Barristers conflict of interest / dereliction of duty of care

Kay made this Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Justice

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

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Ministry of Justice should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

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

Woods, Dave,

1 Attachment

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.

show quoted sections

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

Mannion, Eileen,

3 Attachments

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.

show quoted sections

Mannion, Eileen,

3 Attachments

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

show quoted sections

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 !!!