can you tell me the date on which the lists of things you could complain about and things you couldn't complain about on the JCIO official website was radically revised.

Mae'r ymateb i'r cais hwn yn hwyr iawn. Yn ôl y gyfraith, ym mhob amgylchiad, dylai Judicial Conduct Investigations Office fod wedi ymateb erbyn hyn. (manylion). Gallwch gwyno drwy yn gofyn am adolygiad mewnol.

Dear Judicial Conduct Investigations Office,

Can you tell me the date on which the lists of things you could complain about and things you couldn't complain about on the JCIO official website was radically revised? I know it must have been in the second half of 2018 or the first half of 2019. The list of things you could complain and things you couldn't complain about provided by Richard Byrne in his article 'Handling complaints' (Tribunal Edition 1 2018) has 6 things you could complain about and 8 you couldn't complain about. The former list (things you CAN complain about) includes 'criminal convictions' and 'failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest'.
The revised list reduced the things you can complain about to 4 and there was a MASSIVE increase in things you couldn't complain about from 8 to 18. 'Criminal convictions' (formerly something you could complain about) had switched sides and was in the list of things you couldn't complain about. 'Failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest' was removed from the list of things you could complain about BUT was NOT included in the list of things you couldn't complain about. Can you tell me the reason for these radical changes?

NB There has been another change in the last couple of weeks. Can you tell me the exact date on which the 2 words - 'Criminal convictions' was removed from the official JCIO website list of things you 'couldn't complain about?

Background
There's something funny going on with the official JCIO website and the JCIO office. Nearly 2 weeks ago I was told by a switchboard assistant I couldn't complain about a judge's 'failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest'. I said I could (I had seen the list before it was revised. I was told by a Manager, Nazir **** and a more senior Manager Andrew ****** that I COULD not complain about the 'potential conflict of interest. Both Managers said I definitely could NOT complain about this. Both Managers were WRONG. Unlike 'criminal convictions', a 'failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest' is NOT listed in the things you can't complain about. Either 2 Managers displayed a surprising ignorance about their own website or they were trying to mislead me.
There's another funny thing: when I submitted my complaint about a judge I cited the 'criminal convictions' change of sides. Then I noticed in the 'I' paper on the 30 October (3 days ago) a magistrate who'd received a 14 day driving ban after a speeding conviction was given a FORMAL WARNING by the JCIO. Hmm... I thought. So how come you couldn't complain about a 'criminal conviction'? Yesterday I looked at the website again and 'criminal convictions' had mysteriously disappeared. When was it deleted?

Yours faithfully,

Dudley Jones

JCIO General Enquiries, Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

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

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Webb, Kim (JCIO), Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

5 Atodiad

Dear Mr Jones

 

Please find enclosed the response to your recent request for information
under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Regards

 

  Kim Webb

  Senior Casework Manager

  Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

 

  81-82 Queens Building 

  Royal Courts of Justice

  WC2A 2LL

  020 7073 0316

  07540 262 702

 

[1]cid:image001.gif@01D5A5EA.5AA08FE0 
[2]cid:image002.gif@01D5A5EA.5AA08FE0  [3]cid:image003.gif@01D5A5EA.5AA08FE0  [4]cid:image004.gif@01D5A5EA.5AA08FE0

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Judicial Conduct Investigations Office,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Judicial Conduct Investigations Office's handling of my FOI request 'can you tell me the date on which the lists of things you could complain about and things you couldn't complain about on the JCIO official website was radically revised.'

I feel it would be helpful to the Internal Reviewer (IR) if I reproduced the full FOI Request and included the Background statement which Kim Webb's Response ignores:

Can you tell me the date on which the lists of things you could complain about and things you couldn't complain about on the JCIO official website was radically revised? I know it must have been in the second half of 2018 or the first half of 2019.
The list of things you could complain and things you couldn't complain about provided by Richard Byrne in his article 'Handling complaints' (Tribunal Edition 1 2018) has 6 things you could complain about and 8 you couldn't complain about. The former list (things you CAN complain about) includes 'criminal convictions' and NB 'failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest'.
The revised list reduced the things you can complain about to 4 and there was a MASSIVE increase in things you couldn't complain about from 8 to 18. 'Criminal convictions' (formerly something you could complain about) had switched sides and was in the list of things you couldn't complain about. 'Failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest' was removed from the list of things you could complain about BUT was NOT included in the list of things you couldn't complain about. Can you tell me the reason for these radical changes?
NB There has been another change in the last couple of weeks. Can you tell me the exact date on which the 2 words - 'Criminal convictions' was removed from the official JCIO website list of things you 'couldn't complain about?
Background
There's something funny going on with the official JCIO website and the JCIO office. Nearly 2 weeks ago I was told by a switchboard assistant I couldn't complain about a judge's 'failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest'. I said I could (I had seen the list before it was revised. I was told by senior caseworker Nazir **** and a more senior caseworker Andrew ****** that I COULD not complain about the 'potential conflict of interest. Both Managers said I definitely could NOT complain about this. Both officials were WRONG. Unlike 'criminal convictions', a 'failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest' is NOT listed in the things you can't complain about. Either these two officials were amazingly ignorant about their own website or they were deliberately trying to mislead me. Is the IR happy about this kind of behaviour?

