How many FOI Requests to the JCIO were refused in the last 3 yrs because they were 'vexatious'?

Judicial Conduct Investigations Office Nid oedd gan y wybodaeth y gofynnwyd amdani.

Dear Judicial Conduct Investigations Office,

In the last 3 years, how many FOI Requests to the JCIO were 'refused' because they were deemed to be 'vexatious'? if the number refused as 'vexatious is so great as to exceed the cost of man hours in responding to this Request, please reduce the scope to the last 2 years. Still too many, reduce the scope to 1 year, still too many refused as 'vexatious' reduce to 6 months, and so on.

Thank you for the 'vexatious' refusal which I predicted. I'm pleased the JCIO so easily fell into the trap I'd set for it. I shall very soon make this JCIO 'Response' widely available online and send it to a variety of newspapers and legal blogs etc.

Your Response exposes the fact that as a Regulator, the JCIO is morally bankrupt, and intellectually dishonest, incredibly inefficient and incompetent. Your refusal to answer a question about your hopelessly inefficient record-keeping is because you don't want to put yourself in a position where you are are publishing further evidence that basically you don't have any system of record-keeping. Clearly you can't be bothered with the responsibility of efficient record-keeping. This, of course, raises the question of whether this is intentional. Do you, in fact, want to hide your shortcomings, your manifest failure to carry out your regulatory responsibilities by keeping any records of meetings/decisions taken etc?

The reason for your desire to keep your 'activities' hidden form view, to prevent transparency at all costs is presumably because over the last 2 or 3 years, the JCIO has turned itself into a de facto Judges Protection agency. This kills 2 birds with one stone. You have complained for many years in your annual reports about being over-worked (all these people like me complaining about the appalling behaviour of senior judges) so you reduce the list of things you can complain about so you can immediately and automatically reject complaints as being not 'on the list'. And you have the blatant dishonesty to say that watching porn on an office computer - which warranted the most severe punishment available to you (disbarment) is not listed on the reduced list of things you CAN complain about (whittled down to just 4!) because you only 'give examples' of things the public can complain about. That's the real reason you refused to answer my question about this matter and about your rationale for compiling the list of things you can complain about.

This secrecy, this deliberate concealment of the JCIO's real agenda is what the Ministry of JUSTICE is upholding. The MoJ who has stood on the sidelines and done nothing about the worst miscarriage of justice in the last 50 years: the persecution and victimisation of sub Postmasters and the conspiracy to still deny these victims justice and compensation.

AND OF COURSE MY FOI REQUEST ABOUT NUMBER OF REQUESTS REFUSED ON BASIS OF 'VEXATIOUS' WILL BE REFUSED AS ... 'VEXATIOUS'! I guarantee it.

Yours faithfully,

Dudley Jones

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

Rasul, Nazir (JCIO), Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

5 Atodiad

Dear Mr Jones

 

Please find attached a response to your FOI.

 

Sincerely

 

Nazir Rasul

Senior Caseworker

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

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Rasul, Nazir (JCIO),

Since I have twice had FOI Requests refused by the JCIO on the grounds that they were 'vexatious', it follows that Rasul, Nazir's has lied in informing me in his FOI Response that there had only been '2' FOI Requests since 2017 refused on the grounds they were 'vexatious'. I say this because the JCIO Annual Report for 2017-8 states 42 requests were dismissed as 'vexatious; in the 2018-9 Report, 6 were dismissed as 'vexatious'; in 2019-20 11 were dismissed as 'vexatious'.

Unfortunately, this is typical of the devious and duplicitous responses I have received from Rasul, Nazir. I suggest the JCIO orders a disciplinary review of his behaviour. I shall certainly be referring him to the ICO.

Yours sincerely,

Dudley Jones

Rasul, Nazir (JCIO), Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

I am currently off work and will return on 14 September.

 

For anything urgent that cannot wait until my return, please contact
[email address]

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Rasul, Nazir (JCIO), Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

Mr Jones

The annual report refers to complaints that were dismissed as vexatious. Your request concerned FOI requests that were considered vexatious. These are two different things.

Nazir Rasul
Senior Caseworker
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

81-82 Queens Building
Royal Courts of Justice
WC2A 2LL
020 7071 5679

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.

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 'How many FOI Requests to the JCIO were refused in the last 3 yrs because they were 'vexatious'?'.

Nazir Rasul, a JCIO senior caseworker, responded to my FOI Request on the 23 September 2020 thus:
Thank you for your request received on 23 September 2020 in which you asked for the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ): How many FOI Requests to the JCIO were refused in the last 3 yrs because they were 'vexatious' I can confirm that the MoJ holds the information you have requested. Since September 2017, a total of 2 FOI requests were refused because they were considered vexatious.

Mr Rasul must have known that I had had 2 FOI Requests refused on the grounds they were ‘vexatious’ and that it was impossible others had not had Requests refused because they were deemed ‘vexatious.’ It was, therefore a studied insult: he was, in effect, saying ‘I am unaccountable’. At that point, I gave up – on Mr Rasul and the JCIO.

The following year, however, I decided to do some research and found the Annual Reports for the JCIO contained the in formation I had sought (but not obtained) from Mr Rasul.

I wrote the following reply to Mr Rasul on the whatdotheyknow.com original Request:
‘Since I have twice had FOI Requests refused by the JCIO on the grounds that they were 'vexatious', it follows that Rasul, Nazir's has lied in informing me in his FOI Response that there had only been '2' FOI Requests since 2017 refused on the grounds they were 'vexatious'. I say this because the JCIO Annual Report for 2017-8 states 42 requests were dismissed as 'vexatious; in the 2018-9 Report, 6 were dismissed as 'vexatious'; in 2019-20 11 were dismissed as 'vexatious'.

I received the following reply from Mr Rasul on the 14 September 2021:
‘Mr Jones
The annual report refers to complaints that were dismissed as vexatious. Your request concerned FOI requests that were considered vexatious. These are two different things.
Nazir Rasul
Senior Caseworker
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office’

It is inconceivable that Mr Rasul has forgotten his original response to my request. As stated above, he thanked me for my ‘request in which [I] asked for the following information: How many FOI Requests to the JCIO were refused in the last 3 yrs because they were 'vexatious'.

Mr Rasul’s 14 September 2021 response reveals a cynical disregard for the truth and - I would suggest – a conviction that he can say anything, however divorced from the truth, secure in the knowledge the JCIO will protect him.

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

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

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

JCIO General Enquiries, Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

5 Atodiad

Dear Mr Jones,

 

Please find attached a response to your FOI IR under reference 210919007.

 

With regards,

Anthony O’Loughlin

Senior Caseworker

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.

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir