We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are J E Garner please sign in and let everyone know.

Employment Judge Ord/Mr Plaistow Internal Review

We're waiting for J E Garner to read a recent response and update the status.

Dear Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service,

1. In June 2019 Judge Ord condemned the MoJ/HMCTS for the conduct throughout the Employment Tribunal case of Mr Ben Plaistow as vexatious, disruptive and unreasonable, and that they had “placed themselves above the rules” to mislead Mr Plaistow and the Tribunal. In addition documents had been corrupted and even forged, widely reported in the press at the time. Apparently in June 2019 a “separate internal review is ongoing”.

2. Please confirm the outcome of the internal review

3. Please provide details of all HMCTS departments which were involved in the "corrupted and forged documents"

4. Please provide details of employees (their position/status not name) at any level who were disciplined and/or dismissed as a result of the HMCTS internal review

5. Please provide details of if and when the "forgery of documents" was/will be referred to the police for consideration of prosecution for the criminal offence of forgery.

6. Please provide the total number of complaints received by HMCTS in connection with the allegations of forgery of documents (of any type) for the previous 5 years, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2018-2019.

Yours faithfully,

J E Garner

Disclosure Team, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

This is an automated confirmation that your email has been received by the
Disclosure Team (Ministry of Justice) mailbox.

 

Freedom of Information (FOI)

 

If your email is a FOI request you can expect a response within 20 working
days.

 

However, please be advised that due to the current situation with COVID-19
we may not be able to provide a response within this timescale; if this is
the case, we will contact you to provide an update.

 

Every effort is being made to respond to FOIs as usual but the current
situation means that available Departmental resources will be needed on
other high priority areas.

 

We kindly ask for your understanding during this unprecedented situation
and we will aim to deal with your FOI request as soon as is practically
possible.

 

Subject Access Requests (under the General Data Protection Regulation
((EU) 2016/679)) (the Regulation) and/or Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA))

 

If your email is a SAR, you can expect a response within 1 calendar month.

 

However, please be advised that due to the current situation with COVID-19
we may not be able to provide within this timescale; if this is the case,
we will contact you to provide an update.

 

Every effort is being made to respond to SARs as usual but the current
situation means that available Departmental resources will be needed on
other high priority areas.

 

We kindly ask for your understanding during this unprecedented situation
and we will aim to deal with your SAR as soon as is practically possible.

 

 

show quoted sections

Prison Casework, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

1 Attachment

Dear J E Garner,
Please see the attached response to your FOI request (ref 200803020).
Yours sincerely
HMPPS Briefing & Correspondence Team

Dear Prison Casework, L. Picton
Thank you for your prompt response.
My revised FOI is as follows, which will hopefully fall within the time and cost limit allowed, concentrating on the one Judgment, of Mr Ben Plaistow V Secretary of State for Justice, and ET Judge Ord's comments in relation to it. Case Number: 3400502/2016 as follows:
Link to the ET Judgment Mr Ben Plaistow v Secretary of State for Justice (MoJ:)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...
Para. 59:
"The respondent’s conduct, as an arm of the state, in relation to this case
has been unacceptable as set out in the Merits Judgment. It has withheld
documents, redacted documents incorrectly, corrupted documents to
include information irrelevant to the claimant, all to the claimant’s
detriment, failed to properly transcribe an interview with Prisoner A (the
“missing” sections which were perfectly audible and transcribable,
assisting the claimant to a degree), produced documents which had been
created far later than their stated date and admitted on oath that this was
done to “plug the gaps”, conducted oppressively and as an act of
victimisation, investigatory dismissal and appeal proceedings, claimed
CCTV footage had been deleted and then (although the claimant says only
in part) disclosed it."
And Para. 61:
"For the avoidance of doubt, we are satisfied that the
respondent’s conduct in withholding of evidence including the hopelessly
late disclosure of a number of obviously relevant documents; the
tampering with, corruption of and the misleading after-the-event creation
of documents and generally their conduct, including the conduct of a
number of witnesses, which we have set out in this Judgment and the
merits Judgment, was both conscious and contumelious."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...

