Are magistrates entitled to deny humans their rights?

angie of the elder family made this Freedom of Information request to Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was refused by Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service.

angie of the elder family

Dear Sir or Madam,

1) please provide written evidence that back's the claims of two Carmarthenshire Court officials ( one judge and one magistrate) that human beings can be denied their inalienable rights upon entry to a magistrate and county court

2) What lawfully excuse can you provide for prohibiting the reservation of all inalienable rights powers and privileges upon entry to a court

3) What are the objections to a human being reserving their inalienable rights and waiving all benefits of a court

3) Are human beings entitled to a fair trail?

4) please also provide confirmation that there is no clerical, judicial or public records held in magistrates court

5) please provide a copy of the legislation that states the recording of any proceedings by court officials in a magistrate court is against the law

6) are the proceedings in a magistrates court EVER recorded via audio or digital media or similar?

without ill will, malice , frivolity, or vexation

Angie of the elder family

Customer Services \(CSHQ\),

Dear Angie

Thank you for your e-mails. I have forwarded them to the Departmental
Data Access and Compliance Unit for that Unit to reply direct.

Russell Meek
Customer Service Unit
H M Courts Service
0845 4568770

show quoted sections

Lue Taim, Angela,

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your email of 26th August which has been passed to this
Unit.

Unfortunately no government official can comment upon, or intervene in,
cases that have been before the courts. The reason is that judges are,
and must be independent of the executive. The decisions they take in
their independent judicial sphere must not be subject to executive
interference. We cannot ask a member of the judiciary to explain why he
or she dealt with a case in a particular way, nor can we ask a member of
the judiciary to reconsider a judicial decision. The only remedy
available if you remain unhappy is to appeal. I have attached the two
links below which explains the Magistrates Courts.

[1]http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoa...

[2]http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoa...

Yours faithfully

Miss Angela Lue-Taim
Caseworker

Customer Services Division|Her Majesty's Court Service|Operations and
Performance Directorate-Supporting our people, courts & processes

Customer Service Unit
1st Floor, Zone C
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when
deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoa...
2. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoa...

angie of the elder family

Dear Lue Taim, Angela,

the standard reply that you have used , copied and pasted from other threads will not suffice. If you read through the questions again you will see that at no point do these questions refer to any case gone before the courts, these are general questions that do not pertain to any case in particular, therefore answer all of the question as you are legally required to do so.

In sincerity,

angie of the elder family

J Webb (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

WHAT RIGHTS ?

"The 11 MILLION children and young people in England have a voice"
Children's Commissioner for England, Professor Sir Albert Aynsley-Green

WHAT VOICE ? NOT ACCORDING TO THIS THEY DONT

http://nameshamesocialworkers.blogspot.c...

[A letter a dear friend of mine sent to the Judge in the Family Court,( edited to protect identities) the Judge used paragraph 4 to remove them as party. Yet he failed to answer when asked in Court what would stop children’s services coming after their own children if they failed ‘so-called assessments including a psychological assessment that the Council and Judge were trying to rail road them into.]

After our recent LIP experience of the Family Courts regarding contesting the ICO (at your suggestion), in the hope our granddaughters would be returned to live with their grandparents. We now have ‘little faith’ in either the LA professionals who unfortunately, do not appear to act in the ‘best interests of the children’ or the present system that fails to make them accountable for their actions.

It may just be coincidental that I was standing for election in November 2007 after I had complained to the Director of Children’s Services , on a separate issue and took my complaints to the LGO.

Apparently, we could risk being labelled mad or worse if we go to the press; yet it seems pointless to Appeal without the media.

Regretfully, our stance on being assessed has not changed for the reasons given at the initial hearing; having young children of adoptable ages and no belief in the CSW comment ‘that the SS do not canvas for work’ our family has already been destroyed.

