fFaudwAtch UK (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Ministry of Justice,

The following are all the submitted papers concerning an application to start a prosecution pursuant to section 1 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 listed 26 April 2016 (Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates' Court).

Statement of Evidence
http://tinyurl.com/z4tzzzk

http://tinyurl.com/z7femxh Exhibit 1 http://tinyurl.com/hbaeqtz Exhibit 2 http://tinyurl.com/jafq4b8 Exhibit 3 http://tinyurl.com/z96y2af Exhibit 4 http://tinyurl.com/jb4xdew Exhibit 5 http://tinyurl.com/hwhnukz Exhibit 6 http://tinyurl.com/ha82mnb Exhibit 7 http://tinyurl.com/hkhk3gw Exhibit 8 http://tinyurl.com/jg8pkbq Exhibit 9 http://tinyurl.com/j53vgd6 Exhibit 10 http://tinyurl.com/z5hprmb Exhibit 11 http://tinyurl.com/hxqrwym Exhibit 12 http://tinyurl.com/j3dc338 Exhibit 13 http://tinyurl.com/h8vl4ft Exhibit 14 http://tinyurl.com/jy8krnr Exhibit 15 http://tinyurl.com/zzrb7xc Exhibit 16 http://tinyurl.com/z8hqq6o Exhibit 17 http://tinyurl.com/zhwygsd Exhibit 18 http://tinyurl.com/zvmoo8u Exhibit 19 http://tinyurl.com/h6cpyxw Exhibit 20 http://tinyurl.com/hzcss4z Exhibit 21

Court's Determination of the Application
http://tinyurl.com/hrq5re9

Deputy District Judge Nick Hayles (see above) after considering the evidence stated spuriously that the application was vexatious and exercised discretion not to issue a summons for the purpose of bringing before the court the officer serving with Humberside police who had wrongly stated perjury was not a matter for the police.

The judge's reasons were stated spuriously as follows in paragraph 9 of the determination:

" (a) Mr [X] seeks to proceed on an offence that is not designed for this type of circumstance. Further the application overlooks the reasonable person test in sections 26(4)(b) and 26 (5)(c).

(b) His grievance is really about the October 2015 order and the evidence of the Local Authority.

(c) He has had the opportunity to appeal the October 2015 decision but he has chosen not to.

(d) He appears to be using this application as a collateral attack to (b) above. "

The assertion (b) is that the grievance is really about the evidence of the local authority. Evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that the council gave perjured evidence was provided and the reason why criminal allegations of perjury to defraud were made. Therefore, the police were the appropriate body to deal with the matter and the opportunity to appeal (C) was irrelevant because no decision needed making regarding civil proceedings as a criminal offence had been committed requiring criminally investigating.

Q. Please disclose any information held by the MoJ to determine the most appropriate avenue to escalate this matter which is clearly amounts to perverting the course of justice.

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

fFaudwAtch UK (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Ministry of Justice,

Can you please confirm whether or not the below letter has any connection with my Freedom of Information request?

If so, it appears not to take into account that there are criminal allegations being levelled against Deputy District Judge Hayles, and so the matter does not involve the casino justice system's civil appeal process.

"A Watts, Clerk to the Justices
Grimsby Magistrates’ Court
Victoria Street, Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire

Our ref: GT
06 May 2016

Dear Mr [fFaudwAtch UK],

I write in respect of your recent email to the Data Access & Compliance Unit under the name fFaudwAtch UK.

The matter has been passed to me as this is not a Freedom of Information case.

There is no information to impart as you have already been sent the reasons for the decision made by Deputy District Judge Hayles on 26 April 2016.

If you are aggrieved by the decision not to issue a summons you can apply for judicial review of that decision.

You may wish to take independent legal advice before taking such a course of action.

I have sent you an attached guide which sets out the different stages in the procedure, along with information on fees and costs.

Yours sincerely,

Graeme Townell
Legal Team Manager
Grimsby Magistrates’ Court "

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

Gadawodd fFaudwAtch UK (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

It is unbelievable how much front these people have......suggesting an appeal in the High Court.

This is the court's track record when that happens:

Chronology of events (from case bundle documents for high court court application)

https://www.scribd.com/doc/296281170/Chr...

fFaudwAtch UK (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Ministry of Justice,

Further to my 7 May 2016 email, can you please confirm whether or not it had any connection with my Freedom of Information request?

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

fFaudwAtch UK (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Ministry of Justice,

Response to this request is delayed. By law, Ministry of Justice should have responded by 31 May 2016.

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

fFaudwAtch UK (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Ministry of Justice,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Justice's handling of my FOI request 'Deputy District Judge Nick Hayles – Spurious Statements'.

