assignment of non-senior caseworkers to serious allegations about Chamber President Judges
Dear Judicial Conduct Investigations Office,
How many times in the last 3 years has the investigation of a very serious complaint about a Chamber President Judge been assigned to a caseworker who is not a senior caseworker?
If retrieving this information should exceed the cost limit of 3.5 days’ work please reduce the period to 2 years. If it would still exceed the cost reduce it to 18 months.
Yours faithfully,
Dudley Jones
Thank you for your email. This an automated response. Please do not
reply.
This email address is for general enquiries only. We aim to reply to
enquiries within 10 working days.
We do not accept or respond to complaints sent to this email address. If
you wish to make a complaint, please submit your complaint on our
[1]online portal.
If you have not made a complaint this way before, you will need to
register first before you can submit your complaint.
We do not respond to requests to intervene in court cases, requests for
advice about court procedures or requests for legal advice.
We suggest seeking advice from a solicitor, law centre or the Citizens
Advice Bureau.
Before making a complaint, please read the [2]guidance on our website
about the types of complaints we can and cannot accept. Complaints which
are outside our statutory remit will be rejected.
Complaints about judges and coroners
Make your complaint using our [3]online portal.
Complaints about magistrates (justices of the peace)
Send your complaint to the relevant local [4]advisory committee.
Complaints about tribunal judges and members
Send your complaint to the relevant tribunal [5]president’s office.
Your personal data
You can find information about how the JCIO collects and processes
personal data in our [6]Privacy Notice.
Thank you for your email. This an automated response. Please do not
reply.
This email address is for general enquiries only. We aim to reply to
enquiries within 10 working days.
We do not accept or respond to complaints sent to this email address. If
you wish to make a complaint, please submit your complaint on our
[1]online portal.
If you have not made a complaint this way before, you will need to
register first before you can submit your complaint.
We do not respond to requests to intervene in court cases, requests for
advice about court procedures or requests for legal advice.
We suggest seeking advice from a solicitor, law centre or the Citizens
Advice Bureau.
Before making a complaint, please read the [2]guidance on our website
about the types of complaints we can and cannot accept. Complaints which
are outside our statutory remit will be rejected.
Complaints about judges and coroners
Make your complaint using our [3]online portal.
Complaints about magistrates (justices of the peace)
Send your complaint to the relevant local [4]advisory committee.
Complaints about tribunal judges and members
Send your complaint to the relevant tribunal [5]president’s office.
Your personal data
You can find information about how the JCIO collects and processes
personal data in our [6]Privacy Notice.
Good afternoon,
Please find attached a response to freedom of information request
211221004.
With regards,
Anthony O’Loughlin
Senior Caseworker
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office
81-82 Queens Building
Royal Courts of Justice
WC2A 2LL
020 7071 5688
[1][IMG] [2][IMG] [3][IMG] [4][IMG]
Please note: In accordance with Section 139 of the Constitutional Reform
Act 2005, information about judicial disciplinary cases which relates to
an identified or identifiable individual is confidential and must not be
disclosed without lawful authority. This does not apply to formal action
taken at the conclusion of the disciplinary process, which is published on
the JCIO’s website as per the Lord Chief Justices and Lord Chancellors’
publication policy. Personal data is protected under the UK General Data
Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018.
Dear Mr Jones
Please find attached a response to your FOI request.
Sincerely
Nazir Rasul
Senior Casework Manager
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office
81-82 Queens Building
Royal Courts of Justice
WC2A 2LL
020 7071 5679
[1]cid:image001.gif@01D5A5EA.5AA08FE0
[2]cid:image002.gif@01D5A5EA.5AA08FE0 [3]cid:image003.gif@01D5A5EA.5AA08FE0 [4]cid:image004.gif@01D5A5EA.5AA08FE0
Please note: In accordance with Section 139 of the Constitutional Reform
Act 2005, information about judicial disciplinary cases which relates to
an identified or identifiable individual is confidential and must not be
disclosed without lawful authority. This does not apply to formal action
taken at the conclusion of the disciplinary process, which is published on
the JCIO’s website as per the Lord Chief Justices and Lord Chancellors’
publication policy. Personal data is protected under the UK General Data
Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018.