Please do not think us paranoid. A continuous stream of high calibre news articles including award winning Journalists, looking into ‘children’s services’ alongside the UN investigation into our Family Courts, EDM’s signed by numerous MP’s and
Jack Straw’s announcement to allow the press (April2009); all suggest otherwise.

There appears to be a mass of contradictions/inaccuracies and double standards.
Selective incomplete evidence, (mainly opinion based) interpreted as ‘fact’ without the full information requested from September 2002 including ‘notes’ from both the SS and CG. A different criteria/ model supplied (non-relative assessment), which is neither objective nor subjective. And discerning to note that there is no record of us receiving £100 cash from the SS .

Ironically, a Councillor on the ‘Children’s Champion Board’ sort my advice about ‘children’s services’ and is aware of our previous experience.
Although I did not ask him, he seems to have attempted to help; I am not his constituent nor did I ask about kinship care allowance and our children are not known to social care or receive services.

Charles J in Re R [2002] 1 FLR 755 and Munby J in Re L (Care Assessment: Fair Trial) [2002] 2 FLR 730In Re R,

Relatives are expected to jump through hoops and endure fishing trips that were simply not required on the two previous occasions, when XXXX and XXXX were placed in our care, on the second occasion after an interview with CPO.
The LA may have been concerned about a possible Judicial Review and this may have contributed to why an offer of a mandatory referral for (FGC) ‘not best practice’ as suggested in Court, was not forthcoming.

D-v- Southwark LBC [2007] EWCA Civ 182
. Munby J Manchester City Council – V – F (2002) 1FLR 43

What is the definition of better than good enough parenting?

The House of Lords (2008) ‘grandparents only have to be reasonable enough parents’

“Innocent yet presumed guilty unless we comply - On the balance of probabilities?”
We probably have far more experience than many of the professionals involved, having raised 6 children.

Supervisory contact is only required we believe, if there is a danger to the children.
Being a XXXX/CRB checked with no previous concerns, it is insulting and degrading to be only offered expensive supervised contact in an unnatural environment. While our offer of contact in our home (with foster carers if need be) and Cllrs/Corporate Parents offering to be present, is ignored/rejected.
Whilst bizarrely XXXX & XXXX have been transported by taxi virtually on a daily basis from XXXX that is 5 minutes from XXXX, to XXXX approximately a hours drive by their first set of inexperienced carers; all at the taxpayers expense?

Where are our granddaughter’s Human Rights to a family life? Having been placed in foster care, where their well-being has deteriorated after being separated and passed from ‘pillar to post’ and respite care, instead of with relatives.

DCSF – figures suggest that at least 2 children a week die and/or are abused in care.

Research suggests that there are well-evidenced advantages1 for children who cannot live with their parents to be raised by relatives or friends:
Farmer E and Moyers S (2008)‘Kinship Care: Fostering Effective Family and Friends Placements’ (Jessica Kingsley); Doolan et al (2004) Growing up in the Care of Relatives and Friends (Family Rights Group); Hunt J (2003) Family and Friends Care; coping Paper for Dept of Health; Broad, B (ed) (2001) Kinship Care: the placement of choice for children and young people (Russell House; Hunt Waterhouse & Lutman (2008forthcoming) Keeping them in the family (BAAF) Dr Lynne Wrenndall, Charles Pragnell. Lisa Blakemore-Brown, Brian Morgan, Dr Helen Hayward-Brown, Bruce Irvine,
Dr Clive Baldwin, Stephen Clark, Cathy Johnson (2004) Taking the stick away: the service users’ joint statement

It is hoped that XXXX (babies are far more sort after for adoption and a marketable commodity) will be given a Voice Child Advocate, (the CSW rejected this in favour of the CG only).

The FGC Co-ordinator’s comment ‘ holding a FGC at a late stage “energises families” is insulting and worthless when the LA holds all the power and should not be advising family members that I must agree to be assessed.
The joint comments from the LA solicitor and CG who later offered to alter her notes? The LA solicitor told me ‘ the LA only had a duty to consider family members.’
If Human Rights and the PLO can be so brazenly be disregarded/ ignored, is it any wonder that ¾ of children end up adopted or on SGO with strangers instead of relatives.