Response to this request is delayed. By law, Ministry of Justice should have responded by 31 May 2016.

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

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

fFaudwAtch UK (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Ministry of Justice,

If there is no response by 28 July 2016 I will assume the Ministry of Justice has no intention of replying and prefer that I escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

Gadawodd fFaudwAtch UK (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Complaint to Information Commissioner's Office for the MoJ's mishandling of this freedom of information request.

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House, Water Lane
Wilmslow, Cheshire
SK9 5AF

18 October 2016

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF FOI REQUEST TO MOJ – (NO REFERENCE)

I made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MoJ’). The details can be found on the “what do they know” website at the following address:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...
“Deputy District Judge Nick Hayles – Spurious Statements”

INTRODUCTION

A Council Tax liability order was made against me by District Judge Daniel Curtis at Grimsby Magistrate’s court, despite being alerted to the possibility that the Council’s Witness Statement intended to deceive the court. Subsequent to the court hearing, sufficient evidence was obtained to prove beyond all doubt that North East Lincolnshire Council (the ‘Council’) had in fact committed perjury; therefore the judge was complicit in the Council’s fraudulent application for liability order.

BACKGROUND

The Council [redact] obtained a liability order by committing [redact]. There was no debt owing, however, the Council [redact] engineered a non-payment scenario. The Police, Local Government Ombudsman and judges are complicit because all of them have looked the other way when the matter brought to their attention.

The negligence of the organisations has enabled the Council unhindered to make further [redact] demands by appointing its [redact] bailiff firm Rossendales to enforce the liability order that was obtained by [redact] to the court about money that is not owed.

The Council’s Revenues & Benefits service had not as you would have expected considered it a close shave to have avoided being the subject of a criminal investigation, but emboldened it to take further liberties with the law and seen it as a green light to continue taking steps to recover the sum. It can only reasonably be assumed that because it was ultimately the judge's responsibility for granting permission the council would deem it appropriate to exploit that decision regardless of being aware it was not entitled to the sum being pursued.

With regard to the unwarranted bailiff fees which have been added since, these are of no financial benefit to the council and it must be considered that Revenues & Benefits officers have allowed them to be added for nothing more than their own personal gratification.

Meanwhile, the [redact] charges continue increasing (currently around £540) and the bailiff firm does not intend to cease enforcement on account of the monies not being owed. It is likely when the bailiffs have to refer the case back to the Council on being unsuccessful, the Council will only have available to it under the fraudulently obtained order the option of committal. It is considered the police are complicit as its failure has enabled the Council to commit crime against a taxpayer by the fraudulent use of the Magistrates' court and should be held ultimately responsible for the circumstances which could realistically lead to false imprisonment.

REPORTING MATTER AS A CRIME TO HUMERSIDE POLICE

A report containing the following was submitted to Humberside police on 8 November 2015:

“North East Lincolnshire Council produced a false witness statement (thereby committing perjury) with regards a council tax liability hearing at Grimsby Magistrates' Court. The District Judge (Daniel Curtis) was aware that the evidence surrounded a false and corrupt statement, but nevertheless granted the council a liability order to enforce a fraudulent sum which presently stands at £120.00. This sum is likely to increase if the council appoints its criminal firm of bailiffs, Rossendales. My allegations are that the council has committed perjury with the intent to fraudulently obtain money from me by the use of Grimsby Magistrates court and that Judge Daniel Curtis has perverted the course of justice by being complicit to that crime.”

After being advised on 11 November 2015 that the reported crime was not a Police matter but civil, it was made categorically clear that the person against whom the complaint was directed should be the Chief Constable so that any investigation would not be undertaken by the force itself. An extensive statement was produce on being advised to collate all evidence to support the allegations by another officer on 13 November. The main document, which referred to and listed around 30 others, was sent on 2 December but the supporting papers withheld until requested from the force. These papers were never asked for indicating that the police never intended seriously considering the evidence.

The matter was referred to the Professional Standards department to deal with as a complaint about the force’s decision that it was not a matter for the police. The resolving officer proceeded to deal with the matter by local resolution despite representations expressing that the matter was not suitable to be dealt with by that process. The submission was produced after referring to guidance (Key facts: local resolution) and included, among other reasons, PERJURY BEING PUNISHABLE AS AN OFFENCE WHETHER OCCURRING IN CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROCEEDINGS. The final outcome of the local resolution process was sent on 13 January 16 and without any specific reference to the representations opposing that process.

The resolving officer evidently reiterated advice from the Force Solicitors which in respect of the issues raised being ‘appeal points that could be raised at any subsequent appeal hearings’, was based on an assumption.

