In the Public Interest'
With regard to the question of requesting a review I agree with
your inference that it is not really appropriate since you have
effectively complied with the FoI Act by disclosing 'nothing' but
in the particular circumstances of this case it may be helpful and
for that reason I hereby request a review but am perfectly content,
if you think it appropriate, to agree that the request be withdrawn
DAS
Police Service of Northern Ireland
11 August 2009
Subject: F-2009-01663
August 11, 2009
Dear Mr Schiller,
FREEDOM of INFORMATION ACT 2000
I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated 10th August 2009
requesting that Police Service of Northern Ireland review its response
to your request for information concerning:
Newry Court - Perversion of Justice.
An internal review will be conducted in accordance with Police Service
of Northern Ireland's review procedure. It is envisaged that the review
process will take no longer than 40 working days from date of receipt of
your letter, however we will endeavour to respond earlier.
In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 an independent
decision maker will carry out a review of this case and advise you in
writing of the outcome.
If you wish to discuss this matter prior to receiving a response please
contact me on 028 9070 0164. Please remember to quote the reference
number above in any future communications.
If following an internal review you were to remain dissatisfied in any
way with the handling of the request you may make a complaint to the
Information Commissioner's Office and ask that they investigate whether
the PSNI has complied with the terms of the Freedom of Information Act.
You can write to the Information Commissioner at Information
Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire,
SK9 5AF. The Information Commissioner will not investigate a complaint
unless an internal review procedure has been carried out.
Yours sincerely
Mr Gordon Reid
A/Head of Freedom of Information
show quoted sections
From: david schiller
19 August 2009
Police Ombudsman for NI 18th August 2009
Thank you for your letter of the 12th August
Most of what follows should be known to you but perhaps I have not
explained things clearly; it has been said that my use of the
English language is 'terrible' so apologies for that
I did not provide the DC with specific details of the judges
conduct because he said he would need to seek advice from his
superior officer and phone me back ; in any event it was not
appropriate to specify details on that occasion and the purpose of
the phone call was to request an appointment to explain the facts
and make a Statement
I do not agree that you need any specific details regarding the
nature of the Judge's conduct.
The complaint is against the PSNI who refused to investigate
alleged criminal acts which, real or imagined, are irrelevant to
the Complaint. The Ombudsman may well be correct to ask for more
details if the allegations were self-apparently absurd and if the
police had interviewed me and taken a Statement they may have been
in a position to judge the matter 'No Crime' but that is not the
situation in this case
The PSNI seem to take the view that a judge is in a different
category regarding criminal conduct than others in doing their job
and to assist the DC to whom I spoke it was suggested it might be
helpful for him to refer to a similar case the PSNI had dealt with
: in the case referred to five Law Lords (amongst others),
including The Lord Chancellor (whose Office effectively referred
this case to the PSNI) are accused of perverting justice/conspiring
to defeat justice: the Case is pending
Notwithstanding the foregoing I am prepared to meet with any
relevant body to explain the case but to do so by postal exchanges
is counter-productive. If it helps the following is a taste of the
case :-
a) At the 'Hearing' on the 12th September 2008 my wife and self
attended court with the documents required to present the
'Respondents Case' including a draft Affidavit which explained the
history of the affair. The affidavit was prepared with a local
solicitor for use in an action against the NMDC under the Legal Aid
Scheme which led to them restricting their Claim to £2000 so that
legal aid was not available
The Newry and Mourne District Council were not represented nor were
any documents produced
The NMDC had been told that only the amount agreed for berthing
would be paid unless a legal basis for demanding the increased
amount was provided
Four council employees attended the Hearing as 'observers to report
back to the council what happened' and through them the Judge
instructed the council to obtain and bring proof of a statutory
basis for the claim at another 'hearing' set for the 24th October
2008 : she made it clear she expected the council to be
represented.