There's another funny thing: when I submitted my complaint about a judge I cited the 'criminal convictions' change of sides. Then I noticed in the 'I' paper on the 30 October (3 days ago) a magistrate who'd received a 14 day driving ban after a speeding conviction was given a FORMAL WARNING by the JCIO. Hmm... I thought.
So how come you couldn't complain about a 'criminal conviction'? Yesterday I looked at the website again and 'criminal convictions' had mysteriously disappeared. When was it deleted?

here's Webb's Response:
'Your request has been handled under the FOIA.
I can confirm that the information on the JCIO’s website was refreshed in around June 2018 and again in October/November 2018. We are unable to confirm the exact changes, which were made or the date of those changes as no record has been kept of this information'. Really? What an astonishing admission from an organisation charged with fulfilling the most demanding of legal responsibilities! Do these changes on your website occur magically? Is there no individual who makes the change and there's no record of when this is? Such inefficiency is mind-blowing!
Webb continues: 'I can, however, confirm that complaints about ‘failure to declare a potential conflict of
interest’ was removed from the list of complaints that fall within the JCIO’s remit in late 2018.
It may help if I explain that it is a matter of judicial discretion as to whether a judge, who
believes they have a conflict of interest, chooses to declare the conflict and thereby recuse
themselves from a case... blah, blah..etc. NO, it doesn't help and Webb is clearly being disingenuous. I was referring to what is said on the JCIO's website, their remit. What a judge does in a court case is entirely irrelevant'.
Webb then addresses the issue of 'criminal convictions' and there is more deliberately specious, irrelevant verbiage:

'In regard to complaints of criminal convictions, the JCIO is unable to carry out investigations
into criminal allegations as this would be a police matter. However, if a judicial office holder
is found guilty of an offence, then the matter could be referred to the JCIO for further
investigation. There has been no change to the JCIO’s procedures in this regard.
As previously stated, the JCIO cannot confirm the date upon which reference to criminal
convictions was deleted from its website as it does not hold a record of this information.
In summary, given the limited scope of the JCIO’s remit in relation to conflict of interest
matters and criminal convictions, the JCIO’s website was revised to avoid unnecessary
confusion for complainants'.
Has Webb not read the passage above about the JCIO reprimand to a judge who hadn't disclosed a 'criminal conviction' - in this case a 15 day driving ban following a speeding conviction (reported in the 'I' newspaper recently) or does she/he chose to deliberately ignore it. 'Criminal convictions' which switched sides in a later official JCIO website - at an earlier date? (see discussion of Judge Byrne above) it was in the list of things YOU COULD COMPLAIN ABOUT, then it was in the list of things YOU COULDN'T COMPLAIN ABOUT. Nobody it seems can offer any explanation for this switching of sides back and forwards. Can I ask the IR to explain why this change was thought to be needed... or justified?
Could the IR also respond to what I was told was a statement of the JCIO's current position on 'criminal convictions'. it was provided in an email in early November and it purports to be the JCIO's coherent policy with regard to 'criminal convictions':
“The website content is reviewed periodically and gives examples of the sorts of issues that fall within our remit.  The list is intended to be indicative and does not purport to be exhaustive.  I can confirm that conviction for a criminal was and remains a matter that falls within the scope of the disciplinary regime.  It may have been removed because it would not take a complaint from a third party for the JCIO to be able to commence an investigation.  The fact of the conviction alone would be sufficient. “
This suggests the JCIO kind of makes it up as they go along. I'll pass this on to Judge Byrne for an updated, revised edition of his online article so he can recommend again this 'helpful' JCIO website as a guide for anyone foolish enough to waste their time complaining about a judge. Does the IR approve of this official policy?
Finally, can the IR confirm that 'failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest' does not appear on the JCIO's website in the list of things you can't complain about'? In which case, the automatic dismissal of my complaint about Chamber President Judge A.M. as being something you couldn't complain about was a shameful, dishonest response by an admittedly young, inexperienced, recently appointed ordinary case investigator (not a senior one). Given this, would not the IR agree the case should be investigated by a far more senior case investigator ( my complaint about a GRC Registrar was investigated by a very proficient, Senior Manager).

Yours sincerely,
Dudley Jones

[ GIVE DETAILS ABOUT YOUR COMPLAINT HERE ]

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

Yours faithfully,

Dudley Jones

JCIO General Enquiries, Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

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

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Miah, Rehad (JCIO), Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Jones

Please see attached letter in relation to your request for an internal review following our response to your FOIA request.

Kind regards

Rehad Miah
Senior Caseworker
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

81-82 Queen's Building
Royal Courts of Justice, Strand
London WC2A 2LL
020 7073 0287 / 07547 969 862
https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd taryn taylor (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Such an interesting read! I was thinking about making a complaint about TWO judges ,one was FAIR RENT & the other DWP tribunal hearing
First, was clearly, a friend of the landlord or a friend of a friend. I say this with absolute confidence . As the supposedly surveyor (I know more about buildings) & the judge , talked continuously with the landlord before , during & after "THE TOUR" of the property !
Which is something that they are NOT ALLOWED TO DO??
And as I had put such a good case together "WITH EVIDENCE" , which obviously the landlord would NOT be able to defend.
For some unknown reason, the judge kept saying throughout "IRRELEVANT IRRELEVANT" . NO IT WAS NOT!!?? She just kept stating the words"IRRELEVANT, IRRELEVANT"?!! So now , local , does not mean "our village" ?? It is nearly the whole of NORFOLK!!
(refer to my question on this site , FAIR RENT/GDP FORMULA ?
Second judge at DWP hearing , was more interested in correcting my ENGLISH GRAMMAR /GOOGLE MEASUREMENTS/MISCONSTRUED WHAT I DID OR DID NOT SAY (which was not much) MORE INTERESTED IN FICTION INSTEAD OF FACTS!!
(all of which I have commented on through this site)
AGAIN, I HAD ALL FACTUAL EVIDENCE. However, I did write to the UPPER TIER. Pointing out the laziness, incompetence , bias & prejudices have an impact on people's lives. And if judges want to "tell tall stories in their statement of reasons " . To go & find a publisher or apply to JACKANORY !!!