Dear Ministry of Justice,

1) what was the date the MoJ's decided that their 'arms-length body', the Judicial Office should not be subject to the FOI Act & therefore not have to respond to FOI Requests on this site?
2) what was the date the MoJ's decided that their 'arms-length body', the JCIO (the "INDEPENDENT" investigator of Judges' misconduct) should not be subject to the FOI Act & therefore not have to respond to FOI Requests on this site?
3) Was the fact that these 2 bodies informed me in FOI Responses to Requests on the same day that they were exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, and would therefore not be responding to my FOI Request, related to the fact that I'd submitted FOI questions that exposed corrupt behaviour by JCIO & JO officials? Both these ‘arms-length bodies’ have been responding to FOI Requests on this site for over a decade without invoking their exemption from the FOIA. They said this was because they were choosing to respond ‘on a discretionary basis’. Obviously they didn’t feel inclined to exercise that discretion when faced with embarrassing questions about their apparently corrupt behaviour.
4) Has there been a MoJ meeting where they considered how the JCIO’s “independence” could obviously be compromised by its status as an ‘arms-length body of the MoJ?
5) Has there been an MoJ meeting where they considered the damage to the JCIO's reputation when the actions and decisions of the JCIO, the “Independent” investigator of judges behaviour, can be hidden from public scrutiny? I have spoken to a number of requestors on the WDTK website: they were all amazed and alarmed to discover the JCIO was exempt from the FOIA. Investigative journalists have also expressed alarm.
6) Has there been any discussion at an MoJ meeting of how the above is consistent with the MoJ’s declared aim of working 'to protect and advance the principles of justice for everyone in society'?
7) Has the MoJ been informed by the JCIO that they collaborated/colluded with the Judicial Office in their investigation of Chamber President Mrs Justice F*****, DBE. Senior JCIO Caseworker Manager, L***** W****** forwarded all the correspondence at each stage of the investigation between myself, the JCIO, the JO, and the non-senior JCIO caseworker Ms J. K. Has the MoJ questioned why Ms J.K. consulted the unqualified JO Data Privacy Officer about the Judge’s breach of my Data Privacy when she should have consulted ICO staff who would be fully qualified in GDPR legislation - and, more importantly - impartial.
8) If the MoJ was informed about this collusion - which was taking place at the same time as the JO was involved in “representing” Judge Farbey about a separate but related ‘enquiry’ - did the MoJ schedule any meeting to consider whether such collusion might compromise their commitment to ‘protecting and advancing the principles of justice?

Yours faithfully,

Dudley Jones

Dear Disclosure Team,

Your response to questions 7 and 8 tells any reader of this FOI Request/Response all they need to know about the "practices" of OUR (!) Ministry of Justice. Here are my questions 7 & 8:

7) Has the MoJ been informed by the JCIO that they collaborated/colluded with the Judicial Office in their investigation of Chamber President Mrs Justice F*****, DBE. Senior JCIO Caseworker Manager, L***** W****** forwarded to the Judicial Office all the correspondence at each stage of the investigation between myself, the JCIO, and the JCIO caseworker Ms J. K******.

Has the MoJ questioned why Ms J.K. consulted the unqualified JO Data Privacy Officer about the Judge’s breach of my Data Privacy rights when she should have consulted ICO staff who would be fully qualified in GDPR legislation to answer her DP queries - and, more importantly - impartial?
8) If the MoJ was informed about this collusion - which was taking place at the same time as the JO was involved in “representing” Judge Farbey about a separate but related ‘enquiry’ - did the MoJ schedule any meeting to consider whether such collusion might compromise their commitment to ‘protecting and advancing the principles of justice?

Your FOI Response to the above questions was:

I cannot answer these questions for the MoJ as they are worded. They are both closed questions, only requiring a yes or no; but to do so either way would give credence to unfounded accusations. In any event the subjects asked about are a matter for the judiciary, not the MoJ. [how interesting!]

There's only one thing wrong with your response, and that is you know these 'accusations' are WELL-FOUNDED, not unfounded; you know they have been supported by irrefutable evidence from emails obtained from SARs to the JCIO and the Judicial Office (both of which I'm amazed and disturbed to learn from the MoJ are arms-length bodies of the MoJ)

That's right folks, the allegedly "INDEPENDENT" investigator of Judges' behaviour is an 'arms-length body of the MoJ. Since the Judicial Office is also an 'arms-length body' of the MoJ, it's hardly surprising they colluded with each other on separate but related complaints about the same Judge - is it?

Yours sincerely,

Dudley Jones

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 'questions about the MoJ's relationship with the JCIO & JO and their exemption from the FOIA'.

You say in your response to my letter of clarification:

'We have deemed this to be Internal Review; this is cursory as the facts are self-evident'. The only thing that's 'self-evident' here is your confusion. On the whatdotheyknow.com website, requests for an internal review always begin with the above format: Dear X, Please pass on to the person who conducts...' etc. What I submitted to you was a letter of clarification. You have mistakenly chosen to refer to it as a request for an internal review.

In your Response to my FOI Request you have answered questions 1-6 but you describe the accusations included quite legitimately in questions 7 and 8 as ‘unfounded’. Once again, the Ministry of Justice is deliberately LYING. They are not 'unfounded.' You ignore the evidence contained in those questions: the named JCIO Senior Caseworker Ms L.W who forwarded a series of confidential emails to the JO, the Caseworker Ms J.K. who emailed the JO DP Officer Mr A.B.

The Ministry of Justice’s mendacity is seriously alarming. What trust can one have in a department whose role is (supposedly) to advance and promote the principles of justice. There’s also an unmistakeable implication in your reference to ‘unfounded accusations’ that it is not you, but me, who is lying. You leave me no option but to provide irrefutable evidence that not even the MoJ can deny: some of the (many) emails forwarded by JCIO Senior Caseworker Ms L.W to the Judicial Office, which is, as you explained, an arms-length sub department of the Ministry of Justice. I have redacted the name of the Senior Caseworker that curiously was not redacted in the SAR – thereby demonstrating a greater sensitivity than MoJ officials towards Data Privacy and concealing the identity of that official working in an ‘arms-length body of the MoJ.

Here are some of those emails that prove my accusations are true:

W******, L**** (JCIO) Senior Caseworker

From:
Sent: 17 August 2021 12:42
To:
Subject: RE: Request for advice from the JCIO

Dear

Thank you very much for your prompt assistance. Kind regards

Caseworker
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office 81-82 Queen’s Building
Royal Courts of Justice, Strand London WC2A

From: J*** K*****g
Sent: 17 August 2021 12:42
To:
Subject: RE: Request for advice from the JCIO

Dear

Thank you very much for your prompt assistance. Kind regards
Caseworker
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office 81-82 Queen’s Building
Royal Courts of Justice, Strand London WC2A 2LL

https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/

Sent: 17 August 2021 12:38
To:
Subject: RE: Request for advice from the JCIO

Dear J***

Thanks for this. You are correct JCIO has not committed a data breach and JCIO has no responsibility for reporting this to the ICO. It is also very likely that the judge has not breach any data protection laws in contacting GLD. [Ms J.K. has falsified my complaint about a breach of my DP rights - the notion I would have complained about the JCIO breaching my DP rights is absurd. The JO knows this but provides Ms J.K with the response she obviously wants - see below!]

It appears JCIO has done all it can to assist the complainant. Regards,
Mr A. B.
|Data Privacy Officer|Judicial Office|11th floor Thomas More|Royal Courts of Justice|Strand|London WC2A 2LL| |www.judiciary.gov.uk|www.twitter.com/JudiciaryUK

Sent: 17 August 2021 12:06
To:
Subject: RE: Request for advice from the JCIO Dear
Thank you for your prompt response.

I am sorry if my email was not clear, the JCIO did not make the GLD aware of the complaint, neither have we had sight of the letter to which the complainant refers. It was the judge that referred the matter to the GLD and it is the complainant’s contention that she wished the GLD to respond.