The Judge also said she would find in favour of the NMDC on the
24th October 2009 unless the Defendant took the Defence to a higher
court
b) At the Hearing on the 24th October four 'observers' again
attended and presented a copy of a meeting of the council as a
legal basis for the money claimed. In the absence of legal
representation the judge effectively represented the Claimant,
calling the four observers as witnesses and questioning them by way
of 'leading questions' for example 'how many tens of thousands of
pounds did it cost the council to renovate the Victoria Lock?
followed by 'of course the council have a duty to recover that
money?' She also made infantile comments throughout (eg 'it can be
more trouble packing four young children into the back of a car to
take them to school than to prepare a ship for sea')
c) The Rules applicable to the small Claims Court were flouted and
no reason for the Decision was given. I have requested on several
occasions sight of a legitimate Order: to date I have not received
one bearing any signature, seal or judges name
Given the circumstances and before contemplating a referral to the
Ombudsman or invoking the Freedom of Information Act a letter was
sent to the Chief Constable seeking his 'consideration' of the
matter which was answered to the effect that ACC Gillespie had been
requested to deal with it and to contact me. Gillespie didn't
investigate or contact me choosing simply to refer the case to the
Ombudsman by letter containing balderdash and fabricated evidence
Such action by Gillespie, given credence by the Ombudsman, was
premature and pre-emptive and if it represents the normal
relationship between the PSNI and the Ombudsman it's a disgrace
--
Please either reconsider or confirm your Decision that :-
“I would stress in order to progress your complaint, this office
requires confirmation from you as to the specific nature of the
Judge's conduct which warranted your report to police and details
of exactly what you reported. Did you provide the PSNI with the
specific details of the alleged conduct when you made your initial
report?
The Police Ombudsman considers that this information is relevant
for the progression of your complaint as it will enable us to
determine whether there is any misconduct on the part of any
individual police officer regarding their response to your report.
As previously indicated, should you fail to contact this office by
21 August 2009 with the information requested, the Police Ombudsman
will record your complaint as closed and no further action will be
taken in relation to it.
Sincerely david schiller
Police Service of Northern Ireland
1 September 2009
Dear Mr Schiller
Thank you for your request for information and completed under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000. I have independently reviewed the initial
response forwarded to you and please find attached my review document.
If I can be of any assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.
Paul Cleland
Police Service of Northern Ireland Data Protection Officer
PSNI Headquarters
65 Knock Road
Belfast
BT5 6LE
show quoted sections
From: david schiller
2 September 2009
Paul Cleland
Thank you for your response to which my response, necessarily, has
to be mainly a re-hash of what is already on record
1 You say “the Police Service receive numerous enquiries and
queries on a daily basis for advice and possible further
investigation” and that is accepted but clearly does not apply to
this case
In order to warrant 'further' investigation there has to be a
preliminary investigation and although in submitting the case to
the Police Ombudsman on the false basis that the matter was dealt
with as you suggest, there has been no investigation
2
The matter was referred to the PSNI because the Office of The Lord
Chancellor (Complaints dept.) requires allegations of criminal
conduct by 'members of the judiciary' to be referred to the police
and such requirement is based on the obvious fact, clearly not
shared by the Assistant Chief Constable and others, that 'members
of the judiciary' are capable of contravening the criminal law
3 You also say you “.. have carried out further enquiries to
establish if there is any information held regarding the above. I
confirmed there is no information held and the matter was dealt
with by an experienced Police Officer making a decision on an
enquiry after a full consideration and examination”
Your confirmation that the PSNI have no information is not strictly
correct : the PSNI know the accused are judges and on that single
factual basis have refused to investigate and stated the matter to
be 'No Crime' Is it credible to state a matter to be 'No Crime'
with no relevant information?
4 The PSNI have also submitted false evidence to the Police
Ombudsman : such action can surely be seen as nothing less than
(pro-actively) aiding and abetting the perversion of justice
5 I repeat “It is assumed that you gather information on which to
base a response to any request for information from relevant Police
Officers? that being the case there is no implied criticism of any
'Freedom of Information staff' and your statement that '..In giving
consideration to your original question .. the PSNI Freedom of
Information staff has been open and transparent in responding' is
accepted”
and I do not quarrel with your conclusion that
“I am satisfied the Central PSNI Freedom of Information Unit
processed your FOI request lawfully and properly. Relevant checks
were performed to establish if any information was held by the PSNI
and the correct internal departments were consulted. I have also
carried out further checks and independently reviewed your request
and can confirm that no information is held and therefore the PSNI
has compiled with its obligations under the FOIA 2000.”
6 As you are also aware the DC involved (and therefore any other
relevant person) was directed to a similar case dealt with by the
PSNI in which the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police stands
accused (inter alia) of joining a Conspiracy to Defeat Justice by
failing to properly deal with a Complaint That Case also has a
current FoI request pending, to the Ministry of Justice, in which
the following submission has been made without contradiction:-
“The information required to be disclosed under the terms of the
FoI Act is clearly not limited to information contained within
documents - all relevant personnel are required to disclose what
they know …....... I have already stated that it may be acceptable
for any individual to decline to give information that may
incriminate themselves but equally it is criminal to withhold
information on the grounds it may incriminate others: such
withholding of information would itself amount to a criminal act
The 'information' must exist and it is a requirement of the FoI Act
that it be disclosed …..........