The CG Solicitor’s remarks outside the Court ‘that LA Counsel could speak for me, or XXXX a passing Solicitor could represent me or they would adjourn and the Court would/could not allow my grandchildren to be placed with us on ICO’ (reiterated the CG comment) and meeting immediately after Court, with the CSW/Counsel, but not us. And the CG & ISW lunching in the Café across the road, all show how cosy the relevant professionals appear to be, hardly independent.

‘ Generally speaking, guardians act as cheerleaders for social services departments. They are entirely compliant, and seem incapable of doing more than being a cheering section’. Eric Pickles MP. (We cannot disagree.)

As Corporate Parents we should act in the way we would if the children were our own. I am appalled at what I perceive to be professionals who fail to act in a professional manner and seem to have no intention of working to reunite children with families. The public would be astonished at the costs involved and outraged that relatives are over looked in favour of expensive foster care.

Totally amazed that such draconian measures of removing children without a mandatory referral for (FGC) can amount to; crystal ball gazing opinion backed up by expensive reports paid for from the public purse.
How is it possible to review a past non event and make a decision based on what may or may not have happened if a FGC had been held, when it could/did not take place?

Children are not mere commodities to be passed around for profit; clearly everyone involved is being paid, (the larger the bundle the more costly?), which could be better spent on ‘real’ child protection and desperately needed front line services to support families to ensure that mandatory FGC referrals are completed; improved services.

I came into politics in order to defend the children of the poor and help make sure that families receive the services they deserve. Councillors are more aware of their responsibility to ‘looked after children’ and the CEO is reviewing the case following a subsequent meeting with the XXXX Leader.

The one simple thing that can never be altered is my granddaughters’ heritage, we are blood relatives, our granddaughters will always be dearly loved and wanted; this can never be obliterated. Hopefully they will be reunited with family members, who if given the opportunity could have applied (if need be) for a RO via private law.

The Court has the power to remedy matters and take the more proportional approach that the LA has not done to-date. Please take into consideration our views and concerns when making your decisions about our granddaughters futures.

angie of the elder family

Dear Sir or Madam,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Her Majesty's Courts Service's handling of my FOI request 'Are magistrates entitled to deny humans their rights?'.

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

I requested and answer to these questions;

1) please provide written evidence that back's the claims of two
Carmarthenshire Court officials ( one judge and one magistrate)
that human beings can be denied their inalienable rights upon entry
to a magistrate and county court

2) What lawfully excuse can you provide for prohibiting the
reservation of all inalienable rights powers and privileges upon
entry to a court

3) What are the objections to a human being reserving their
inalienable rights and waiving all benefits of a court

3) Are human beings entitled to a fair trail?

4) please also provide confirmation that there is no clerical,
judicial or public records held in magistrates court

5) please provide a copy of the legislation that states the
recording of any proceedings by court officials in a magistrate
court is against the law

6) are the proceedings in a magistrates court EVER recorded via
audio or digital media or similar?

they have not given a legal reason for not answering these questions , which should have been answered promptly and no later than 24thsept, they are now breaking the law by not answering.

please forward these answers A S A P
angie of the elder family

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

This is an Auto Reply from the Data Access & Compliance Unit.

Thank you for your e-mail.

If your message was a request for information please be advised that your
request is being dealt with and you will receive a written acknowledgement
shortly.

Data Access & Compliance Unit

Information Directorate

Ministry of Justice
6th Floor, Zone B, Postal Point 6.23
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

Fax: 0203 334 2245

E-mail: [HMCS request email]

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when
deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

Internal Review IR/62330/09

Data Access & Compliance Unit
Information Directorate
Zone 6 B
Post point 6.25
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

T 020 3334 3237
F 020 3334 2245
E [HMCS request email]

www.justice.gov.uk

27-NOV-09 Our Ref:IR/62330/09

Dear Angie,

Thank you for your correspondence of November 22, 2009, in which you
asked for an Internal Review into handling of your request for
information titled "Are magistrates entitled to deny humans their
rights? ".