The complainant considers the judge breached their rights by providing sight of the letter to the GLD and involving them in the matter.
In respect to the JCIO’s response I said the following:

“….Specifically, you are of the view that XXX abdicated XXX responsibility by refusing to respond to your request for permission to publish XXX 15 April 2020 letter. You have said that in so doing, the judge betrayed XXX oath of office and breached the Judicial Code of Conduct, in that XXX actions lacked impartiality and integrity. You also state that XXX request to the Ministry of Justice’s Judicial Office to convey the decision was a breach of XXX independence from the legislative and executive arms of government and that XXX violated your data privacy rights.
Why we cannot accept your complaint
As you are aware, the JCIO is a statutory body which supports the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice in their joint responsibility for judicial discipline. Our remit and procedures are governed by statutory rules and regulations, which can be found on our website at: https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk

Our statutory remit is to deal with complaints of misconduct about judges. This means how a judge has behaved personally, e.g. making a racist remark, inappropriate use of social media, or falling asleep in court. Rule 8 of the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014 requires that a complaint must “contain an allegation of misconduct” about a person holding judicial office and it is important to note that a complaint does not contain an allegation of misconduct about a judge simply because a person is unhappy about something a judge has said or done. We can only accept complaints which contain a specific allegation of behaviour that, if true, could result in a finding of misconduct. [but you have only provided some EXAMPLES of 'misconduct'. You have acknowledged there could be many other examples and, of course, you provide NO definition of 'misconduct']

As I previously outlined, judicial independence means that we cannot question a judge’s decision or management of a matter, be it within court proceedings, or in the scope of administrative matters. Furthermore, we cannot consider complaints about a judge making an error of law or procedure.
Kind regards

Caseworker
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office 81-82 Queen’s Building
Royal Courts of Justice, Strand London WC2A 2LL

https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/

Sent: 17 August 2021 11:40
To:
Subject: RE: Request for advice from the JCIO

Dear

I am not certain organisations are obliged (under the UK GDPR) to respond to a data privacy breach complaint although it would certainly be good practice. And the response should address the complaint, just as a response to any other complaint should.

Individuals are able to complain to the ICO if they are unhappy about any aspect of how an organisation has handled their personal data, although the ICO expects the complain to be raised with the organisation first. In my experience if the ICO receives a complaint they contact the organisation and as what happened.

Is the author of the email unhappy because they believe that by making GLD aware of their complaint JCIO committed a breach of security? In my view sharing data with GLD would not be a data breach, processing data for the purposes of seeking legal advice is expressly permitted by the UK GDPR and DPA 2018.

I hope this helps.
Regards,
A**** B********
|Data Privacy Officer|Judicial Office|11th floor Thomas More|Royal Courts of Justice|Strand|London WC2A 2LL| |www.judiciary.gov.uk|www.twitter.com/JudiciaryUK

I would like the internal review to contain an apology for the completely unjustified implication that I was guilty of lying and for them to acknowledge that my 'accusations' were well-founded not 'unfounded'. And I would like answers to questions 7 and 8 .

You say in relation to Questions 7 and 8 that you 'cannot answer these questions as they are worded. They are both closed questions, only requiring a yes or no.' How is then that you had no problem in providing the answer 'No' to questions 3,4,5, and 6?

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

Yours faithfully,

Dudley Jones

Dear Disclosure Team,
Here's what you said in your 16 September 2022 response to my request:
'We have deemed this to be Internal Review; this is cursory as the facts are self-evident.'

You didn't say we can't respond to what you deemed to be an internal review because it is out of time - which is what you are now saying about my request yesterday for an internal review!

I suppose this couldn't have anything to do with the fact that my real request for an internal review provided proof that when the MoJ described my accusations of illegal collaboration between the JCIO & JO as 'unfounded', they were LYING.

You knew there was no way in an internal review of denying the fact that you deliberately LIED. I had provided the proof in the shape of emails illegally forwarded by the JCIO to the JO about an on-going investigation.

Even worse for the MoJ is the fact that in a recent FOI Response, the MoJ informed me that the JCIO (the so-called INDEPENDENT investigator of Judges' misconduct) is not only exempt from the FOI Act but is also an 'arms-length body of the MoJ'! And the JO - a body that helps and serves judges - is also an 'arms-length body of the MoJ and is also not subject to the FOIA (unlike the MoJ).

Judges who are guilty of corruption are thereby protected with a ring of steel.

If you want to play it with the 'out-of-time' card, so be it. There are other ways of exposing your lie about 'unfounded accusations'.

Yours sincerely,

Dudley Jones