Information required to be disclosed would include that within the
knowledge and/or possession of any person and that held by any
recording method, electronic, notebooks, diaries etc
Please direct me to the relevant section of the FoI Act that limits
the information that is required to be disclosed to “information
written down and processed in electronic or manual format”
7 '...In the circumstances there appears no reasonable alternative
than (private) criminal proceedings against both those originally
accused and those subsequently intent on obstructing justice...'
8 As I previously stated with regard to the question of requesting
a review 'I agree that it is not really appropriate since you have
effectively complied with the FoI Act by disclosing 'nothing' but
in the particular circumstances of this case it may be helpful and
for that reason I hereby request a review but am perfectly content,
if you think it appropriate, to agree that the request be withdrawn
Clearly your 'review' has been unable to help but thanks for trying
Sincerely, David Schiller
From: david schiller
15 September 2009
Hello again Paul
Please direct me to the relevant section of the FoI Act that limits
the information that is required to be disclosed to “information
written down and processed in electronic or manual format”
david schiller
From: david schiller
23 September 2009
Hello again again Paul
Please direct me to the relevant section of the FoI Act that limits
the information that is required to be disclosed to “information
written down and processed in electronic or manual format”
david schiller
From: david schiller
9 December 2009
Dear Police Service of Northern Ireland,
Having been referred to the Police Ombudsman by both parties and
failing to achieve an informal resolution this matter is now
awaiting a Decision by the Ombudsman
Yours faithfully,
david schiller
david schiller left an annotation (23 May 2010)
And by way of further explanation I copy the Appeal against the District Judges 'Decision', viz:
Small Claim Case Number: 08/056429
Appeal Against Decision given on the 24th October 2008
The facts of this case and points of law to which this Appeal relates are set out in the respondents Notice of Dispute and attached Draft Affidavit
Key: SCC :- Small Claims Court
JC :- Justice Collins
NMDC : Newry & Mourne District Council
DS :- Respondent; David Schiller
DA :- Respondents Draft Affidavit
The Grounds of Appeal are shown in bold type and numbered consecutively (G1 etc)
---------------------
Preamble:
‘Hearing’ on the 12th September 2008’
NMDC was not represented
Four employees of NMDC attended saying they had no authority to act in any way; they were there to ‘report back’ what happened.
JC said that because of DS’s terrible use of the English language she found it difficult to understand his filed ‘Draft Affidavit’ but that the matters of law raised in it could be referred to a ‘higher court’ adding that a judicial review might be appropriate
JC was reminded that NMDC had deliberately limited the amount claimed and brought the case in the SCC to deprive him of legal representation and asked, without response, how he could take the matter to a higher court?
JC declared that if the matters of law were not referred to a higher court she would deal with the case as a ‘simple debt’ and when asked if the consequences of an admitted mistake (sic) made by NMDC must be borne by DS she answered ‘Yes’
NMDC was told to bring a legal basis for the Claim to a hearing set for the 24th October 2008 and made it clear she expected them to be legally represented
She also suggested that DS take advice.
‘Hearing’ on the 24th October 2008’
NMDC was not represented
The four NMDC ‘observers’ turned up presenting a purported legal basis for the claimed fees which consisted of a copy of part of the minutes of a meeting of NMDC held in June 2007 It was a document specifically requested from NMDC by DS during negotiations but not supplied
DS was not offered an adjournment to consider the ‘fresh evidence’ which JC accepted as a legal authority for the claim
1: The Rules and Practice of the Small Claims Court
The Claim was brought by the Newry and Mourne District Council against a respondent known to qualify for Legal Assistance on financial grounds and was deliberately fabricated to ensure it could be dealt with by the SCC (sic) in full knowledge he would be unlikely to have legal representation (DA p13)
The issues not only involve allegations of malpractice and malfeasance but conduct that puts life at risk and clearly could affect other persons
G1 (i) Small Claims Guide p31: ‘You must attend the court hearing if your claim is disputed’ :NMDC was not represented and four ‘Observers’ is not within the spirit of the Guide
(ii) Small Claims Guide p40: ‘You will get an opportunity to put questions to the respondent ……The respondent will also be given the opportunity to question you……..’ No opportunity was given to question NMDC’s witness and the only submissions under Oath allowed were by answering leading questions from JC
(iii) O26r32(f) the judge has the power to direct that an application in Form 125 be transferred to his civil bill lists, provided he is satisfied that:
(i) a difficult question of act or law is involved; or
(iv) it would be unreasonable for the application to be dealt with in a small claims hearing because of its subject matter, the circumstances of the parties or the interests of any other person likely to be affected by the outcome.
