Nid ydym yn gwybod a yw'r ymateb mwyaf diweddar i'r cais hwn yn cynnwys gwybodaeth neuai peidio - os chi ywAnthony John Monks mewngofnodwch a gadael i bawb wybod.

A FOI request wouldn't be required if HMCTS would answer emails

We're waiting for Anthony John Monks to read recent responses and update the status.

Anthony John Monks

Can an employment judge (East Midlands Employment judge P Britton) include non-existent evidence in his judgment?

Can a regional employment tribunal (East Midlands Employment Tribunal) refuse to correspond with a member of the public? What legislation gives them the right to be ignorant?

Do the Nolan principles exist solely to be ignored by the public sector at this point?

Regards

Anthony John Monks

Disclosure Team, Gwasanaeth Llysoedd a Thribiwnlysoedd EM

This is an automated confirmation that your email has been received by the
Disclosure Team (Ministry of Justice) mailbox.

 

Freedom of Information (FOI)

 

If your email is a FOI request you can expect a response within 20 working
days.

 

However, please be advised that due to the current situation with COVID-19
we may not be able to provide a response within this timescale; if this is
the case, we will contact you to provide an update.

 

Every effort is being made to respond to FOIs as usual but the current
situation means that available Departmental resources will be needed on
other high priority areas.

 

We kindly ask for your understanding during this unprecedented situation
and we will aim to deal with your FOI request as soon as is practically
possible.

 

Subject Access Requests (under the General Data Protection Regulation
((EU) 2016/679)) (the Regulation) and/or Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA))

 

If your email is a SAR, you can expect a response within 1 calendar month.

 

However, please be advised that due to the current situation with COVID-19
we may not be able to provide within this timescale; if this is the case,
we will contact you to provide an update.

 

Every effort is being made to respond to SARs as usual but the current
situation means that available Departmental resources will be needed on
other high priority areas.

 

We kindly ask for your understanding during this unprecedented situation
and we will aim to deal with your SAR as soon as is practically possible.

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Disclosure Team, Gwasanaeth Llysoedd a Thribiwnlysoedd EM

Thank you for your e-mail, I am writing to advise you that your enquiry does not fall under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) regime and has been rejected by the Disclosure Team.
It may be helpful if I explain that the FOIA gives individuals and organisations the right of access to all types of recorded information held, at the time the request is received, by public authorities such as the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Section 84 of the FOIA states that in order for a request for information to be handled as a FOI request, it must be for recorded information.
For example, a FOI request would be for a copy of a policy, rather than an explanation as to why we have that policy in place. On occasion, the MoJ receives requests that do not ask for recorded information, but ask more general questions about, for example, a policy, opinion or a decision.
You may wish to re-submit your enquiry to the Ministry of Justice, which will be treated as Official Correspondence. Our contact details are as follows:
Contact Form:
https://contact-moj.service.justice.gov....
If you do have any questions relating specifically to the FOIA or Data Protection Act (DPA), please contact the Disclosure Team at the e-mail address found under the " Make an FOI request" at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati....
Kind regards,
The Disclosure Team

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Anthony John Monks

"It may be helpful if I explain that the FOIA gives individuals and organisations the right of access to all types of recorded information held, at the time the request is received, by public authorities such as the Ministry of Justice (MoJ)".

Case No: 2600365/2017
"The Claimant had what is described as a temporary contract of employment sometime after he actually started in the job. He signed this contract 23 April 2012. It is Bp2 63 in the Respondent bundle. This document as a written particulars of employment for the purposes of Part 1 of the ERA fails to set out the wage rate, but it was set out in the enclosed offer letter which is referred to. It is said to contain the basic rates of pay albeit it is not before me. So assuming there is such a document, I am not with the Claimant that this doesn't constitute the provision of written particulars of the employment pursuant to the ERA".

12/03/20 letter from Regional Employment judge Paul P Swann -
...Judge Britton has confirmed that he has no recollection of ever finding or seeing, (as he recorded in his judgment), the offer letter referred to in paragraph 8 of his reasons.

Does HMCTS possess the non-existent offer letter Judge Britton used in his judgment? This is significant as Judge Britton excused my employer from adhering to the ERA 1996. For your information the ERA 1996 is primary legislation.

"Section 84 of the FOIA states that in order for a request for information to be handled as a FOI request, it must be for recorded information".

Can you please provide the relevant quote from Section 84.