Para 50. Based on the information presented to us, we have concluded that this
investigation was only commenced after the enquiry from the claimant’s solicitors
and not before. No document indicating that any steps preparatory to an
investigation had been taken before 20 March 2019 and no oral evidence of any
steps being taken before that date has been produced to us. The delay in the
presentation of the report is because the individual at the Government Legal
Department charged with the production of a report into the conduct of the matter
from the lawyer’s side (who was also involved in the matter throughout as the
relevant contact with the Tribunal), needed additional time to prepare her report
because she was also preparing for the remedy hearing.

51. As a result of the above, we give very little credit indeed to the respondent for the
investigation it is apparently conducting. We say apparently because we have
seen no evidence of any steps being taken whatsoever in relation to the
investigation. Mr Heavens could not tell us whether any of the individuals whose
conduct was found to be unacceptable, discriminatory, harassing and / or
victimising by the Tribunal, had been suspended pending an investigation; he
could not even tell us whether steps had been taken to ensure that they did not
collude during the investigation and no information from the Investigating Officer
to explain what steps he had taken to date, was before us. We have unanimously
concluded based on the information (and lack of it) presented to us that the
Respondent had taken no steps whatsoever to investigate the serious findings
and the matters of concern which had been found by the Tribunal.

1. Please provide details of the outcome of the "separate internal review" carried out by the woman charged with doing so, in the Government's Legal Department, since 20 March 2019 to date, as described in Paras. 50 and 51 above.
2. Please provide details of anybody involved in the above ET case, guilty of the "forgery of documents" having been disciplined and/or dismissed as a result of the MOJ Legal Department's "Internal Review"
3. Please provide details of those responsible for the "corruption of and the misleading after-the-event creation of documents" as referred to in 59 and 61 above, has already, or will be referred to the Police for consideration of a prosecution for the criminal offence of forgery?

Yours sincerely,

J E Garner

Dear Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service,
Following a response received from L. Picton of HM Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) I have amended my request to them to focus on ET Judge Ord's judgment and the subsequent internal review.

However, in relation to Number 5 of my original request, this was not directed to HMPPS, but was to HMCTS.

I have revised my request to HMCTS as follows:
1. Please provide the total number of complaints received by HMCTS' Internal Fraud Department (not the Prison Service) in connection with the allegation of the forgery of documents (of any type) for the previous years to include: 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2018-2019.
2. Please provide the outcome of any complaints referred to the Police/CPS for prosecution
3. Please provide details of any employees (at any level) of HMCTS' disciplined and/ or dismissed as a result of being found guilty of the forgery of documents.
4. Please confirm if any HMCTS' Departments were involved in the forgery of documents supplied to the ET Tribunal case of Mr Ben Plaistow, presided over by ET Judge Ord.
Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

J E Garner

J Roberts left an annotation ()

Here is another request concerning Plaistow made in December 2019 to Her Majesty Prisons and Probation Service. It has not yet received a response:

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

J E Garner left an annotation ()

Thank you J Roberts for this link.
I have been in contact with Mark Leech.
Poor Mr Plaistow, who apparently will never work again, will cost the tax payer at least £2 million in damages, as a direct result of the treatment by public officials, no wonder the MoJ/HMPPS want to hide the report from the public domain. Maybe Judge Ord will provide a copy?

Weston, Bob (Gloucester), Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

1 Attachment

Please find attached an acknowledgement of the above request.

 

Bob Weston

 

Knowledge Information Liaison Officer

 

HMCTS - Analysis and Performance Division, Finance, Governance and
Performance Directorate.

 

Tel: 01452 334448 or 0203 3345511

 

E [1][email address]

 

1st Floor | Twyver House | Bruton Way | Gloucester | GL1 1PE

 

" I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor
to make representation or other statements which may bind the Ministry of
Justice in any way via electronic means".

 

show quoted sections

Weston, Bob (Gloucester), Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

1 Attachment

Please find attached a response to the above request

 

Bob Weston

 

Knowledge Information Liaison Officer

 

HMCTS - Analysis and Performance Division, Finance, Governance and
Performance Directorate.

 

Tel: 01452 334448 or 0203 3345511

 

E [1][email address]

 

1st Floor | Twyver House | Bruton Way | Gloucester | GL1 1PE

 

" I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor
to make representation or other statements which may bind the Ministry of
Justice in any way via electronic means".

