Deputy District Judge, Nick Hayles – Spurious Statements (2)

The request was refused by Ministry of Justice.

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Ministry of Justice,

North East Lincolnshire Council obtained a liability order for non-payment of council tax and evidence is held that it [redact] to the court in a witness statement to do so. The court costs awarded to the council were therefore obtained [redact].

Humberside police refused to investigate despite being provided concrete evidence (not just beyond reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt ). Then in an application for private prosecution concerning the police's negligence, Deputy District Judge, Nick Hayles, after considering the evidence stated spuriously that the application was vexatious and exercised discretion not to issue a summons for the purpose of bringing before the court the officer serving with Humberside police who had wrongly stated [redact] was not a matter for the police.

When a member of the public is deemed to have committed an offence against the council (or its authority) it institutes a criminal prosecution. However, when it's a council officer committing perjury to defraud a member of the public, the police and court fall over themselves to protect the council officer from the justice system leaving the victim no other choice than to attempt a private prosecution.

The following are all the submitted papers concerning an application to start a prosecution pursuant to section 1 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 listed 26 April 2016 (Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates' Court).

http://tinyurl.com/z4tzzzk Statement of Evidence

http://tinyurl.com/z7femxh Exhibit 1
http://tinyurl.com/hbaeqtz Exhibit 2
http://tinyurl.com/jafq4b8 Exhibit 3
http://tinyurl.com/z96y2af Exhibit 4
http://tinyurl.com/jb4xdew Exhibit 5
http://tinyurl.com/hwhnukz Exhibit 6
http://tinyurl.com/ha82mnb Exhibit 7
http://tinyurl.com/hkhk3gw Exhibit 8
http://tinyurl.com/jg8pkbq Exhibit 9
http://tinyurl.com/j53vgd6 Exhibit 10
http://tinyurl.com/z5hprmb Exhibit 11
http://tinyurl.com/hxqrwym Exhibit 12
http://tinyurl.com/j3dc338 Exhibit 13
http://tinyurl.com/h8vl4ft Exhibit 14
http://tinyurl.com/jy8krnr Exhibit 15
http://tinyurl.com/zzrb7xc Exhibit 16
http://tinyurl.com/z8hqq6o Exhibit 17
http://tinyurl.com/zhwygsd Exhibit 18
http://tinyurl.com/zvmoo8u Exhibit 19
http://tinyurl.com/h6cpyxw Exhibit 20
http://tinyurl.com/hzcss4z Exhibit 21

Court's Determination of the Application
http://tinyurl.com/hrq5re9

Deputy District Judge Nick Hayles (see above) after considering the evidence stated spuriously that the application was vexatious and exercised discretion not to issue a summons for the purpose of bringing before the court the officer serving with Humberside police who had wrongly stated perjury was not a matter for the police.

The judge's reasons were stated spuriously as follows in paragraph 9 of the determination:

" (a) Mr [X] seeks to proceed on an offence that is not designed for this type of circumstance. Further the application overlooks the reasonable person test in sections 26(4)(b) and 26 (5)(c).

(b) His grievance is really about the October 2015 order and the evidence of the Local Authority.

(c) He has had the opportunity to appeal the October 2015 decision but he has chosen not to.

(d) He appears to be using this application as a collateral attack to (b) above. "

The assertion (C) is that the aggrieved person had the opportunity to appeal the October 2015 decision but he had chosen not to.

Q. What records are held by the MoJ that confirm that aggrieved person had the opportunity to appeal the October 2015 decision but he had chosen not to?

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Ministry of Justice,

I notice that it is usual for the Ministry of Justice to acknowledge requests within a couple of days. Has this one been received?

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Ministry of Justice

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email below.

I can confirm that a response was sent to you on 20th July regarding this request under reference 106289.

Many Thanks

Laura

Laura Watson| Business Manager | Communication and Information Directorate | Ministry of Justice 10.34, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ | www.justice.gov.uk  | @MoJGovUK | @MoJPress

show quoted sections

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

If you are referring to the document below I don't see any response relating to this request:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/3...

Will you please clarify your response preferably by posting it under this request reference.

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Ministry of Justice

Hello,

Thank you for your email, Yes this does refer to this.

Many Thanks

Laura

Laura Watson| Business Manager | Communication and Information Directorate | Ministry of Justice 10.34, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ | www.justice.gov.uk  | @MoJGovUK | @MoJPress

show quoted sections

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

The Ministry of Justice's 20 july 2016 response:

"The MoJ considers your request to be vexatious and in accordance with section 14(1) of the FOIA, we will not be taking it any further
........
The MoJ considers your request to be vexatious for the following reasons:

BURDEN ON THE AUTHORITY AND FREQUENT/OVERLAPPING REQUESTS:
You have continued to submit a large volume of requests and general correspondence in respect of the issues relating to the complaints you have raised against Judge Curtis, the Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office’s (JCIO) procedures and the functions of the Judiciary. These requests overlap considerably in content and accusation, some are submitted within hours of each other or on consecutive days. I consider that to continue to respond to your requests on these topics continues to place an unreasonable burden on the Department and causes a disproportionate amount of time to be spent on your correspondence. The Department is publicly funded and has a responsibility to protect those resources from abuse. It will use the available legislation under the FOIA to do so. Furthermore, I understand that the JCIO is not the only business area in the Department who are responding to your requests on these and related matters. This places an additional burden on finite Departmental time and resource.