"For example, a FOI request would be for a copy of a policy, rather than an explanation as to why we have that policy in place. On occasion, the MoJ receives requests that do not ask for recorded information, but ask more general questions about, for example, a policy, opinion or a decision".

Let me get this straight. HMCTS doesn't hold recorded information on whether a judge can include non-existent evidence in a judgment? I thought the rule of law was a "British value"? The United Kingdom at this point is just a parody of it's former self.

"You may wish to re-submit your enquiry to the Ministry of Justice, which will be treated as Official Correspondence".

I have no intention of writing to the Ministry of Justice as I have litle money; afterall we cannot all leach off taxpayers. I fail to see why you cannot forward my questions to the Ministry of Justice. I have contacted Robert Buckland and the justice central correspondence team countless times, without response. They both receive five emails daily from me which they duly ignore.

In a 28/01/21 email from HMCTS' Operations Manager Martine Muir; stated -
"I hope you have found this reply acceptable - but if you do not consider that I have reviewed your complaint satisfactorily, then you can appeal by writing to The Customer Investigations Team at the below address. Please explain why you are dissatisfied with the responses you have already received. The Customer Investigations Team will consider your complaint and aims to respond within 15 working days".

I emailed HMCTS and Operations Manager Martine Muir on 10/03/21, 17/03/21, 18/03/21, 19/03/21 and 22/03/21. The professional Ms Muir ignored all five emails.

I contacted customer investigations as directed by Operations Manager Martine Muir on 22/03/21.

On the 16/04/21 I contacted customer investigations again as they didn't bother responding to my 22/03/21 email as 15 working days to respond to an email is evidently just asking too much. I requested someone respond to my 22/03/21 email asap yet unsurprisingly they still haven't bothered to.

Regards

Anthony John Monks

Anthony John Monks

Head of Customer Investigations Richard Redgrave responded (eventually) to my 23/03/21 email yesterday (Complaint ref: 10543439). Like Martine Muir he can only respond to one email evidently, so I have no option but to respond to the Ministry of Justice Disclosure Team.

Does the "administrative complaints process" quoted twice by Mr Redgrave exist? If it does can I please be forwarded a copy? Mr Redgrave also refers to "our complaints procedure". Can I also be forwarded a copy of this; presuming one exists.

From Richard Redgrave's 21/04/21 email -
"Judge’s are completely independent and I can’t look at their decisions as part of our administrative complaints process".

"The Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 state at para 71:

‘Except where it is made in the course of a hearing, an application for reconsideration shall be presented in writing (and copied to all the other parties) within 14 days of the date on which the written record, or other written communication, of the original decision was sent to the parties or within 14 days of the date that the written reasons were sent (if later) and shall set out why reconsideration of the original decision is necessary’"

Which is fascinating. What do the Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 state regarding East Midlands Employment Judge Britton claiming he viewed a document labelled twice as an appeal and never referred to as a reconsideration by an incompetent solicitor; what do the rules state regarding the Judge's claim he viewed that document initially as a reconsideration, then realised the points were "appeal points"? Judge Britton of course never explained why they were appeal points as the man couldn't because none of the points qualified as appeal points! East Midlands Employment Tribunal also ignored HMCTS' T440 instruction - "Do not send your appeal to an Employment Tribunal office, they will send it back to you". They never sent it back to me as the document was never viewed by Judge Britton as an appeal. A great many employees at East Midlands Employment Tribunal cannot/will not be honest. Yet another example of the Nolan principles being ignored by those who should adhere to them.

"You’re concerned about the wording of the Judgment form (T426) particularly that it states that the application for reconsideration ‘must’ be provided. The wording in the document has been approved by the judiciary - there are currently no plans to amend it. I’m sorry to disappoint you".

The wording in the document has been approved by the "completely independent" Judges?

"The penalty for not submitting a reconsideration application within the 14 day time limit is that it can be refused and similarly an appeal to the EAT has to be made within 42 days of the decision being sent to parties".

T426 -
"Where the judgment contains written reasons you must appeal within 42 days of the date on which the judgment was sent to you"

..."you must then appeal within 42 days"...

..."you must appeal within 42 days"...

"You must get your appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (not the employment tribunal office) in plenty of time before the end of the 42 day period"...

"If you apply to the tribunal to reconsider its judgment, you may also appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. You must also lodge with the Employment Appeal Tribunal a copy of the application for reconsideration"...