The Judge should have transferred the case to a higher court
(v) The only legal basis given for entitlement to charge vessels for berthing in the Albert Basin was an Opinion by McShane & Co, viz.
“Newry and Mourne District Council on 7th June 1986 acquired Newry Canal from the LIQUIDATOR OF THE NEWRY PORT AND HARBOUR TRUST. This is a freehold title and the property acquired included the area known as Albert Basin Effectively the District Council is the freehold owner of Albert Basin and as such it is perfectly entitled to charge mooring fees to any users of the waterway”.
The Newry Port & Harbour Trust went into liquidation in 1974 and the canal was formally closed to shipping and navigation. NMDC purchased the Ship Canal and the inland section within its boundary. The Council have re-opened the canal to shipping and navigation and they must conform to all relevant laws
Whether McShanes Opinion is correct or not the Claim is explicitly excluded from action in the Small Claims Court viz:
O26.r2…. No small claims application shall be made with regard to any claim which:- …. (e) concerns the title to land
2: Shipping Law
(i) As the authority operating a ‘Shipping Canal’ and its approaches the NMDC should make itself aware of relevant laws and employ properly qualified staff
It is apparent the NMDC has paid little regard to the requirements and responsibilities that attach to marine matters and for a District Council to be ignorant of such laws and act in such a way that clearly puts life at risk is indefensible
Shipping Law has been developed over many years to cover the special circumstances which attach to marine matters and there are good reasons for its existence and terms; nobody should peremptorily dismiss it
--
(ii) Having been asked, DS told JC that McShanes Opinion that NMDC has a right to charge fees was not disputed but the legality of the ‘charge’ was and as McShane also opined in correspondence to NMDC any charge must be ‘reasonable’
‘Harbour authorities may make bye-laws to carry out their functions, which must be confirmed by proper authority (Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, s. 83) ….. Certain charges must be “reasonable” (s.27), there is a duty to display lists of charges (s. 30) and a right of objection (s. 31)’ (‘Shipping Law’ by Robert Grime, page 146)
--
(iii) As is normal practice DS negotiated the berthing/mooring of the vessel on behalf of the owner and the SCC rejection of Shipping Law and its Decision that DS is responsible for berthing fees incurred by Sheiloan implies he is responsible for them whilst she remains in Albert Basin notwithstanding her sale
G2 DS is not responsible for the alleged debt relating to the vessel Sheiloan
3: Common Law
G3 (i) The Newry Shipping Canal is a Public Highway and members of the Public have a right under the Common Law to use it. Any restriction of that right must be authorised by Statute
(ii) Relevant International laws and Conventions apply in 89Northern Ireland by virtue of UK legislation
4: Contract Law
The power given to a Judge under O26 p32(b) is to order specific performance of a contract and absent any reasons being given for the Decision that must be assumed to be what the SCC have done
NMDC claimed to have made a mistake in the original ‘contract’ and demanded higher fees giving the legal authority for such demand as their meeting in June 2007.
