Humber & South Yorks Justices' Clerk - 'Case Stated' service and delivery method

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.

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Ministry of Justice,

Below is the response (dated 16 September 2014) to complaint to Humber & South Yorks Advisory Committee, but not known about by the complainant until 23 May 2016 (over a year and a half later).

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316099464/Adv...

The complaint submitted 2 September 2014 for your reference:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/316097134/Jud...

I would like the MoJ to disclose from records held on what date the final case which is referred to in the letter was served on the complainant. I also include in my request disclosure of the method by which the paper was delivered, i.e., standard post, delivered by hand, recorded delivery etc.

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Ministry of Justice

Dear fFaudwAtch UK

Please note, under section 8(1) of FOIA, a request for
information must comply with three requirements. It must:

(a) be in writing,
(b) state the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence, and
(c) describes the information requested.

After initial consideration, this request appears to comply with requirements (a) and (c) but it does not comply with requirement (b) because you have not provided your full name.
I am therefore not required to process your request without information that can later be referred to, as per Section 8(1)(b) FOIA. The information we require is your name.
As your request has been deemed invalid, I am not obliged to disclose the requested information at this point and I would like to take this opportunity to recommend that any future FOI submissions adhere to Section 8 of the FOIA.
To enable us to meet your request, please resubmit your application in accordance with the above requirements. We will consider your resubmitted request upon receipt as long as it meets the requirements stated above.
You will then receive the information requested within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to the information not being exempt.
You can find out more about Section 8 by reading the extract from the Act available at the attached link:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

Kind regards

Data Access and Compliance Unit

show quoted sections

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit, N Gilliatt AKA fFaudwAtch UK Yours sincerely, fFaudwAtch UK

NE RSU FOI & DPA,

Freedom of Information Request
 
Dear Mr Gilliatt,
 
Thank you for your email of 1 August 2016, in which you asked for the
following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):
 
I would like the MoJ to disclose from records held on what date the final
case which is referred to in the letter was served on the complainant. I
also include in my request disclosure of the method by which the paper was
delivered, i.e. standard post, delivered by hand, recorded delivery etc.
 
Your request has been passed to me because I have responsibility for
answering requests relating to Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service
(HMCTS).  HMCTS is an executive agency of the MoJ and is responsible for
managing the magistrates' courts, the Crown Court, county courts, the High
Court, the Court of Appeal and Tribunals Service in England and Wales and
non-devolved tribunals in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
 
 
Your request is being handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(FOIA).
 
Under the Act, the department is required to provide you with a response
within 20 working days. I will write to you in response to your request
for information by 30 August 2016.
 
The Freedom of Information Act includes a number of exemptions to
releasing information.  Some of these are qualified exemptions which
require us to consider whether it is in the public interest to disclose or
withhold the information.  In these circumstances we may need more time to
consider your request, and if this is the case I will write to you by the
date above to inform you of when you can expect to receive a
response.     
If you have any queries regarding this request please do not hesitate to
contact me, quoting ref: FOI/106824 in all future correspondence.
 
​​
Yours sincerely
 
 
K Smith
 
K Smith
NE Region KILO
NE Delivery Directors Office,
Level 5 | Leeds Magistrates Court & Family Hearing Centre | PO Box 97 |
Westgate | Leeds | LS1 3JP | DX: 743892 Leeds (Westgate)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

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.

NE RSU FOI & DPA,

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Gilliatt,
 
Please find herewith our response to your Freedom of Information request
106824, made on 1 August 2016.
 
 
Yours sincerely
 
K Smith
 
K Smith
NE Region KILO
NE Delivery Directors Office,
Level 5 | Leeds Magistrates Court & Family Hearing Centre | PO Box 97 |
Westgate | Leeds | LS1 3JP | DX: 743892 Leeds (Westgate)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

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 NE RSU FOI & DPA,

You and I know that my request is not vexatious. We both know that the request is to get at the truth which is something the MoJ would rather not be made public.

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

NE RSU FOI & DPA,

Thank you for your email. It has been received by the NE RSU FOI & DPA
Team. This inbox is monitored regularly and a member of the team will
respond in due course.  
 
***Please be aware if you mark your message as private, we will not be
able to see this in our inbox. Please send under standard MS outlook
settings***

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 'Humber & South Yorks Justices' Clerk - 'Case Stated' service and delivery method'.

On reading the submission to HMCTS' Complaint, Handling and Enquiries team dated 25 June 2016 (see link below) you will then, I'm certain, be assured that the information in question is not trivial in nature. That is unless you consider the years of gross injustice I've suffered at the dishonest hands of HMCTS to be of no consequence.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316778791/Com...

I'm sure you won't want to read the entire 135 pages, so I suggest you at least take a look from around page 103 where the dishonesty of HMCTS employees and Judicial Ombudsman becomes clearly evident.

Regarding your comments about FOI requests and normal business correspondence made in relation to Grimsby Magistrates’ Court etc., I will make you aware, if you aren't already, that I have not once had any straight answers; sometimes no answer and have on occasion been lied to. Therefore don't lecture me about how my persistence is wasting public money when my taxes are contributing to these people's salaries.