The judiciary can correctly define the word "must" in quotes 1-4 from HMCTS' T426, yet the judiciary cannot correctly define the very same word ("must") in the fifth quote from the same HMCTS document?

Why is a government department deliberately misleading the British people? How bright can the judiciary be if they cannot always correctly define the word "must"?

"Regional Tribunals refusal to correspond with a member of the public

I’m unable to comment on this under the administrative complaints process. If you have a complaint about the actions of a Regional Employment Judge the correct process is to write to the President of the Tribunal".

The former President of Tribunals (E&W) Judge Doyle was as "useful" as HMCTS staff; the man will no doubt be currently enjoying his enormous taxpayer funded pension. He saw no problem with Employment Judge Britton ignoring primary legislation. Neither did Regional Employment Judge Swann. Judicial appointments and conduct Ombudsman Paul Kernaghan excused Judges Britton, Swann and Doyle of ignoring primary legislation.

Judicial appointments and conduct Ombudsman 03/06/20 report -
"I note that in his complaint to me, Mr Monks repeats his concern that Judge Doyle, REJ Swann and EJ Britton have ignored the Respondent’s not complying with parts of the Employment Rights Act 1996. However, it was not REJ Swann or Judge Doyle’s role to intervene in or comment on the outcome of Mr Monks’ 2017 ET".

Non-jobs excusing themselves from doing any work or in Judge Britton's case; excusing himself from doing his job properly.

Regards

Anthony John Monks

Anthony John Monks

Why is practically a month needed?

From my 20/04/21 response -

"Section 84 of the FOIA states that in order for a request for information to be handled as a FOI request, it must be for recorded information".

Can you please provide the relevant quote from Section 84. This is a minor request which would take a matter of minutes to achieve.

"For example, a FOI request would be for a copy of a policy, rather than an explanation as to why we have that policy in place. On occasion, the MoJ receives requests that do not ask for recorded information, but ask more general questions about, for example, a policy, opinion or a decision".

Let me get this straight. HMCTS doesn't hold recorded information on whether a judge can include non-existent evidence in a judgment?

This requires an answer.

Regards

Anthony John Monks

Anthony John Monks

From my 20/04/21 response -

"Section 84 of the FOIA states that in order for a request for information to be handled as a FOI request, it must be for recorded information".

Can you please provide the relevant quote from Section 84. This is a minor request which would take a matter of minutes to achieve.

"For example, a FOI request would be for a copy of a policy, rather than an explanation as to why we have that policy in place. On occasion, the MoJ receives requests that do not ask for recorded information, but ask more general questions about, for example, a policy, opinion or a decision".

Let me get this straight. HMCTS doesn't hold recorded information on whether a judge can include non-existent evidence in a judgment?

This requires an answer.

Regards

Anthony John Monks

HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence), Gwasanaeth Llysoedd a Thribiwnlysoedd EM

3 Atodiad

Dear Mr Monks

 

Please find attached reply to your Freedom of Information request.

 

Kind regards

 

Customer Investigation Officer

Customer Investigation Team | HMCTS

 

[1]HMCTS_BLK_DIGI

 

[2]Coronavirus (COVID-19): courts and tribunals planning and preparation

 

[3]Here is how HMCTS uses personal data about you

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Disclosure Team, Gwasanaeth Llysoedd a Thribiwnlysoedd EM

3 Atodiad

 

 

Dear Mr Monks,

 

Please find the response to your recent enquiry.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

[1]Ministry of Justice Disclosure & Library Team,
Information Services Division

Digital and Technology
Directorate

Find out more on [2]People
Finder

Follow us on Twitter
[3]@MoJGovUK
[4]Protecting and advancing the principles of justice

 

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Anthony John Monks

In response to the reply of 26/05/21 -

DT - "Section 84 of the FOIA states that in order for a request for information to be handled as a FOI request, it must be for recorded information".

AJM - "1. Can you please provide the relevant quote from Section 84. This is a minor request which would take a matter of minutes to achieve".

I can confirm that the MoJ holds the information that you have requested. However, the information is exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the FOIA, because it is reasonably accessible to you. The information can be accessed via the following link to the FOIA wording:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200...

The information is so incredibly "reasonably accessible" to me that I cannot find it, having searched for it numerous times?

Aside from being unhelpful, is this an example of the MoJ's disclosure team lying about what section 84 contains?