The minutes of the NMDC meeting were obtained which showed the claimed charges were approved subject to the matter being referred to a further Council meeting later the same month and a request for a copy of the minutes of that meeting was refused
That is to say NMDC claim the legal basis for the charges quoted in May 2006 and applied from October 2006 to be their meeting in June 2007
The SCC accepted such claim was correct in law
Despite considerable personal and practical difficulties DS in conjunction with NMDC tried to find a mutually acceptable resolution to the differences, including the removal of Sheiloan from the Albert Basin coupled with assurances that the increased fees would not have to be paid. In fact it had been arranged for Sheiloan to be moved on the 1st October 2007 and an acceptable resolution could have been achieved until the next day (2nd) and a resulting meeting on the 6th November 2007. The situation is described in the filed DA part of which is copied here for convenience:-
11 On the 16th August 2007 a meeting took place with Suzane Rice and Seamus Crossey. To avoid the higher fees being claimed and reduce damage being caused to Sheiloan whilst attached to the 'quay' the Deponent asked if Sheiloan could moor outside Albert Basin but was told that was not necessary
They were also told about the possible sale of Sheiloan
12 NP phoned on 13th September 2007 wanting to come and see Sheiloan again with a friend which he did. On that occasion he explained that somebody had been spreading rumours about the condition of Sheiloan That person was later learnt to be an employee of the Council who owned a boat which was also for sale
13 Other exchanges took place (on the 17th and 24th Sept 2007 by phone) ending in Suzanne Rice saying that she thought it likely Sheiloan would get a big bill unless she could be moved and in an effort to assist and find an alternative berth on 25th Sept 2007 my wife and self went to Carlingford, Greenore and Dundalk and phoned NP to see about mooring in Strangford Lough
14 On 27th Sept 2007 we went to Kilkeel where the Harbour Master agreed that Sheiloan could berth and we provisionally arranged to phone the Harbour Master and move the following Monday 1st October if absolutely necessary; It was not a very satisfactory arrangement On the way home from Kilkeel we called in to the Council offices and told SR what had been arranged and that we were trying to arrange anchorage in Strangford Lough
15 Later that day SR phoned saying we would have to move Sheiloan or get a big bill
16 On Monday 1st Oct SR again phoned saying she had been studying the papers over the weekend and had been right all along and the correct fee had been charged
We agreed a small increase to approx £29 per month.
She said it would have to go before the next Council meeting on Wednesday to be confirmed and said the person who had done the pricing had left the Council
17 On Tuesday 2nd Oct SR phoned again to say she was wrong about the fees; the higher rate would apply and the issue would not go to the Council meeting.
I requested a meeting with whoever was responsible for the pricing and was able to negotiate on behalf of the Council
G4 (i) The agreement between NMDC and DS resulting in Sheiloan being brought to the Albert Basin and berthed at the quayside for a charge of £27.30 per month constituted a contract entered into by DS in good faith and on the implied understanding that the terms offered were legal
No legal basis for the terms offered to DS by NMDC, which induced the contract, have been given. The ‘mistake’ said to have been made by NMDC, was not to have charged too little but to have charged anything at all and was a ‘mistake’ of fact and law
The mistake rendered the contract void and the SCC had no power to enforce it
Although the nature of NMDC’s mistake may initially have been innocent it must subsequently have become and remain fraudulent
(ii) NMDC is Estopped from enforcing any contract that defeats agreements and/or expectations given and acted on in good faith and on which DS relied
D A Schiller
10th November 2008
david schiller left an annotation ( 6 September 2010)
Lord Chief Justices Office
Royal Courts of Justice
Belfast BT1 3JF
1st September 2010 Case ref: 08/056429
Dear Mr McMullan
Please refer to the above Case which has been held in abeyance whilst the criminal allegation were referred to the Police in accordance with your guidelines
The police refused to interview me or take details of the allegations and I will précis the events which followed - details can also be found at :-
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...
Because the police refusal to act could amount to a crime and any proceedings against them would involve naming the Chief Constable he was asked to 'consider' the way 'Ardmore' had dealt with the matter and he referred it to an Assistant Chief Constable who was asked to contact me. Instead of doing so she referred the matter to the Police Ombudsman which resulted in me being forced to lodge a premature complaint with him. That led to an attempt to achieve an informal resolution of the case and a meeting was held with a DI on 23rd September 2009
The DI was unaware of any details of the 'complaint' or of the events leading to our meeting nor did he have relevant paperwork. In the circumstances it was clear that little could be achieved so it was agreed that I would supply the DI with some relevant documents and he suggested that the Legal Advisor to the CC could then be asked to give an opinion as to whether the matter could amount to a crime and/or warranted an investigation On the 29th September the papers were delivered to Ardmore
On 23rd Oct the DI wrote :- "I can confirm to you that as a result of our meeting I have liaised with D/lnspector Cartmill CID, Ardmore in regard to the situation you presented. I have examined the documentation presented and have discussed the contents with D/lnspector Cartmill. As a result of this D/Sergeant Dolaghan was appointed to liaise with the Legal Advisor to the Chief Constable on the matter and advice received as follows:
Re: Her Honour District Judge (County Court) Collins