Your request for an Internal Review is being handled in accordance with
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and will be passed to the Unit that
will carry out this process.

You will be contacted separately by the person conducting the review but
in the meantime please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
queries. Please quote Ref: IR/62330/09 in all future correspondence.

Yours sincerely,

Hannah Law
(Sent on behalf of Michael Evans)
Data Access and Compliance Unit

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when
deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Evans, Michael, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

Angie of the elder family
E-mail address: angie of the elder family
[mailto:[FOI #17370 email]]

Dear Madam,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 22/12/09 in which you requested an
internal review of previous correspondence with the Department.

Unfortunately, due to an oversight it was acknowledged as a request for
an internal review under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act)
when it should have been acknowledged as a complaint as your initial
request was treated in the normal course of business by the Customer
Service Unit.

I have passed your complaint to the appropriate area who will be in
contact shortly.

Yours Sincerely,

Michael Evans| Senior Reviews and Appeals Officer | Data Access &
Compliance Unit |Ministry of Justice | 020 3334 3237.

Sent: 22 November 2009 03:24
To: Data Access & Compliance Unit
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Are
magistrates entitled to deny humans their rights?

Dear Sir or Madam,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Her Majesty's Courts
Service's handling of my FOI request 'Are magistrates entitled to
deny humans their rights?'.

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

I requested and answer to these questions;

1) please provide written evidence that back's the claims of two
Carmarthenshire Court officials ( one judge and one magistrate)
that human beings can be denied their inalienable rights upon entry
to a magistrate and county court

2) What lawfully excuse can you provide for prohibiting the
reservation of all inalienable rights powers and privileges upon
entry to a court

3) What are the objections to a human being reserving their
inalienable rights and waiving all benefits of a court

3) Are human beings entitled to a fair trail?

4) please also provide confirmation that there is no clerical,
judicial or public records held in magistrates court

5) please provide a copy of the legislation that states the
recording of any proceedings by court officials in a magistrate
court is against the law

6) are the proceedings in a magistrates court EVER recorded via
audio or digital media or similar?

they have not given a legal reason for not answering these
questions , which should have been answered promptly and no later
than 24thsept, they are now breaking the law by not answering.

please forward these answers A S A P
angie of the elder family

Yours Sincerely,

Michael Evans| Senior Reviews and Appeals Officer | Data Access &
Compliance Unit |Ministry of Justice | 020 3334 3237.

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Evans, Michael, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

Angie of the elder family
E-mail address: angie of the elder family
[mailto:[FOI #17370 email]]

Dear Madam,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 22/12/09 in which you requested an
internal review of previous correspondence with the Department.

Unfortunately, due to an oversight it was acknowledged as a request for
an internal review under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act)
when it should have been acknowledged as a complaint as your initial
request was treated in the normal course of business by the Customer
Service Unit.

I have passed your complaint to the appropriate area who will be in
contact shortly.

Yours Sincerely,

Michael Evans| Senior Reviews and Appeals Officer | Data Access &
Compliance Unit |Ministry of Justice | 020 3334 3237.

Sent: 22 November 2009 03:24
To: Data Access & Compliance Unit
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Are
magistrates entitled to deny humans their rights?

Dear Sir or Madam,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Her Majesty's Courts
Service's handling of my FOI request 'Are magistrates entitled to
deny humans their rights?'.

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

I requested and answer to these questions;

1) please provide written evidence that back's the claims of two
Carmarthenshire Court officials ( one judge and one magistrate)
that human beings can be denied their inalienable rights upon entry
to a magistrate and county court

2) What lawfully excuse can you provide for prohibiting the
reservation of all inalienable rights powers and privileges upon
entry to a court

3) What are the objections to a human being reserving their
inalienable rights and waiving all benefits of a court

3) Are human beings entitled to a fair trail?