2... HMCTS doesn't hold recorded information on whether a judge can include non-existent evidence in a judgment?

This is not a valid FOI question, as the question asks the MoJ for a view on what a member of the Judiciary may or may not do. Also, the question infers that “non-existent evidence” is sometimes included in a judgement; such a question cannot be answered within the terms of the FOIA. It is not held information.
In accordance with our duty under s16(1) of the FOIA to provide advice and guidance, I can advise that the Judiciary is independent from the MoJ and government, and is not subject to the FOIA. If you have a complaint about a particular matter, may I suggest seeking legal advice. You may also approach any Court directly.

According to HMCTS' "Framework Document" -
2. Aim and objectives

2.1. The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have set the following aims and objectives for HM Courts & Tribunals Service.

Aim
2.2. To run an efficient and effective courts and tribunals system, which enables the rule of law to be upheld and provides access to justice for all.

Please explain how HMCTS are upholding the rule of law when HMCTS are well aware East Midlands Employment Judge Britton used a non-existent offer letter in his judgment, thereby excusing my employer from adhering to primary legislation.

Regional Employment judge Paul P Swann confirmed in a 12/03/20 letter -
..."Judge Britton has confirmed that he has no recollection of ever finding or seeing, (as he recorded in his judgment), the offer letter referred to in paragraph 8 of his reasons".

Should I take HMCTS' "Framework Document" as seriously as the "rule of law being a "British value"? As seriously as Judge Britton's judgment? As seriously as no doubt HMCTS' staff do?

FYI, East Midlands Employment Tribunal staff refuse to correspond with me. They refuse to correspond with me because they got away with it, you see?

Regards

Anthony John Monks

Disclosure Team, Gwasanaeth Llysoedd a Thribiwnlysoedd EM

This is an automated confirmation that your email has been received by the
Disclosure Team (Ministry of Justice) mailbox.

 

Freedom of Information (FOI)

 

If your email is a FOI request you can expect a response within 20 working
days.

 

However, please be advised that due to the current situation with COVID-19
we may not be able to provide a response within this timescale; if this is
the case, we will contact you to provide an update.

 

Every effort is being made to respond to FOIs as usual but the current
situation means that available Departmental resources will be needed on
other high priority areas.

 

We kindly ask for your understanding during this unprecedented situation
and we will aim to deal with your FOI request as soon as is practically
possible.

 

Subject Access Requests (under the General Data Protection Regulation
((EU) 2016/679)) (the Regulation) and/or Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA))

 

If your email is a SAR, you can expect a response within 1 calendar month.

 

However, please be advised that due to the current situation with COVID-19
we may not be able to provide within this timescale; if this is the case,
we will contact you to provide an update.

 

Every effort is being made to respond to SARs as usual but the current
situation means that available Departmental resources will be needed on
other high priority areas.

 

We kindly ask for your understanding during this unprecedented situation
and we will aim to deal with your SAR as soon as is practically possible.

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Disclosure Team, Gwasanaeth Llysoedd a Thribiwnlysoedd EM

Dear Mr Monks,

Thank you for your e-mail, I am writing to advise you that your enquiry does not fall under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) regime and has been rejected by the Disclosure Team.

It may be helpful if I explain that the FOIA gives individuals and organisations the right of access to all types of recorded information held, at the time the request is received, by public authorities such as the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Section 84 of the FOIA states that in order for a request for information to be handled as a FOI request, it must be for recorded information. This specific part can be found where the word "information" is defined i.e. " “information” (subject to sections 51(8) and 75(2)) means information recorded in any form"

For example, a FOI request would be for a copy of a policy, rather than an explanation as to why we have that policy in place. On occasion, the MoJ receives requests that do not ask for recorded information, but ask more general questions about, for example, a policy, opinion or a decision.

You may wish to re-submit your enquiry to the Ministry of Justice, which will be treated as Official Correspondence. Our contact details are as follows:

Contact Form:

https://contact-moj.service.justice.gov....

If you do have any questions relating specifically to the FOIA or Data Protection Act (DPA), please contact the
Disclosure Team at the e-mail address found under the " Make an FOI request" at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati....

Kind regards,

The Disclosure Team

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Nid ydym yn gwybod a yw'r ymateb mwyaf diweddar i'r cais hwn yn cynnwys gwybodaeth neuai peidio - os chi ywAnthony John Monks mewngofnodwch a gadael i bawb wybod.