Matter arising out of civil' action taken against you by Newry & Mourne District Council before Newry Small Claims Court and in which judgment was delivered against you by Her Honour District Judge (County Court) Collins. The Legal Advisor having considered all documents kindly provided, is satisfied that he cannot identify any criminal matter, potential or actual, upon which he could reasonably form a suspicion to investigate under the criminal law. It is noted that you may still pursue any civil avenues as appropriate and accordingly I write to confirm that Police cannot reasonably offer any further assistance to you in this matter" to which the following response was given:-
“Your ref OMB 1288/09 2nd November 2009
Dear Sir Allegations against Judges Collins & Finnegan
…... To the extent that what follows accords with your view perhaps we can progress but there appears to be a significant difference regarding what was to follow our meeting
During the course of the meeting it became apparent that you didn't have much, if any, information relevant to the case and had not been properly briefed : you thought the issue under discussion was a complaint against a Police Officer (DC Riordan or another)
It also transpired that whereas I had assumed ACC Gillespies letter to the Omdudsman had originally been mistakenly sent to me it must have been the copy intended for D/I Jenny Cartmill that I received and you clearly knew nothing of the letter. The referal of the matter to the Ombudsman by the PSNI was based on my suggestion that the Chief Constable 'considers' the matter, which was intended to be helpful; for it then to be referred to the Ombudsman on the basis that I had made a Complaint seems irrational : that the referral contained false information intended to convey the correct procedure had been adopted has a more sinister feel to it
It was because the way in which the PSNI had acted was in danger of pre-empting my right to refer the case to the Ombudsman that I was reluctantly forced to act as and when I did
Self-apparently neither of us could expect to achieve very much unless you were at least aware of the basic details and that is why I offered to supply some documentation to you If the PSNI had dealt with the matter properly it would have had the necessary information together with a Statement and legal advice could have been obtained : I thought, or maybe assumed, we had agreed that basically that procedure would be implemented
The comments you now have from your Legal Advisor are helpful but of limited value since they should have been obtained after details of the allegations were made known to him and not before
Having said that the legal advice you have obtained, based on the court documents could prove beneficial , viz:-
I am not sure whether a judge should give reasons for Decisions made in the Small Claims Court and the Lord Chancellors department have not felt it appropriate to answer my question on that issue. Your legal advisor, having seen the documents that the Court had, has concluded that no question as to whether the judge may have knowingly acted perversely is raised.
Clearly that is not the conclusion I came to but if you could provide me with the reasons that led the Legal Advisor to his opinion I would need to reconsider whether my allegations are legitimate or not : if I could conclude that the judge/s had acted honourably or were simply incompetent but not knowingly perverse I would happily withdraw my criminal allegations
Some points which I think would need an explanation are :
(a) the Claimant did not attend court or file a 'Case' or give a legal basis for the Claim so what 'Case' was there to answer and what was the legal basis for the Decision?
(b) how could the Defendent refer the Defence to a 'Higher court' for a Case brought by the NMDC in the Small Claims Court? (a question that you raised) and didn't the Judge, who had clearly accepted it was appropriate for a higher court have a duty to refer it to such court herself ?
(c) what is the justification for the judge specifying what the 'Decision' will be before the Hearing?
(d) what is the argument to support the notion that because 'No point of law was involved in a Decision' there can be no Appeal against : does not such statement imply the Decision is unlawful?
(e) what basis is there that the principle of Estoppel does not apply
With regard to your penultimate paragraph I do not recall making any specific mention of pursuing civil avenues but did try to explain that if criminal proceedings are required to be brought against the PSNI such proceedings have to be brought against the Chief Constable and that is why I asked him to 'consider' the initial way the PSNI had dealt with the case - I confirm that I do not seek any assistance from you on any civil matter
I am still hopeful that an informal resolution to this matter can be achieved but if you insist on not investigating the allegations or taking an agreed Statement it will be difficult, subject to any persuasive legal advice being obtained as referred to above, to proceed in any productive way and I await your response Sincerely D A Schiller”
The Legal Advisors opinion then became 'privileged', viz:-
'18th November 2009 …...... I acknowledge your further communication by email received on the 2/11/2009. I have consulted the Legal Advisor to the Chief Constable again regarding your further query and the position remains the same as per my letter of the 23/10/2009.
The Chief Constable's legal advice is privileged & cannot be released or relayed in any manner. This includes his 'reasons' as requested by you. I must take this opportunity to confirm conclusively, & reiterate, that your complaint is considered an exclusively civil matter'
No mutual resolution having been possible the DI returned the matter to the Ombudsman and a meeting with an Investigation Officer resulted in the following text:-
" Our Ref: 70155797-2009 2 April 2010 Dear Mr Schiller
I refer to previous correspondence and contact in relation to the complaint against police you made to the Office of the Police Ombudsman. You stated that police in Newry failed to investigate possible criminal actions on the part of Judge Collins who dealt with a civil action on 12 September 2008 and again the same judge on 24 October 2008 and subsequently the apparently illegal decision by the appeal judge in upholding the original decision by Judge Collins.