 

show quoted sections

Prison Casework, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

1 Attachment

Dear J E Garner,
Please see the attached letter regarding your FOI request (ref 200819024).
Yours sincerely
HMPPS Briefing & Correspondence Team

Dear Prison Casework, L. Picton
Thank you for your response and details of further clarification/information required from me.

Penultimate sentence Paragraph 47 "Acting Director General for Prisons commissioned an investigation into those matters to be undertaken by a Senior Civil Servant (formerly an experienced Prison Governor), and inviting the claimant to participate in the investigation. The Terms of Reference are dated 20 March 2019."

1. Please supply the findings of the above investigation referred to in Para. 47 if now completed.
2. Please advise if anybody involved was disciplined and or dismissed as a result of the findings in 1.
3. Were any HMPPS staff (at any level) involved in the forgery of documents provided as evidence to the ET case, if so please advise if they were they disciplined/dismissed as a result.
4. Have any staff responsible for the forgery of documents, been referred to the Police/CPS for a consideration of a prosecution for the criminal offence of forgery?

Yours sincerely,

J E Garner

Dear Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service,
With reference to the findings of Judge Ord in the Mr Ben Plaistow v Secretary of State for Justice Employment Tribunal case, involving withholding of evidence, tampering, corrupting of documents etc. Please provide details of:
1. The report into the conduct of the respondents (MOJ) carried out by the woman in the Government's Legal Department as referred to in Paragraph 50.
2. Please explain why, the woman in the Government's Legal Department is allowed to prepare the "Report into the conduct," when she herself was involved in the ET remedy hearing, is this not a conflict of interest?
3. Please provide details of anybody involved in the above ET case, guilty of the "forgery of documents" having been disciplined/dismissed as a result of the MOJ's Legal Department's "Internal Review"
4. Please provide details of those responsible for the "corruption of and misleading after-the-event creation of documents" as referred to in Paras 59 and 61 of the ET judgment, being referred to the Police/CPS for consideration of a prosecution for the criminal offence of forgery.

Yours faithfully,

J E Garner

LondonKILO, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

1 Attachment

Dear J E Garner,

 

Please see the attached acknowledgement to your request (our reference
200915010)

 

Knowledge and Information Officer
Knowledge and Information Liaison Unit | London Regional Support Unit |
3^rd Floor | First Avenue House | 42-49 High Holborn | London | WC1V 6NP |
DX160010 Kingsway 7

Web: [1]www.gov.uk/hmcts

 

Unless a higher marking is specified please treat this email as: OFFICIAL

Click [2]here to provide some feedback and help improve our service.

[3]Here is how HMCTS uses personal data about you

 

[4]Coronavirus (COVID-19): courts and tribunals planning and preparation

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

LondonKILO, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

Dear J E Garner,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

In order for us to search our database and provide you with correct
information, can you please provide a case reference.

 

Regards,

 

Knowledge & Information Liaison Officer

Knowledge and Information Liaison Unit | London Regional Support Unit |
3^rd Floor | First Avenue House | 42-49 High Holborn | London | WC1V 6NP |
DX160010 Kingsway 7

ü Please consider the environment before printing.

[1]Here is how HMCTS uses personal data about you

 

Unless a higher marking is specified please treat this email as: OFFICIAL

[2]Coronavirus (COVID-19): courts and tribunals planning and preparation

 

 

 

From: LondonKILO
Sent: 18 September 2020 15:42
To: [FOI #681520 email]
Cc: LondonKILO <[email address]>
Subject: acknowledgement to your request (our reference 200915010)

 

Dear J E Garner,

 

Please see the attached acknowledgement to your request (our reference
200915010)

 

Knowledge and Information Officer
Knowledge and Information Liaison Unit | London Regional Support Unit |
3^rd Floor | First Avenue House | 42-49 High Holborn | London | WC1V 6NP |
DX160010 Kingsway 7

Web: [3]www.gov.uk/hmcts

 

Unless a higher marking is specified please treat this email as: OFFICIAL

Click [4]here to provide some feedback and help improve our service.

[5]Here is how HMCTS uses personal data about you

 

[6]Coronavirus (COVID-19): courts and tribunals planning and preparation

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear LondonKILO,

Further to your request:
"In order for us to search our database and provide you with correct
information, can you please provide a case reference."

