Dear Judicial Conduct Investigations Office,
1. In 2018, how many JCIO meetings were held where a record was kept of those meetings? By ‘record’, I mean the date was recorded on which the meeting took place, and a record of any decision taken at that meeting was made.

This is what I would regard as an absolute MINIMUM form of record-keeping for any organisation in order for them to fulfil the record-keeping obligation placed upon them by the ICO. Anything less than that would signify they wanted to ensure that policies and decisions were hidden from public view – that, essentially what they were trying to do, was avoid transparency.

The JCIO have previously responded to my earlier FOI Request about the dates of meetings in 2018 about the most radical changes in the history of the JCIO: changes to the list of things you ‘could complain about in a Judge’s behaviour’ and the list of things ‘you couldn’t complain about’. As a result of these changes, the list of things ‘you could complain about’, was reduced from 6 to 4, and the list of things ‘you couldn’t complain about was increased from 8 to 18’! The JCIO are keen to point out, however, that these are only ‘EXAMPLES’ – whether this only applies to the first list, however, I don’t know. Could they clarify: does it apply to both lists?
The JCIO admitted (but made no apology for) for the fact that in 2018 there had been 2 separate sets of changes but they ‘had no record of the dates of the two meetings at which the changes were made, and no definite record of what changes were made at which meeting!

They did not inform the ICO of this appalling breach of the obligation to maintain efficient record-keeping. My question, therefore is: what other meetings were there in 2018 and was any record of those meetings held – and is that record still available 3 years later.

2. Assuming it does not exceed the £600 maximum cost, how many meetings were held in the period 2019-2021 (up to the present time) and was any record made of these meetings? Could the JCIO list the dates for me, and any decision taken at those meetings? Could they also tell me if a) any list of agenda items was made, and b) any minutes made of these meetings?

Yours faithfully,

Dudley Jones

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 'the number of JCIO meetings where records have been made 2018-2021'.
You say that fulfilling this request would exceed the cost limit of £600 or 3.5 days work. There's only one thing wrong with your claim: it's totally unbelievable.

You say that 'Meetings (in person or virtual) are a routine part of how the JCIO operates; for example, on any given day there may be meetings between managers, between managers and team members, regular all-team meetings, ad-hoc meetings to discuss particular issues and so on'. You go on 'depending on the nature and purpose of a meeting, actions and decisions may be recorded, typically by summarising the outcome in an email, or may not be recorded'.

This picture you create of a constant flurry of meetings with notes and decisions made (in the rest room perhaps?) is risible. Do you really expect the public to believe the JCIO is a hive of meticulous, conscientious record-keeping when in 2019 I ask about the most radical changes in the JCIO's history, and you admit without a trace of embarrassment or shame that you have no precise records of 2 sets of changes made in 2018, the most radical changes in the JCIO's history.

The mismatch between your claims of feverish note-taking and a disgraceful absence of records for the radical changes in 2018, could hardly be more striking. It raise worrying questions about the JCIO's integrity and honesty. It is an egregious breach of the obligation placed upon you by the ICO to maintain efficient records. The ICO obliges organisations to do this to ensure transparency . The JCIO seems determined to keep their business hidden, to keep the public unaware of what decisions they make.

But, of course, you know all this. It doesn't come as a surprise. I made it all clear in my Background note to this FOI Request:

'There could be no clearer evidence of the JCIO’s irresponsible attitude to record-keeping and transparency than the changes made in 2018 to their website list of things you could complain about in a judge’s behaviour, and the things you couldn’t complain about (i.e. they’d refuse to investigate). These were undoubtedly the most radical changes in the JCIO’s history. As a result of them, the list of things you could complain about was REDUCED from 6 to 4, and the list of things you couldn’t complain about was INCREASED from 8 to 18. In a FOI Response I was told there had been 2 separate sets of changes made in 2018 but they had no record of the dates on which changes were made, nor of whether a particular change was made on the first occasion or the later one. To sum up: they claimed they had absolutely no records at all about the most radical changes in their history'.

It is typical of your evasive responses to FOI Requests (and not just mine) that you ignored the above critique.