Over a period of time it was established by the Office of the Police ombudsman that your matters of concern against the Judiciary were referred by police Newry to Legal Services PSNI for a direction as to how to proceed. It was on advisement from Legal Services pertaining to the office of the Chief Constable Police Service Northern Ireland that police Newry informed you that the matters you complained about were not within the remit of the police service to investigate.
Upon examination of the circumstances of your complaint and, after due consideration, it has been concluded that the issue you raise falls outside the remit of this Office - the complaint relates to the actions of civilian staff within the PSNI, namely their Legal Services Branch. This matter has now been referred to the Professional Standards Department within PSNI for whatever action they deem necessary. I am writing, therefore, to inform you that your complaint has been closed "Outside Remit'. I would like to take this opportunity to bring it to your attention that the Police Ombudsman will retain a record of your complaint on file. Yours sincerely "
The letter is a distortion of the facts and does not reflect what the PSNI said or did. It resulted in the PSNI returning the Complaint to the Ombudsmans 'for Review', followed by a letter to me from a Senior Investigating Officer (2nd June 2010) and another meeting between us
On 27th July I emailed the Ombudsman : ... “I'd appreciate a decision by the Ombudsman or some idea of when such decision may be given” and on the 19th August :- “Please refer to my email … of the 27th July last which did not receive a response Unless a reply to this email is received within seven days it will be assumed you do not intend to reply and the matter will be referred back to The Lord Chancellors Dept and consideration given to the bringing of criminal prosecutions as related to you
---
As you know the criminal law is not applied equally to all citizens and you may agree with the PSNI's position that no possible perversion of Justice has been perpetrated?
If that is the case and you are content that no Complaint to your department is justified it would be helpful if you would suggest any legitimate reason why it would not be 'In the Public Interest' to put the matter before a jury
It would also be helpful if you could respond to the points made in the copy letters above
Sincerely
D A Schiller
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
david schiller left an annotation (23 May 2010)
The Police Ombudsman
The Ombudsmans office has indicated it is not concerned with the failure of the police to investigate or with fabricated evidence being submitted to it and has now asked for details, not given to the police, regarding the allegations so it can determine whether there is any misconduct on the part of any individual police officer”
Summary of Case:
1 The Lord Chancellors department in Belfast was contacted regarding a complaint against a local District judge who is accused of perverting justice. They said because it involved criminal allegations it should first be reported to the PSNI
Consequently a DC at Newry Police Station was requested to arrange an interview to take a Statement. After consulting his Sergeant the DC said the allegation would not be investigated and it was not a criminal matter
2 On the basis that the police action was itself a crime the Chief Constable (CC) was requested to 'consider' the situation
3 The CC referred the matter to the Asst Chief Constable (ACC) who was asked to deal with it and to contact me The ACC referred the matter to the Police Ombudsman on the basis that a Complaint had been made against the PSNI. The ACC's apparent letter to the Ombudsman was received by me and thinking it had been wrongly addressed I forwarded it to the Ombudsman (see below)
4 The Ombudsman was told that no Complaint had been made but it was likely one would have to be made in due course which led to a time limit for registering any complaint being imposed and a statement that if they didn't receive full details relating to 'the incident in question' by the deadline the case would be closed and no further action taken
5 Subsequently a meeting was arranged with a Detective Inspector in an attempt to secure an informal resolution. The DI didn't have any relevant papers and knew little about the case. The case was explained to the DI (and he was given a 'precedent') who suggested the legal advisor to the Chief Constable be asked to give an Opinion as to whether there was a Case to be made against the judge or not. Nothing more was achieved and no Statement taken
6 Later I was informed that “The Legal Advisor having considered all documents kindly provided by you, is satisfied that he cannot identify any criminal matter, potential or actual, upon which he could reasonably form a suspicion to investigate under the criminal law.”