Please see information and link to Judgment below:
Mr Ben Plaistow V Secretary of State for Justice, and ET Judge Ord's comments in relation to it. Case Number: 3400502/2016 as follows:
Link to the ET Judgment Mr Ben Plaistow v Secretary of State for Justice (MoJ:)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk

Yours sincerely,

J E Garner

LondonKILO, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

Thank you for your email. Please accept this auto-response as confirmation
that your request has been received. We endeavour to provide a response to
all emails as soon as possible within 5 working days unless marked urgent

show quoted sections

Prison Casework, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

1 Attachment

Dear J E Garner,
Please see the attached response to your FOI request (ref 200915040).
Yours sincerely
HMPPS Briefing & Correspondence Team

Dear Prison Casework, L. Picton
Thank you for your reply.
However before I request an internal review, I would be grateful if you could please clarify, Para.1 Page 2, of your letter to me dated 1 October 2020, refusing my request, citing section 38 (1)(a) as follows:
You state:
Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information
• A real and significant endangerment to an individual’s mental health has been
identified if this information were to be in the public domain and it would not be in
their interest to compromise it.
On balance, I consider the public interest favours withholding the information at this time

I have requested information as to anybody who was involved in the falsification of documents supplied to the ET case of Mr Plaistow from HMPPS.
It is highly unlikely that just one person would have been responsible for this act of forgery.

Therefore, It is not clear if the "individual" you are referring to above with the mental health issue, is the same person who forged the documents?

By providing me with confirmation and the redacted name of the person(s) who carried out this unlawful act of forgery, in which case it should have been referred to the Police/CPS for investigation/prosecution, would not breach their privacy right(s), so I cannot appreciate how or why their mental health could possibly be affected if they were anonymous?
Equally, even without a a redacted name, just confirmation of what actually happened to the person(s) who forged the documents, will suffice.

Quite frankly, it is unsurprising, that the person(s) caught out, forging documents for use in an ET case, in order to boost their chances of winning, would have mental health issues brought on by the stress of their wrong-doing and possible subsequent prosecution. However this does not entitle them to protection under the FOI. (No other criminals get this protection)
Clearly, as highlighted by Judge Ord, there was a total lack of transparency surrounding Mr Plaistow's case, which appears to be continuing.
Consequently, please confirm the number of staff, employed by HMPPS, at any level who were culpable in the forging of documents, (no names required,) as in Number 3 of my request and if the were disciplined?

Yours sincerely,

J E Garner

HMPPS Briefing & Correspondence, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

1 Attachment

Please see attached letter in relation to the above Freedom of Information
request. 
H M Prison & Probation Service

Dear HMPPS Briefing & Correspondence, R Mitchell

Thank you for your further correspondence dated 13 October 2020.
I note your further extension of time to 10 November 2020, to consider information that is covered by
section 38(1)(a): Health and safety – endangering the physical or mental health of any individual,

It is reassuring that you are taking this time to consider the public interest test, as there are many people who submit themselves to Employment Tribunals in the belief that they are entering a level playing field. The fact that any Respondent would stoop so low as to fabricate evidence, in particular, a Government body, is most certainly in the public interest to be scrutinsed, and the results made public, to hopefully, deter any future attempts.

I note in addition you are also possibly relying on section 42 (1): Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

I am sure you are aware, that LPP, is only applicable to the original requester of the legal information (Client) and their legal advisor/solcitior/counsel. Once any of that information given is imparted to a third person, i.e. cc'd in an email for example, it is no longer considered valid as privileged information. For example:

In the judgment 9/8/2018 in X v. Y Ltd (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Disclosure) [2018] UKEAT 0261 Mrs Justice Slade held that an email marked "Legally Privileged and Confidential" did not have the protection of professional privilege.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my FOI request.

Yours sincerely,

J E Garner

J E Garner left an annotation ()

Legal Professional Privilege is a grey area. For example where in-house counsel is copied in on emails as a matter of course, the data is unlikely to be exempt, unless they are being consulted specifically for legal advice.
Simply copying a lawyer into an email will not necessarily mean that it attracts legal privilege.
It is also to be noted, that even if an email attracts legal privilege, this can be lost when forwarded.