In an effort to encourage you to honour your responsibilities, I will refine my Request and ask you to provide records of important meetings with senior staff attending where important decisions were made.

Like, for example, the sudden re-entry of a 'judge's failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest in the list of those things you COULD complain about. It was included before 2018, then after those changes, you couldn't complain about it, and now, once more you can. Obviously, you kept a record of the meeting that resulted in that decision and who was present at that meeting. It would be helpful if your record of this meeting included discussion of WHY you decided to revert to the pre-2018 position, why this complaint seems to yo-yo about so eccentrically. What is the logic for these rapid changes - or is there NO logic? Why did you once more decide to include it in the list of things you could complain about? Presumably it was a carefully considered decision?

If - as a result of your internal review - you maintain that responding to my refined Request would still exceed the cost limit, I will refer you to the ICO. The Cabinet Office and its Clearing House unit were recently found guilty by Judge Hughes of seeking to avoid transparency and 'evasion'. It would be embarrassing for the Judicial regulator were to find itself in the same position as the CO.

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

Yours faithfully,

Dudley Jones

Dear Judicial Conduct Investigations Office,

Dear Ms Walters,

You began your response to my request for an internal review by saying:

‘In your email 17 December, you requested an internal review of the response and you also refined your original request. We have reviewed your refined request and will not be responding’.

Your claim that I have ‘refined my original request’ is patently FALSE. Then to say you have dismissed my ‘refined request’ because it’s ‘vexatious’ is to compound your appalling behaviour. I did not make a ‘refined request’, let me repeat what is obvious: I made NO ‘refined request’, to suggest otherwise is a lie.

Stating something you know to be untrue (a lie) in a FOI Response is unlawful behaviour. The Freedom of Information Act has the status of law. The Cabinet Office was fined £500,000 by Judge Hughes in June 2021 for their abuse of the FOI Act.

Unless I receive an apology from you by the 28 Feb 2022, I will make a complaint to the ICO about your unlawful behaviour.

You support what Mr O’Loughlin says about the cost of fulfilling my FOI Request exceeding the £600 limit, and suggest if I now ‘refine my request to one month’ (significantly you chose as an example the month of December) this would then be within the cost limit.

I find Mr O’Loughlin’s ‘story’ of all these routine meetings taking place with dates, minutes, decisions meticulously recorded, totally unbelievable. It’s a fiction, however, that you endorse.

The trouble with regularly providing mendacious statements in a FOI Response (which places upon you a lawful obligation to tell the truth) is that you catch yourself out, you forget what you or a colleague has stated in earlier Responses.

How do you and Mr O’Loughlin reconcile your claim that the records of even routine meetings are meticulously recorded, with the JCIO Response to my FOI Request of 28 July 2020? I asked ‘What was the date of the meeting held to decide the rationale for record keeping of meetings?’

Your Response was there was NO record of this meeting and that 'NOT ALL meetings are recorded'. So, this was obviously a very important meeting but no records were kept of it.

Is it only meetings where important decisions are made or discussed that are not recorded? If so, it suggests your intention is to avoid transparency. This is what the ICO concluded about the Cabinet Office last year, and why their behaviour was roundly condemned by Judge Hughes, the ICO, openDemocracy campaign group and David Davis MP.

This would explain why in a FOI Response you have refused to tell me the date of the meeting at which the JCIO decided to add a 5th example to the list of things about a judge’s behaviour you could complain about. You say you refused it because it was ‘vexatious’ but that is nonsense. You’ve refused it because no record was made but it would be very embarrassing for the JICO to admit that.

You will recall that list of things ‘you could complain about’ was reduced in 2018 from 6 to 4 (and the list of things you couldn’t complain about increased from 8 to 18. There were, in fact 2 sets of changes in 2018, but the JCIO in a FOI RESPONSE said it had no record of any of the dates of these meetings, the decisions taken, minutes etc.

These were the most important meetings, the most radical changes to things you could, and couldn’t complain about in the JCIO’s history and yet you had no record of them. It is the most disgraceful abdication of responsibility, you clearly want to avoid transparency at all cost.