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a
secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by
someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send
material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you
are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained
by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be used,
and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to
ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their
contents.
References
Visible links
1. https://twitter.com/JudiciaryUK
2. https://www.facebook.com/judiciaryuk/
3. https://www.instagram.com/judicialoffice/
4. https://www.linkedin.com/company/judicia...
Dear Judicial Conduct Investigations Office,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I would like to request an internal review of Nazir Rasul’s revised response (01/08/2022) to my FOI Request:
How many times in the last 3 years has the investigation of a very serious complaint about a Chamber President Judge been assigned to a caseworker who is not a senior caseworker?
Mr Rasul, a Senior Caseworker Manager points out that in the original response by Anthony O’Loughlin on the 19 January 2022, the answer to the above question was ‘zero’. Sin ce this response was deliberately misleading, I was not surprised the JCIO had decided to revise it. What did surprise me, however, was Mr Rasul’s reason for the ‘revised’ FOI Response. He says:
‘In our previous response, we informed you that we held the requested information under
the FOIA. This was not correct.’
Now I’m utterly confused. Did he mean the original answer ‘zero’ to my FOI question was ‘incorrect’? Since I know this HAS happened on at least one occasion, I presume that IS the case.
Or did he mean that when the JCIO said they ‘held the requested information’, that is, the information was held within their records, but they have now discovered their records do not contain this information?
I am assuming Mr Rasul must know there are records of a caseworker – Ms J. K. - who was not a Senior Caseworker, investigating a very serious complaint about Judge J.F. I say this because Mr Rasul was her supervisor (and she was constantly seeking his assistance) and he must have been aware Ms J.K. asked Mr A. B., the Judicial Office Data Privacy Officer (who has no GDPR qualifications) about Judge J.F’s clear breach of my Data Privacy rights. Unfortunately – as Mr Rasul must also know – she totally falsified my complaint about Judge F’s breach of my DP rights. Also Mr Rasul and Ms J.K. knew that the Judicial Office were investigating a separate but related complaint about the same judge at this time: the DP Officer’s “advice” was therefore compromised.
It’s surprising Mr Rasul didn’t advise her to apply to the ICO, the experts. Their advice would obviously be impartial, not compromised.
In light of the above, is Mr Rasul seriously maintaining their ‘revised’ position is that they have no record of this information being held – despite saying a few months earlier that they had?
There is one other possibility which is that the JCIO are saying they are no longer subject to the FOIA. But I’m sure the JCIO who are passionately committed to the principle of transparency, and the principle that ‘justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done’, would never declare themselves EXEMPT from responding to the FOIA – would they, Mr Rasul?
Such an exemption would have obvious attractions: it would mean they could avoid all those FOI questions that have, in the past, forced them into revealing information that was both highly embarrassing, and extremely damaging to the JCIO’s reputation.
I’m sure I must have misunderstood the ‘revised’ FOI Response. How could the so-called ‘INDEPENDENT’ investigator of complaints about judges’ misconduct, be exempt from the FOIA, from public scrutiny about their decisions and behaviour?
If they weren’t obliged to be ‘transparent’, how would the JACO, the Ombudsman, who holds them to account for the way in which they investigate judges’ behaviour, possibly fulfil their role? Or will the JACO be afforded a special licence – not available to investigative journalists – and allowed to scrutinise the JCIO’s behaviour?
Finally, could Mr Rasul tell me the date of the meeting when the JCIO decided they would be no longer be subject to the FOIA? I look forward to his answer because in the past, the JCIO has never appeared to keep any records of meetings where important decisions have been made. In this way, they’ve been abusing the FOIA for years. Declaring themselves exempt from the FOIA will make little tangible difference – apart from not being forced to provide Responses on the WDYK site.
It's interesting that the Judicial Office declared themselves EXEMPT from the FOIA at almost the same time as the JCIO. And both “organisations” informed me at the same time that they are “arms-length” bodies of the Ministry of Justice. The MoJ seems happy that the INDEPENDENT investigator of judges is exempt from the FOIA, but the MoJ isn’t. Ditto, the Judicial Office.
