Barristers conflict of interest / dereliction of duty of care
Dear Ministry of Justice,
Re: Barristers conflict of interest /dereliction of duty of care
Please advise guidelines on the above.
1. If there is found to be a direct conflict of interest (by either a DEFENCE Barrister or PROSECUTION Barrister) which may affect the outcome of a criminal case and could be considered total DERELICTION of Duty, abuse of position, abuse of judicial process, abuse of judicial oath, discriminatory, assists witnesses for the defence to give fraudulant 'evidence' for the prosecution, how does this affect that case and any previous cases (if any) the Barrister previously 'represented'?
2. Please provide guidelines in respect to submitting a complaint and disciplinary procedures against Barristers /Judges.
Yours faithfully,
Kay Young
B.A & B.Sc (Hons) OPEN
Dear Ms Young,
Please see the attached document.
Dave Woods
Senior Caseworker
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office
81-82 Queens Building
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
DX44450 Strand
0207 073 4731
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.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
Dear Ms Kay
Please find attached response to your email dated 22 December 2015 sent on behalf of my colleague Mr Dixon.
Yours sincerely
Eileen Mannion
Senior Caseworker
JCIO
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.
Dear Ms Young
Please find attached amended letter, sincere apologies but the last letter had the incorrect date.
Yours sincerely
Eileen Mannion
Senior caseworker
JCIO
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
taryn taylor (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
Such an interesting read! I was thinking about making a complaint about TWO judges ,one was FAIR RENT & the other DWP tribunal hearing
First, was clearly, a friend of the landlord or a friend of a friend. I say this with absolute confidence . As the supposedly surveyor (I know more about buildings) & the judge , talked continuously with the landlord before , during & after "THE TOUR" of the property !
Which is something that they are NOT ALLOWED TO DO??
And as I had put such a good case together "WITH EVIDENCE" , which obviously the landlord would NOT be able to defend.
For some unknown reason, the judge kept saying throughout "IRRELEVANT IRRELEVANT" . NO IT WAS NOT!!?? She just kept stating the words"IRRELEVANT, IRRELEVANT"?!! So now , local , does not mean "our village" ?? It is nearly the whole of NORFOLK!!
(refer to my question on this site , FAIR RENT/GDP FORMULA ?
Second judge at DWP hearing , was more interested in correcting my ENGLISH GRAMMAR /GOOGLE MEASUREMENTS/MISCONSTRUED WHAT I DID OR DID NOT SAY (which was not much) MORE INTERESTED IN FICTION INSTEAD OF FACTS!!
(all of which I have commented on through this site)
AGAIN, I HAD ALL FACTUAL EVIDENCE. However, I did write to the UPPER TIER. Pointing out the laziness, incompetence , bias & prejudices have an impact on people's lives. And if judges want to "tell tall stories in their statement of reasons " . To go & find a publisher or apply to JACKANORY !!!