Dear Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, L. Picton HMPPS Briefing & Correspondence Team

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 and Tribunals Service's handling of my FOI request 'Employment Judge Ord/Mr Plaistow "

Further to my response to L. Picton HMPPS dated 1 October 2020 Reference 200915040, requesting clarification before requesting an internal review, I have not received a response.

My original request 200819024 (now 200915040) was as follows:
1. Please supply the findings of the above investigation referred to in Para. 47 if now completed.
2. Please advise if anybody involved was disciplined and or dismissed as a result of the findings in 1.
3. Were any HMPPS staff (at any level) involved in the forgery of documents provided as evidence to the ET case, if so please advise if they were they disciplined/dismissed as a result.
4. Have any staff responsible for the forgery of documents, been referred to the Police/CPS for a consideration of a prosecution for the criminal offence of forgery?

Under your new reference 200915040 I also requested the following information on 1 October 2020.
5. Clearly, as highlighted by Judge Ord, there was a total lack of transparency surrounding Mr Plaistow's case, which appears to be continuing.
Consequently, please confirm the number of staff, employed by HMPPS, at any level who were culpable in the forging of documents, (no names required,) as in Number 3 of my request and if they were disciplined?

I believe there is considerable Public Interest in this case, having made National news at the time. An Employment Tribunal should be a safe and Just environment, not an area of institutionalised corruption and complicity.
Two of the Ministry of Justice values, set out for all staff of MoJ, HMCTS and HMPSS is "Justice matters" and
"we treat others as we would like to be treated"
In addition the Civil Service Code requires staff to have integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality.

It is for those reasons above, the public's profound concerns as to the culpability of those involved, and in the interests of transparency and accountability, that I believe you should reconsider your decisions to use Section 38(1)(a) to refuse my FOI request.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:

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

Yours faithfully,

J E Garner

Disclosure Team, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

This is an automated confirmation that your email has been received by the
Disclosure Team (Ministry of Justice) mailbox.

 

Freedom of Information (FOI)

 

If your email is a FOI request you can expect a response within 20 working
days.

 

However, please be advised that due to the current situation with COVID-19
we may not be able to provide a response within this timescale; if this is
the case, we will contact you to provide an update.

 

Every effort is being made to respond to FOIs as usual but the current
situation means that available Departmental resources will be needed on
other high priority areas.

 

We kindly ask for your understanding during this unprecedented situation
and we will aim to deal with your FOI request as soon as is practically
possible.

 

Subject Access Requests (under the General Data Protection Regulation
((EU) 2016/679)) (the Regulation) and/or Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA))

 

If your email is a SAR, you can expect a response within 1 calendar month.

 

However, please be advised that due to the current situation with COVID-19
we may not be able to provide within this timescale; if this is the case,
we will contact you to provide an update.

 

Every effort is being made to respond to SARs as usual but the current
situation means that available Departmental resources will be needed on
other high priority areas.

 

We kindly ask for your understanding during this unprecedented situation
and we will aim to deal with your SAR as soon as is practically possible.

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Weston, Bob (Gloucester),

Thank you for our response to my FOIA request - 200819026 dated 11 September 2020, in which you refuse to supply the information quoting Section 12(1) of the FOI (Cost), my original request being:

1. The total number of complaints received by HMCTS' Internal Fraud Department (not the Prison Service) in connection with the allegation of the forgery of documents (of any type) for the previous years to include: 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2018-2019.
2. The outcome of any complaints referred to the Police/CPS for prosecution
3. Details of any employees (at any level) of HMCTS' disciplined and/ or dismissed as a result of being found guilty of the forgery of documents.
4. Please confirm if any HMCTS' Departments were involved in the forgery of documents supplied to the ET Tribunal case of XXXX, presided over by ET Judge XXXX.

I have revised my request as follows:

1. Please advise the total number of complaints received by the HMCTS Fraud Department, involving the alleged forgery of judicial documents, between January 2016 and December 2018.

2 .Please advise if the outcome of any complaints being received in 1 above, have been referred to the Police/CPS for prosecution, resulting in the dismissal or discipline of HMCTS' employees at any level.

3. Please advise if any of HMCTS' departments were involved in the forgery of any documents supplied to the ET Tribunal, during the ET case of Mr B Plaistow presided over by Judge Ord (as widely reported in the national press)

Yours sincerely,

J E Garner

MacKinnon, Jennifer, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

1 Attachment

Please find attached an acknowledgement of the above request.