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

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

Weston, Bob (Gloucester),

1 Attachment

Hello Mr Gilliatt,
Please find attached an acknowledgement of your recent request. 
 
Bob Weston
 
Data Quality Manager
 
HMCTS - Finance Directorate - Performance, Analysis and Reporting Team
 
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".
 
 

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.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Weston, Bob (Gloucester),

Thank you for your acknowledgement.

I look forward to the outcome of the review.

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

Weston, Bob (Gloucester),

1 Attachment

Hello Mr Gilliatt,
Please find attached my findings of you request for an Internal Review.

Bob Weston

Data Quality Manager

HMCTS - Finance Directorate - Performance, Analysis and Reporting Team

Tel: 01452 334448 or 0203 3345511

E [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

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Weston, Bob (Gloucester),

Pathetic

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Complaint to Information Commissioner's Office for the MoJ's mishandling of this freedom of information request.

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House, Water Lane
Wilmslow, Cheshire
SK9 5AF

26 September 2016

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF FOI REQUEST TO MOJ – REF: FOI / 106824

I made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MoJ’), details can be found on the “what do they know” website at the following address:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/h...
“Humber & South Yorks Justices' Clerk - 'Case Stated' service and delivery method”

BACKGROUND

My request is connected with an issue ongoing since November 2012 and surrounds a disputed order made against me by Justices at Grimsby Magistrate’s court which led to an application to the court to state a case for an appeal to the high court.

I have been unable to obtain the case stated, despite making numerous attempts. It is this failure that has prevented the appeal that was instituted on 22 November 2012 from proceeding to the High Court to this day.

The injustice caused extends far beyond that relating to the court’s obstruction in the matter. Those issues predominantly concern North East Lincolnshire Council misallocating payment to the sum subject to appeal when payment was clearly intended for the year’s council tax account which was current when paid. As the council has been able to engineer payment arrears this has led to recovery being taken through the court each year since with further costs added in the most recent proceedings. That in turn has led to time consuming and fruitless disputes i.e., formal complaints, escalation of issues to the LGO, police, police appeals and entering into a private prosecution against the police for negligence by improperly exercising police powers under Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

The issues, as far as those directly relating to HMCTS are evident from the correspondence compiled chronologically appended to a letter of complaint to HMCTS Complaint Handling and Enquiries Team (http://tinyurl.com/znkzkrl). That correspondence is referable to the draft chronology (http://tinyurl.com/zqm5dtq) prepared for, and intended to be part of the High Court papers for the case stated appeal.

It will be evident on reading the account that the root cause of the matter which has protracted so far over three and a half years has been the unwillingness and refusal of the court to cooperate, which in some cases has involved more seriously lying.

Initial delay

There was no contact made when the Deputy Justices’ Clerk who was initially dealing with the application left HMCTS toward the end of 2012. After several weeks having no update, enquiries were made to find out why there was no progress being made and it was only on this prompt that it was found out that the Deputy Justices’ Clerk was no longer employed by HMCTS.

Unnecessary Claim for mandatory order

The failure to deal with queries about the recognizance which the Magistrates set at £500 resulted in gross injustice as it was necessary to research judicial review procedures (mandatory order) as it was not reasonable to expect that the expense of appointing a legal professional should be incurred. It was only by doing this and when the judicial review claim was underway that the Magistrates' Court admitted in the Acknowledgement of Service that ‘the question of the appropriateness of the recognizance and/or the amount could have been considered by the court’. Simply answering correspondence would have meant the trouble that went into making the claim for judicial review was not necessary.

Unanswered correspondence to obtain final case

Various correspondence went unanswered from 19 August 2013 when representations were made on the draft case, up until the Justices' Clerk finally made contact on 6 March 2014 stating that either that day or the following the position regarding the case (advising on the next steps) would be set out in writing. Even with that undertaking there was no communication advising on the next steps. Subsequent attempts to find out what was happening elicited no response.

A letter sent 22 April 2014 requested the production of a Certificate of refusal to state a case under section 111(5) of the Magistrates Court's Act 1980 but was never answered, neither was an email sent 9 July 2014 to enquire into whether HMCTS had any arrangements in place to restrict contact with the court.

Judicial complaint to Humber Advisory Committee

There was no response until 23 February 2016 to a judicial complaint dated 2 September 2014 to the Advisory Committee which was obtained only after engaging the Judicial Conduct Ombudsman. It is claimed that the matter was dealt with on 16 September 2014 and stated that a Certificate of refusal to state a case was not issued by the Justices because the final case had been sent. Despite this, a copy which has been requested has not been resent nor has the Justices’ Clerk’s undertaking to explain the matter by 15 April 2016 ever been acted on.

FOI REQUEST – 29 JULY 2016

The MoJ was asked in relation to a response of 16 September 2014 (http://tinyurl.com/h4vdfz9) to complaint to Humber & South Yorks Advisory Committee (http://tinyurl.com/ha35mf3) if it would disclose from records held on what date the final case which is referred to in the letter was served on the complainant. The method by which the paper was delivered, i.e., standard post, delivered by hand, recorded delivery etc., was also asked for.