4) please also provide confirmation that there is no clerical,
judicial or public records held in magistrates court

5) please provide a copy of the legislation that states the
recording of any proceedings by court officials in a magistrate
court is against the law

6) are the proceedings in a magistrates court EVER recorded via
audio or digital media or similar?

they have not given a legal reason for not answering these
questions , which should have been answered promptly and no later
than 24thsept, they are now breaking the law by not answering.

please forward these answers A S A P
angie of the elder family

Yours Sincerely,

Michael Evans| Senior Reviews and Appeals Officer | Data Access &
Compliance Unit |Ministry of Justice | 020 3334 3237.

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Evans, Michael, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

Angie of the elder family
E-mail address: angie of the elder family
[mailto:[FOI #17370 email]]

Dear Madam,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 22/12/09 in which you requested an
internal review of previous correspondence with the Department.

Unfortunately, due to an oversight it was acknowledged as a request for
an internal review under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act)
when it should have been acknowledged as a complaint as your initial
request was treated in the normal course of business by the Customer
Service Unit.

I have passed your complaint to the appropriate area who will be in
contact shortly.

Yours Sincerely,

Michael Evans| Senior Reviews and Appeals Officer | Data Access &
Compliance Unit |Ministry of Justice | 020 3334 3237.

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Evans, Michael, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

1 Attachment

Angie of the family elder

Our Ref: 62328

Dear Angie,

Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Outcome of Internal Review

Thank you for your e-mail dated 22 November (attached at Annex A) in
which you requested that we review our previous decision.

On 26th August 2009 you asked for the following information:

1) details i.e. names and qualifications of the three presiding
magistrates in attendance at Carmarthen Magistrate's Courts, Guildhall
Square Carmarthen. West Wales on the afternoon of 26th August 2009
hearing claims concerning council tax applications for liability orders
from Carmarthenshire County Council;

2) the names of the two representatives (one male, one female) from
Carmarthenshire County council making the applications for liability
orders at the above court on said afternoon;

3) whether it is lawful for the information in 1) and 2) to be withheld
from the defendant and his/her authorised agents;

4) whether it is lawful for court officials to deny identification of a
magistrate;

5) whether withholding such information from the defendant is an
offence;

6) what penalties such an offence carries; and

7) whether it is an offence for a magistrate to refuse a defendants
agent, a copy of any order made.

In our response of 24 September (attached) we explained that Questions 1
and 2 would be handled under the FOIA and Questions 3-7 would have been
forwarded to the appropriate business area to handle as it was not been
dealt with under the Act.

I will therefore only review our handling of questions 1-2 of your
request.

I can confirm that I am satisfied that we responded to your request
within the 20 working day statutory deadline as laid out in the Act and
that we sought clarification of your request which has not as yet been
provided. Under section 1(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a
public authority need not comply with a request unless any further
information reasonably required to locate the information is supplied.

You asked for the 'qualifications' of the three presiding magistrates in
attendance at Carmarthen Magistrate's Court on the afternoon of 26th
August 2009. We requested clarification of the qualifications you are
requesting, for example, all academic qualifications, qualifications
linked to their roles as magistrates etc. Our records indicate that we
have not yet received this clarification from you.

I am therefore satisfied that your request for information was correctly
handled.

I hope that my review answers your questions, however, if you remain
dissatisfied you have the right to ask the Information Commissioner to
review my decision. He can be contacted at the following address:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House,
Wycliffe Lane,
Wilmslowe,
Cheshire,
SK9 5AF.

Email Address: [email address]

Yours Sincerely,

Michael Evans| Senior Reviews and Appeals Officer | Data Access &
Compliance Unit |Ministry of Justice | 020 3334 3237.

Annex A

show quoted sections