 

Jenny Mackinnon

Knowledge Information Liaison Officer

Analysis & Performance | Finance, Governance and Performance Directorate |
HMCTS | Birmingham ASC | B16 8PE

 

" I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor
to make representation or other statements which may bind the Ministry of
Justice in any way via electronic means".

 

 

show quoted sections

J E Garner left an annotation ()

Update: The original request has morphed into 3 areas.
They are currently being dealt with as follows:
A) HMPPS R. Mitchell require more time to reach a decision on the public interest tests in relation to my request and aim to provide a full response by 10 November 2020. 200915010

B) Following a refusal under section 38(1)(a) further clarification was sought on 1 October 2020. As no reply was received, an Internal Review was requested on 18 October 2020 to HMCTS- HMPPS L. Picton. 200915040

C) HMCTS Bob Weston amended request (due to costs) will now be responded to by 13 November 2020. 20108004

J E Garner

HMPPS Briefing and Correspondence, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

1 Attachment

Dear J E Garner,
Please see the attached letter detailing the outcome of our Internal
Review of FOI 200915040.
Thank You

HM Prison and Probation Service Briefing & Correspondence Team
[1]h[2][email address]
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS ADDRESS AND NOT A PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESS

Find out more on People Finder
Follow us on Twitter @hmpps    

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]

Dear HMPPS Briefing and Correspondence, S Biswell
Thank you for your response dated 28 October 2020 reference 200915040 to my Internal Review.

Your letter quotes the ICO " Once section 38 is engaged and it has been established that there is a real and actual danger to someone's health and safety." However you have not "established" or supplied any evidence/details as to how you have come to that conclusion?
I note the case law examples you are referring to.

The Information Commissioner equally rejected the Met Polices' refusal to supply CCTV footage in it's Decision Notice FS50139215, whereby the Met had attempted to use Section 38(1)(a) ," emphasising that the arguments advanced by the Met on this point had lacked detail."

The Information Commissioner's comments on the public interest for full disclosure in the above instance are:
"full disclosure in order to avoid any suspicion of "spin" or "cover up" will continue to be in the public interest regardless of the volume of related information that has previously been disclosed"
(See information already disclosed in this request reference Judge Ord's Judgments x 4)

There are also a further 4 Decision Notices against various Universities (not Newcastle) and the Commissioner "held that the exemptions relied upon by the universities were not engaged, variously, sections 38 (health and safety), 40 (personal data) and 43 (commercial interests) of the FOIA."

It is also of note the amount of individuals who have commenced Employment Tribunal applications in the past 3 years ending 31 March 2019 (during Mr Plaistow's ET proceedings) which total 319,257.
In the year 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019 a total of 121,111 employment tribunal applications were made. This compares to 109,685 the previous year and 88,461 in 2016/17.

I believe it to be in the pubic interest, and certainly to the 319,257 people above, (and in particular any employee of the Ministry of Justice who may be contemplating taking them to an Employment Tribunal) that no "cover up" takes place, as to the alteration of documents, by Ministry of Justice employee(s), (whether or not a member of the HMPSS and almost without doubt it will not have been just one individual), this corrupted documentation then used and relied upon as genuine evidence submitted to an Employment Tribunal.

I shall be applying to the Information Commissioner for her view on the above and on the basis that you have not supplied valid information or justification to invoke the exemption relied upon under 38(1)(a).

Yours sincerely,

J E Garner

Dear HMPPS Briefing and Correspondence,

Amendment: FOIA IR 201001051/FOI 200915040

Apologies for typo error in penultimate paragraph of my letter to you today 28 October 2020

"I believe it to be in the pubic interest" should of course read PUBLIC interest

Yours sincerely,

J E Garner

J E Garner left an annotation ()

A complaint has been sent to the Information Commissioner's Office today. 30 October 2020.

J E Garner left an annotation ()

Lord Ramsbotham sent a written question to the Ministry of Justice dated 18 June 2019. "To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to conduct an independent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the appearance before an employment tribunal of prison officer Ben Plaistow of HMP Woodhill".