What was later learned to be policy, rather than formed from the Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS) Legal Guidance was that ‘Humberside Police do not investigate allegations of perjury unless a request to do so comes from the court themselves’. The CPS’ view in this matter is that the absence of a judge or magistrate’s recommendation that there should be a police investigation does not mean that there is no justification for one.

The outcome of the Local Resolution was appeal against on 25 January 2016 on the grounds principally that it was not considered that the complaint was suitable for Local Resolution which was made clear in a number of emails which were never addressed as are summarised below:

i) the request that the matter be escalated for the attention of the Chief Constable so that any investigation would not be conducted by the force itself in the hope of removing the 'sham' element which is associated with these matters.

ii) the suggestion that because of a conflict of interest which exists if Humberside police were to deal with this matter, another police force does so

iii) that an officer commits an offence under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 by failing to exercise a power for the purpose of achieving the detriment of another person

iv) a test for establishing whether a complaint is suitable for “Local Resolution” or “Investigation” did not comply with IPCC guidance on handling complaints

v) the outcome being wrongly determined on advice obtained from the ‘Force Solicitors’, i.e., on the assumption that the issues ‘may be appeal points that could be raised at any subsequent appeal hearings’. Representations involving criminal law would not be considered appeal points that could be raised in those proceedings; they would involve civil proceedings challenging Council Tax administration.

Additional representations were sent on 3 May 2016 for consideration in the appeal once discovering the aforementioned CPS Legal Guidance, regarding the absence of a judge’s recommendation. The Police were also alerted on 16 May that the Council had appointed its bailiff contractor, Rossendales, to enforce the fraudulently obtained liability order (despite narrowly avoiding being criminally investigated).

The 8 June 2016 decision of the Appeal Body was not to uphold the matter (challengeable only in the High Court) on the basis that the correct decision was made to Locally Resolve the complaint. Evidently the representations concerning the Force Solicitor’s incorrect advice had been ignored as were all the others. Clearly the force has fallen over itself to protect the Council from the justice system as the evidence went far beyond what would be required to prove the perjury case.

DECISION TO LAY INFORMATION PURSUANT TO S.1 OF THE MAGISTRATES’ COURTS ACT 1980

An information in draft form was lodged with the Grimsby Magistrates' courts 1 March 2016 to request that it issue a summons for the purpose of bringing before the court the officer who wrongly stated perjury was not a matter for the police. The same had already been sent to Humberside police on 9 February 2016 for comment.

It was acknowledged that being a member of the public, up against a body having access to public money for legal representation, the chances of a successful outcome would be zero, no matter how concrete the evidence. Therefore taking the step of laying an information was a last resort, having been met with a lack of will on the part of public bodies funded by the taxpayer to deal with matters like this on their behalf. It was an essential move to get the serious matter of fraud and corruption out in the open and hopefully taken seriously.

It was also expressed to the court that to carry on any further would be completely insane as the potential financial loss would be far beyond my means and would in all probability result in the loss of my home. The suggestion was therefore to alternatively make all evidence available and the case referred to the CPS, which was a realistic proposal because, for example, a justices' clerk may refer a private prosecution to the CPS under s.7(4) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

The hearing was arranged for the application to commence criminal proceedings on 26 April 2016 apparently without any consideration for the suggestion that the justices' clerk refer the matter to the CPS. Deputy District Judge Hayles, after considering the evidence stated spuriously that the application, alleging an offence under s 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, was vexatious and exercised discretion not to issue a summons for the purpose of bringing before the court the officer serving with Humberside police who had wrongly stated perjury was not a matter for the police.

FOI REQUEST – 30 APRIL 2016

The Council was asked as below:

The following are all the submitted papers concerning an application to start a prosecution pursuant to section 1 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 listed 26 April 2016 (Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates' Court).

Statement of Evidence
http://tinyurl.com/z4tzzzk

http://tinyurl.com/z7femxh Exhibit 1 http://tinyurl.com/hbaeqtz Exhibit 2 http://tinyurl.com/jafq4b8 Exhibit 3 http://tinyurl.com/z96y2af Exhibit 4 http://tinyurl.com/jb4xdew Exhibit 5 http://tinyurl.com/hwhnukz Exhibit 6 http://tinyurl.com/ha82mnb Exhibit 7 http://tinyurl.com/hkhk3gw Exhibit 8 http://tinyurl.com/jg8pkbq Exhibit 9 http://tinyurl.com/j53vgd6 Exhibit 10 http://tinyurl.com/z5hprmb Exhibit 11 http://tinyurl.com/hxqrwym Exhibit 12 http://tinyurl.com/j3dc338 Exhibit 13 http://tinyurl.com/h8vl4ft Exhibit 14 http://tinyurl.com/jy8krnr Exhibit 15 http://tinyurl.com/zzrb7xc Exhibit 16 http://tinyurl.com/z8hqq6o Exhibit 17 http://tinyurl.com/zhwygsd Exhibit 18 http://tinyurl.com/zvmoo8u Exhibit 19 http://tinyurl.com/h6cpyxw Exhibit 20 http://tinyurl.com/hzcss4z Exhibit 21