UNREASONABLE PERSISTENCE, FUTILE REQUESTS, AND UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS:
Section 14 of the FOIA allows the Department to consider the wider interactions with a requester beyond the parameters of the request itself when determining if a request is vexatious. I have considered the multiple requests, both FOIA and normal business correspondence, made in respect of this issue to the JCIO, as well as related correspondence in respect of your matters with Grimsby Magistrates’ Court, the Justices Clerk, Judges and Magistrates. You have been informed of the outcome of your complaint in respect of the Grimsby matters from the Advisory Committee and the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman, who informed you that your complaint was not upheld. Your most recent correspondence suggests you are trying to escalate matters to the JCIO which have been resolved elsewhere. The entrenched position which you have taken in respect of unsubstantiated accusations of corruption and wrongdoing amongst staff and the Judiciary is unacceptable and the Department has a responsibility to prevent individuals from harassing and insulting its staff and the Judiciary. It is our assessment that you are using the FOIA as a vehicle to reopen matters which have been conclusively addressed elsewhere.

Please note if you continue to submit requests that we determine are related to these matters we will take steps under the legislation to protect departmental resources from further abuse under section 17 of the FOIA. "

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Ministry of Justice

1 Attachment

Dear Mr. Gilliat,

Please see the response to your aggregated FOI responses.

 

Kind Regards,

DACU

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.

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

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 'Deputy District Judge, Nick Hayles – Spurious Statements (2)'.

This generic response has been made use of by the MoJ in a number of recent requests to get out of providing information it presumably considers would incriminate the department if it were disclosed. I guess the MoJ seeks reliance on highlighting the volume of requests as a diversionary measure to detract attention from the serious purpose for obtaining the information, ultimately to persuade the Information Commissioner, who is likely to be referred these cases, that the vexatious label is appropriate.

It is difficult therefore to find in the response anything directly relating to this request and has in my opinion been provided with no real thought to what has actually been asked for.

Turning to your spurious statement concerning the 16 September 2014 response to my complaint to the Advisory Committee and its escalation to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) who concluded that the complaint was not upheld. I don't believe you really expect people to be taken in by such claims, as most will know that organisations like JACO are positioned at the taxpayer's expense to merely give the impression that holders of public and/or judicial office are accountable.

The evidence ( http://tinyurl.com/znkzkrl ) pointed obviously to the complaint response being produced purposely for the investigation. The Ombudsman had demonstrably turned a blind eye in order to bury misconduct and protect the judicial holder from the consequences. Your concerns therefore about Freedom of Information associated with the department's responsibility to protect resources from abuse would better be directed toward public money misspent on funding those bogus organisations as a means of faking accountability.

In any event you seem unable to distinguish that the Freedom of Information Act exists separately from organisations such as the Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office (JCIO) that function to fake accountability whilst causing members of the public gross injustice for the protection it provides judicial office holders. Whatever assessment you make regarding alleged attempts 'to escalate matters to the JCIO which have been resolved elsewhere' is wholly irrelevant and I will – no matter how accepting of the complaint outcome you consider I should be – use whatever means are available to prove that there were very serious concerns raised in my complaint which were improperly investigated. The Freedom of Information Act is one avenue which entitles me lawful access to information that may assist my own investigation and will use every resource available to overcome the obstruction you are putting in the way of justice.

I will ask that the MoJ refrain from making spurious statements regarding unfounded allegations. I have always made doubly sure that any statements I do make can be fully supported and suggest that the next time you think about making such assertions you bear this in mind. If by any chance you are referring to unfounded allegations in respect of this request, it is not just a wild accusation that Humberside police failed to act on indisputable evidence which was then negligently supported by Deputy District Judge, Nick Hayles. The case files which have been provided in the request prove the case beyond all doubt. In any event, the Judge implying that pursuing civil litigation in the high Court was a reasonable course of action was entirely reckless, especially considering the court's track record when a matter is pursued this way. I am approaching four years being grossly inconvenience by Grimsby Magistrates’ Court obstructing the progress of an application to state a case for an appeal to the high court in the matter of the Council's application for a council tax liability order.

The Chronology of events [ http://tinyurl.com/gta8mqc ] provides clear evidence that it would not be reasonable to expect anyone engage in an appeal where the involvement of Grimsby Magistrates’ Court has to be relied upon.

My requests do have serious purpose and in light of the Legal Team Manager at Grimsby Magistrates’ Court who has been unsuccessful in resolving issues surrounding the gross injustice caused by the court and who has now cut off communications, there is even more reason for taking to the use of Freedom of Information.

To assume that my requests are unreasonable, persistent and futile is simply baseless. It is because of the intransigent way public bodies present themselves that I have been driven to using FOI as a means of attempting myself to identify causes of numerous injustices and stitch-ups I have been subjected to since being exposed to, and feeling under a public duty to highlight which is endemic in public bodies. One of those is summarised ( http://tinyurl.com/zcwoqmf ) in an "Action Fraud" report about Grimsby Magistrates' Court, Humberside police etc.

I therefore do not consider it unreasonable or futile for wanting to hold to account (by pursuing the truth) those whose negligence and dishonesty has led to a criminal record and £600+ fine for an offence I'm completely innocent of; and harassment for debt which is not owed because Council officers, unfit for public roles, are abusing their position to carry out a personal vendetta (http://tinyurl.com/p233lzt ).

The MoJ has been given appropriate reasons why section 14(1) of the FOIA has been applied wrongly, in light of which it may wish to change its decision in a review. In considering the above content it will be obvious that the reason for asking for the information is as far away from being vexatious as it could possibly be.

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

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org