Lord Keen of Elie (Lords Spokesperson (MoJ) answered:
"We strongly condemn homophobia, or any other kind of discrimination, in our prisons. As a result of the issues raised in and by the Tribunal a formal investigation is underway. This is being undertaken by a senior manager outside the prisons line management chain. Once that has concluded the interim Director General of HM Prisons will consider what action, including potentially disciplinary action, may be appropriate"

HMPPS Briefing & Correspondence, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Garner
Please see the attached in respect of your recent request for information.
Thank You

HM Prison and Probation Service Briefing & Correspondence Team
[1]h[2][email address]
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS ADDRESS AND NOT A PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESS

Find out more on People Finder
Follow us on Twitter @hmpps    

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]

Dear HMPPS Briefing & Correspondence, R Mitchell

Thank you for your response.

A complaint has already been sent to and acknowledged by the Information Commissioner's Office, however, depending on your reply by 8 December 2020, I will of course be able to update them.

Yours sincerely,

J E Garner

Weston, Bob (Gloucester), Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

1 Attachment

Please find attached a response to the above request

 

Bob Weston

 

Knowledge Information Liaison Officer

 

HMCTS - Analysis and Performance Division, Finance, Governance and
Performance Directorate.

 

Tel: 01452 334448 or 0203 3345511

 

E [1][email address]

 

1st Floor | Twyver House | Bruton Way | Gloucester | GL1 1PE

 

" I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor
to make representation or other statements which may bind the Ministry of
Justice in any way via electronic means".

 

show quoted sections

Dear MacKinnon, Jennifer, Reference 201018004

Thank you for your letter dated 12 November 2020 requesting further clarification from me.

Question 1. "Judicial Documents" please confirm this to mean Case Law, in particular: R (on the application of John McIntyre) Claimant- and -The Parole Board http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi...

Question 2. (A) If any complaints have been received by the HMCTS Fraud Department, with regard to the above case law's use, involving the allegation of forgery by any member of the Employment Tribunal judiciary and or HMCTS' Disclosure Team personnel between January 2016 and December 2018?
(B) If confirmed, was an investigation carried out by HMCTS Fraud in relation to any allegations
of "forgery" appertaining to the above case law.
(C) If so, were any employees at any level referred to the Police/CPS for potential prosecution?
(D) Were any employees at any level in any department of HMCTS dismissed or disciplined as a
result of any investigation carried out?

Question 3. I acknowledge your statement that "you do not accept that HMCTS' departments were involved in the forgery of any documents supplied to the Employment Tribunal during the case of Mr Ben Plaistow presided over by Judge Ord."
However, it is clear from Judge Ord's comments that somebody did.
HMPPS are currently considering the public interest test with regard to Judge Ord's comments and whether they can confirm if any of their staff were involved in the forgery of documents.

Question 4. The Government's Legal Department, who represent and advise (including Mr Plaistow's case) has a you tube 2 minute video, entitled "Lawyers in Government Film" an extract is detailed here:
"Ultimately we just don't interpret the law, we make it, re-imagine it and pilot it through areas it's never been before."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugPxrWVw...

Please therefore advise if corrupting and forging (reference Judge Ord) could be defined as "making and re-imagining and pilot it through areas it's never been before"?

Yours sincerely,

J E Garner

MacKinnon, Jennifer, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

Please be aware that I am away from the office, returning on Monday 16th
November 2020.  My emails are not being monitored in my absence.

show quoted sections

Weston, Bob (Gloucester), Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

1 Attachment

Please find attached an acknowledgement of the above request

 

Bob Weston

 

Knowledge Information Liaison Officer

 

HMCTS - Analysis and Performance Division, Finance, Governance and
Performance Directorate.

 

Tel: 01452 334448 or 0203 3345511

 

E [1][email address]

 

1st Floor | Twyver House | Bruton Way | Gloucester | GL1 1PE

 

" I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor
to make representation or other statements which may bind the Ministry of
Justice in any way via electronic means".

 

show quoted sections

HMPPS Briefing & Correspondence, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

1 Attachment

Dear J E Garner
Please see the attached response to your recent request for information.
Thank You

HM Prison and Probation Service Briefing & Correspondence Team
[1]h[2][email address]
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS ADDRESS AND NOT A PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESS

Find out more on People Finder
Follow us on Twitter @hmpps    

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are J E Garner please sign in and let everyone know.