Court's Determination of the Application
http://tinyurl.com/hrq5re9

Deputy District Judge Nick Hayles (see above) after considering the evidence stated spuriously that the application was vexatious and exercised discretion not to issue a summons for the purpose of bringing before the court the officer serving with Humberside police who had wrongly stated perjury was not a matter for the police.

The judge's reasons were stated spuriously as follows in paragraph 9 of the determination:

" (a) Mr [X] seeks to proceed on an offence that is not designed for this type of circumstance. Further the application overlooks the reasonable person test in sections 26(4)(b) and 26 (5)(c).

(b) His grievance is really about the October 2015 order and the evidence of the Local Authority.

(c) He has had the opportunity to appeal the October 2015 decision but he has chosen not to.

(d) He appears to be using this application as a collateral attack to (b) above. "

The assertion (b) is that the grievance is really about the evidence of the local authority. Evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that the council gave perjured evidence was provided and the reason why criminal allegations of perjury to defraud were made. Therefore, the police were the appropriate body to deal with the matter and the opportunity to appeal (C) was irrelevant because no decision needed making regarding civil proceedings as a criminal offence had been committed requiring criminally investigating.

Q. Please disclose any information held by the MoJ to determine the most appropriate avenue to escalate this matter which is clearly amounts to perverting the course of justice.

LETTER FROM MAGISTRATES’ COURT MANAGER – 6 MAY 2016

Presumably the MoJ did not consider the request valid under the FOIA 2000 and referred it to Grimsby Magistrates’ Court’s Legal Team Manager to deal with (see the letter below):

"A Watts, Clerk to the Justices
Grimsby Magistrates’ Court
Victoria Street, Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire

Our ref: GT
06 May 2016

Dear Mr [fFaudwAtch UK],

I write in respect of your recent email to the Data Access & Compliance Unit under the name fFaudwAtch UK.

The matter has been passed to me as this is not a Freedom of Information case.

There is no information to impart as you have already been sent the reasons for the decision made by Deputy District Judge Hayles on 26 April 2016.

If you are aggrieved by the decision not to issue a summons you can apply for judicial review of that decision.

You may wish to take independent legal advice before taking such a course of action.

I have sent you an attached guide which sets out the different stages in the procedure, along with information on fees and costs.

Yours sincerely,

Graeme Townell
Legal Team Manager
Grimsby Magistrates’ Court "

CLARIFICATION SOUGHT – 7 MAY 2016

The MoJ was asked if it would confirm whether or not the letter dated 6 May 2016 (see above) had any connection with the Freedom of Information request. It was also expressed that if it was, it appeared not to take into account that criminal allegations were being levelled against Deputy District Judge Hayles, and the matter therefore did not involve the casino justice system's civil appeal process. The MoJ was prompted again on 17 May 2016 as there had been no response.

REQUEST FOR INTERNAL REVIEW – 12 JUNE 2016

A request for a review was submitted because the MoJ had not responded by the 31 May deadline. On 25 July 2016 I communicated to the MoJ that if it had not responded by 28 July I would assume it would have no intention of doing so and prefer that I escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner.

CONTENTION

The request was submitted to the MoJ under the FOIA 2000 and was inappropriately referred to the court manager to address, presumably because the MoJ does not consider judges to be held responsible for perverting the course of justice. In any event, the court manager’s response was reckless by suggesting I pursue civil litigation in the high Court when it was criminal allegations that were being levelled against Deputy District Judge Hayles.

This is especially the case when you consider the court's track record when a matter is pursued this way. I am approaching four years being grossly inconvenience by Grimsby Magistrates’ Court obstructing the progress of an application to state a case for an appeal to the high court in the matter of the Council's application for a council tax liability order.

The Chronology of events (attached) provides clear evidence that it would not be reasonable to expect anyone engage in an appeal where the involvement of Grimsby Magistrates’ Court has to be relied upon. The request therefore, which was to obtain information relating to the most appropriate way to escalate the judge perverting the course of justice, should have been considered by the MoJ to be a valid under the FOIA 2000.

Yours sincerely

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org