You say the JCIO could fulfil my FOI Request if I restricted the ‘scope’ of my request to one that would be within the cost limit. I will do so: I will repeat my FOI Request for the date of the meeting at which it was decided to add a 5th example to the list of things ‘you could complain about’? To assist you, I’m almost sure it was in the last 18 months.

If you have no record of such a meeting, please spare me the trumped-up, mendacious excuse of ‘it’s vexatious’ (which translates as ‘anything to spare us more embarrassment’) and just admit you made no record of the meeting..

I have one more question for you, it’s something that unless I get a satisfactory explanation or an apology, I will be taking up with the ICO.

Included with your internal review of Mr O’Loughlin’s response to records made of meetings made in 2018 and between the period of 2019-2021, is a response to another entirely different FOI Request made in 28/08/2020. What on earth is this doing here? Why is your internal review dated 2022, accompanied by an FOI Response from 2 years earlier? It’s quite extraordinary behaviour.

Can you explain why it’s included? Combined with your devious claim about my ‘refined request’ and your disgraceful lack of record-keeping, it also suggests confusion and incompetence .

Yours faithfully,

Dudley Jones

Dear Walters, Laura (JCIO),

Once again, you are being mendacious and evasive. In your response you say:
Your email of 17 December contained the following:
'.... I will refine my Request and ask you to provide records of important meetings with senior staff attending where important decisions were made....'
You mention here that you are refining your request therefore, we answered this as such.

Typical of your strategy of deceit and evasion is the inclusion of several ellipses after 'were made' in describing my refined Request. As you are well aware there is a full stop after 'were made'. My refined request was for IMPORTANT meetings with SENIOR STAFF attending, where IMPORTANT DECISIONS were made.
I stressed important decisions because you would have me believe there is such a frenzy of meetings all dutifully recorded (over the re-ordering of paper clips perhaps?) that I'd have to reduce my request to meetings held in the Christmas month for you to fulfil my request.
I mentioned a possible example of an important meeting where, for example, important decisions were made which changed the list of things you could complain about in a judge's behaviour BUT there could equally be a number of other examples that did not apply to this: for example, a meeting where you decided to change the way you carry out investigations, so you decided to alter the present procedure in regard to Data Privacy complaints where your investigators prefer to get advice on DP issues from an unqualified Data Protection Officer at the Judicial Office rather than apply to properly qualified staff at the ICO. The JO Data Privacy officer you know will give you the information you've told him you want.
You've seized on one example I provided in my 17 December refined Request, defined it as 'vexatious' and pretended you've thereby fulfilled my 'refined Request' . Importantly, this enables you to hide the fact that you're failing to fulfil your responsibilities under the FOI, namely to maintain efficient records of meetings to ensure transparency. Transparency is the last thing the JCIO want. They are determined to avoid it.

It's disturbing when the JCIO, the organisation pledged to call to account the behaviour of corrupt judges is revealed as itself untrustworthy. Your evasive behaviour Ms Walters undermines the reputation of the JCIO. Unfortunately, it's not confined to you.

Yours sincerely,
Dudley Jones

Dear Walters, Laura (JCIO),
'Vexatious' is a favourite 'get out of jail' free tactic for a Senior Caseworker Manager (to give you your full title). For members of the public 'vexatious' is best understood as a term which means responding to such a difficult and potentially embarrassing question causes us profound 'vexation' - so stop bothering us and go away.

Is this the same Laura Walters who illegally forwarded emails from me to JCIO Caseworker Jane Keeling (and her replies) about Keeling's investigation of my complaint about a Senior President Judge to the Judicial Office, who were themselves involved in a separate but related complaint about the same judge! As emails were received they were immediately forwarded by 'Laura Walters' to the JO - and, of course, I have the proof of this thanks to an SAR.

It would be interesting to learn how you reconcile your behaviour with the JCIO's Code of Conduct.

And why come up with the same old 'vexatious' trick when the JCIO have now revealed that the JCIO, the so-called INDEPENDENT investigator of judges is not subject to the FOIA and doesn't have to answer embarrassing Requests - meaning they are no longer accountable. Oh, and also - again like the JO who aren't subject to the FOIA - both organisations are 'arms-length' boies of the Ministry of Justice (who are subject to the FOIA). Presumably they envy you.

Yours sincerely,

Dudley Jones