to which the following response was sent:
7 Allegations against Judges Collins & Finnegan
…..To the extent that what follows accords with your view perhaps we can progress but there appears to be a significant difference regarding what was to follow our meeting
During the course of the meeting it became apparent that you didn't have much, if any, information relevant to the case and had not been properly briefed : you thought the issue under discussion was a complaint against a police Constable
It also transpired that whereas I had assumed ACC Gillespies letter to the Omdudsman had originally been mistakenly sent to me it must have been the copy intended for D/I Jenny Cartmill that I received and you clearly knew nothing of the letter
The referal of the matter to the Ombudsman by the PSNI was based on my suggestion that the Chief Constable 'considers' the matter, which was intended to be helpful; for it then to be referred to the Ombudsman on the basis that I had made a Complaint seems irrational : that the referral contained false information intended to convey the correct procedure had been adopted has a more sinister feel to it
It was because the way in which the PSNI had acted was in danger of pre-empting my right to refer the case to the Ombudsman that I was reluctantly forced to act as and when I did
Self-apparently neither of us could expect to achieve very much unless you were at least aware of the basic details and that is why I offered to supply some documentation to you If the PSNI had dealt with the matter properly it would have had the necessary information together with a Statement and legal advice could have been obtained : I thought, or maybe assumed, we had agreed that basically that procedure would be implemented
The comments you now have from your Legal Advisor are helpful but of limited value since they should have been obtained after details of the allegations were made known to him and not before
Having said that the legal advice you have obtained, based on the court documents could prove beneficial , viz:-
I am not sure whether a judge should give reasons for Decisions made in the Small Claims Court and the Lord Chancellors department have not felt it appropriate to answer my question on that issue. Your legal advisor, having seen the documents that the Court had, has concluded that no question as to whether the judge may have knowingly acted perversely is raised.
Clearly that is not the conclusion I came to but if you could provide me with the reasons that led the Legal Advisor to his opinion I would need to reconsider whether my allegations are legitimate or not : if I could conclude that the judge/s had acted honourably or were simply incompetent but not knowingly perverse I would happily withdraw my criminal allegations
Some points I think would need an explanation are :
(a) the Claimant did not attend court or file a 'Case' or give a legal basis for the Claim so what 'Case' was there to answer and what was the legal basis for the Decision?
(b) how could the Defendent refer the Defence to a 'Higher court' for a Case brought by the NMDC in the Small Claims Court? (a question that you raised) and didn't the Judge, who had clearly accepted it was appropriate for a higher court have a duty to refer it to such court herself ?
(c) what is the justification for the judge specifying what the 'Decision' will be before the Hearing?
(d) what is the argument to support the notion that because 'No point of law was involved in a Decision' there can be no Appeal against (it): does not such statement imply the Decision is unlawful?
(e) what basis is there that the principle of Estoppel does not apply
-
With regard to your penultimate paragraph I do not recall making any specific mention of pursuing civil avenues but did try to explain that if criminal proceedings are required to be brought against the PSNI such proceedings have to be brought against the Chief Constable and that is why I asked him to 'consider' the initial way the PSNI had dealt with the case - I confirm that I do not seek any assistance from you on any civil matter
I am still hopeful that an informal resolution to this matter can be achieved but if you insist on not investigating the allegations or taking an agreed Statement it will be difficult, subject to any persuasive legal advice being obtained as referred to above, to proceed in any productive way and I await your response Sincerely
8 The PSNI responded “..... I have consulted the Legal Advisor to the Chief Constable again regarding your further query and the position remains the same ….....the Chief Constable's legal advice is privileged & cannot be released or relayed in any manner”
answered by :
“ .. This matter has assumed ridiculous proportions due to the failure of the PSNI to interview an Informant and take a Statement before making rash and baseless judgments simply because the accused is a judge
It is appreciated that within any locality the police and judiciary have an unavoidable professional relationship and common purpose. Self-evidently that doesn't justify 'turning a blind eye' to the perversion of justice by anybody : the fact that an accused may be a judge should, if anything, make the matter more worthy of proper investigation, not less!
Even if it were to transpire that an allegation was unfounded the fact that the police state the matter to be 'not criminal' without any investigation or knowing any of the facts whatsoever is, itself, arguably a perversion of justice
If the police had dealt with the allegations properly it is possible a reasonable outcome could have been achieved ….....
I note you have again consulted the Legal Advisor whose advice has become privileged and cannot be relayed in any manner - you will recall that before having sight of the documents his legal advice was relayed to me and that at our meeting on the 23rd September 2009 you suggested the matter be held in abeyance until the outcome of the legal advice was obtained
I will leave it to you to refer the matter back to the Police Ombudsman on the basis that no informal resolution has been possible
10 I will not bother to post the Ombudsmans pathetic response but repeat :
“The referral of the matter to the Ombudsman was premature, pre-emptive and predictably effective '...by passing the case over to an 'appeals systems' which in the authors experience merely 'rubber-stamps' mal-practice of this type of case
Do we deserve what we get or get what we deserve?
Link to this