Note: The 16 September 2014 response was not known about by the complainant until 23 May 2016 (over a year and a half later) prompted by a provisional investigation by the Judicial Conduct Ombudsman.

RESPONSE – 26 AUGUST 2016

The MoJ determined the request vexatious and refused to provide the information under section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act citing the following reasons:

BURDEN ON THE AUTHORITY:

You have continued to submit a large volume of requests and general correspondence in respect of the issues relating to your matters before the courts. I consider that to continue to respond to your requests on this topic places an unreasonable burden on the department and causes a disproportionate amount of time to be spent on your correspondence. The resources of the department are publicly funded and the department has a responsibility to protect those resources from abuse, and will use the available legislation under the FOIA to do so.

UNREASONABLE PERSISTENCE AND FUTILE REQUESTS:

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 relation to Grimsby Magistrates’ Court, the Justices Clerk, and Judges and Magistrates over the recent months. In respect of this matter this is a question that should be answered by way of a normal request to the court. The FOIA is not the correct regime to address the question of the method of service of any documents upon you.

The information in question is trivial in nature and has no wider public interest in that it affects only you and your matters before the courts. A large amount of time and resource has already been expended on resolving your FOI requests in respect of the issues you continue to raise and despite the numerous responses you have received from the department on these matters, you continue to abuse the FOIA as a method to fuel protracted complaint correspondence in respect of your case.

REQUEST FOR INTERNAL REVIEW – 26 AUGUST 2016

The following representations were submitted in contesting the response which the MoJ had refused on the basis that the request was vexatious/futile:

“On reading the submission to HMCTS' Complaint, Handling and Enquiries team dated 25 June 2016 (see link below) you will then, I'm certain, be assured that the information in question is not trivial in nature. That is unless you consider the years of gross injustice I've suffered at the dishonest hands of HMCTS to be of no consequence.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/316778791/Com...

I'm sure you won't want to read the entire 135 pages, so I suggest you at least take a look from around page 103 where the dishonesty of HMCTS employees and Judicial Ombudsman becomes clearly evident.
Regarding your comments about FOI requests and normal business correspondence made in relation to Grimsby Magistrates’ Court etc., I will make you aware, if you aren't already, that I have not once had any straight answers; sometimes no answer and have on occasion been lied to. Therefore don't lecture me about how my persistence is wasting public money when my taxes are contributing to these people's salaries.”

RESPONSE TO INTERNAL REVIEW – 26 SEPTEMBER 2016

The original response was found to be compliant with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
In its response the MoJ made the following comments

“A BURDEN ON THE AUTHORITY
This request is the latest in a series of requests in which you seek information with regards to your matters before the court. Your requests have created a strain on the time and resources of Grimsby Magistrate’s and of the North East Regional Support Unit due to the number of requests that relate to the same topic and with which have been fully dealt with under the FOIA or as general correspondence.

FUTILE REQUEST

I have taken into account the wider context in which the request has been made and the evidence that you have provided about the purposes behind your request. Further evidence is provided in the request for this internal review where you state “the dishonesty of HMCTS employees and Judicial Ombudsman becomes clearly evident” and “on occasion (I have) been lied to”. This is evidence that you are pursuing a highly personalised matter which is of little, if any benefit to the wider public. Furthermore, these matters have been subjected to independent investigations. This request is the latest in a long line of requests and correspondence targeting Grimsby Magistrate’s court and the North East region and the language used in these requests show that you hold a personal grudge against staff members of the court.

Other FOIA requests have been received from you in our North East Region, and other Regions, relating to matters not directly associated with Grimsby magistrates’ court and have been responded to.

Where requests relate to the same or substantially similar matters as in previous requests and are not a genuine attempt to obtain information but are aimed at disrupting the work of MoJ and harassing its employees, they can be considered to be offensive. I believe this to have been the circumstances relating to FOI 106824 and I uphold the decision communicated to you.”

The MoJ has demonstrated naivety if it expects the same person who has lied to cover-up her own misconduct will address honestly the question my request concerns, i.e., date and method of service of the documents. It can not be overstated the difficulty a member of the public encounters when dealing with public bodies. Suggesting that the request is futile shows a complete lack of understanding of the serious consequences that result from the wrongdoing of those responsible who it can reasonably be said should be the subject of a criminal investigation.

Yours sincerely

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

The real reason why the MoJ refused to provide the information was not because the request was vexatious (as determined) but because the statement was untrue, i.e., "that a case for the consideration of the Administrative Court and the final case has been sent".

Pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 - Part 35 (Appeal to the High Court by Case Stated) at 35.3, subparagraph 9 (Preparation of case stated);

[ http://tinyurl.com/jde4j7f ] "the court officer must serve the case stated on each party."

A copy therefore would have been sent to North East Lincolnshire Council, however;

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

Closing In left an annotation ()

Information Commissioner's Decision Notice, 28 March 2017 (FS50650355):

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org