It might explain why the MoJ was happy for the JCIO to collaborate with the Judicial Office when conducting their investigation of Judge J.F. This collusion even extended to Senior Caseworker Manager Ms L.W, forwarding email correspondence of the investigation of Chamber President Judge Mrs Justice F, at every stage of their investigation.
Clearly the MoJ was happy to approve this collaboration/collusion.
Am I likely to receive a Response to this request for an internal review, or does the ‘revised’ response mean Mr Rasul will see it as an excuse to ignore it? Apparently, the JCIO’s new status does not preclude them ‘providing information on a discretionary basis.’ I know Mr Rasul to be an honourable man. That’s why I’m sure he’ll want to uphold the principles of fairness and justice, and provide me with answers to the questions I’ve asked in this internal review request.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...
Yours faithfully,
Dudley Jones
Thank you for your email. This an automated response. Please do not
reply.
This email address is for general enquiries only. We aim to reply to
enquiries within 10 working days.
We do not accept or respond to complaints sent to this email address. If
you wish to make a complaint, please submit your complaint on our
[1]online portal.
If you have not made a complaint this way before, you will need to
register first before you can submit your complaint.
We do not respond to requests to intervene in court cases, requests for
advice about court procedures or requests for legal advice.
We suggest seeking advice from a solicitor, law centre or the Citizens
Advice Bureau.
Before making a complaint, please read the [2]guidance on our website
about the types of complaints we can and cannot accept. Complaints which
are outside our statutory remit will be rejected.
Complaints about judges and coroners
Make your complaint using our [3]online portal.
Complaints about magistrates (justices of the peace)
Send your complaint to the relevant local [4]advisory committee.
Complaints about tribunal judges and members
Send your complaint to the relevant tribunal [5]president’s office.
Your personal data
You can find information about how the JCIO collects and processes
personal data in our [6]Privacy Notice.
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a
secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by
someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send
material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you
are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained
by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be used,
and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to
ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their
contents.
References
Visible links
1. https://jcio.microsoftcrmportals.com/
2. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.g...
3. https://jcio.microsoftcrmportals.com/
4. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.g...
5. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.g...
6. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.g...
Dear Mr Jones,
Please find the JCIO response to your recent information request.
Yours sincerely
Alex
Alexander Brown
Senior Caseworker
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office
80-82 Queen’s Building
Royal Courts of Justice
[1]https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a
secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by
someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send
material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you
are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained
by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be used,
and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to
ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their
contents.
References
Visible links
1. https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/
Dear BROWN, Alexander (JCIO),
Your response to my reply demonstrates that not only is the JCIO not fit for purpose but that it is also lacking in ethical principles. Your strategy here is that faced with a request which - if you were to answer it honestly - would be highly embarrassing, you produce your' get out of jail free' card and declare you are not bound by the FOIA.
I will publicise this fact. You are an 'arms-length body of the Ministry of Justice' who ARE bound by the FOIA. You are at presently under investigation by the Judicial Ombudsman (the JACO) as a result of a complaint by me of your handling of a misconduct investigation of a Tribunal President Judge, Mrs Justice Farbey. This was a serious complaint handled by a non-senior JCIO Caseworker. The JACO is also bound by the FOIA.
You purport to be an INDEPENDENT examiner of complaints about judges' misconduct and yet you are free to ignore FOI Requests, while the body charged with investigating charges about your 'maladministration' is bound by the FOIA. And - in a recent case - you colluded with the Judicial Office (which supports Judges like Mrs Justice Farbey) sending them all the email correspondence about my complaint about Judge Farbey as your investigation progressed. You did this even though you knew the JO was involved in a separate but related complaint about Judge Farbey. The JO is also an 'arms-length body of the Ministry of Justice'. Lo and behold: the JO is not bound by the FOIA - but its parent body, the MoJ is!
'Judge not lest ye be judged.'
Yours sincerely,
Dudley Jones
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now