fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Ministry of Justice,

Please disclose all records held of complaints made about Circuit Judge Mark Bury with particular regard to corruption.

The motivation for submitting this request will be self evident on reading the documents below:

(Appeal to Crown Court)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/306193801/App...

(Appeal to Crown Court Refusal)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/309556579/App...

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Ministry of Justice

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...

show quoted sections

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK N Gilliatt AKA

Huston, Gillian,

1 Attachment

 
Dear Mr Gilliatt
 
Please find attached the response to your information request which has
been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
 
Regards
Gillian Huston | Caseworker | Judicial Conduct Investigations Office |
81-82 Queens Building | Royal Courts of Justice | London | WC2A 2LL|
DX44450 STRAND| 020 7073 0300 | [1]http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk
 
 
 

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. http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/

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 'Judge Mark Bury (North Eastern Circuit)'.

I contest the application of the exemption (s 32) as it clearly relates to material only held in relation to particular court cases.

A judge's complaint record might not relate to any specific cases. Any link to a particular case would be incidental and could be removed before disclosure. Information on complaints would be held for purposes in addition to any related cases.

A judge when acting as a judge is an office holder who is not acting in a personal capacity. While there may be personal information in a complaints record, that shouldn't preclude most of the record being released with any personal material redacted.

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

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

Mannion, Eileen,

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Gilliatt

Please find attached response to your internal review request.

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.

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Request to review the Ministry of Justice's decision.

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

8/06/16

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF FOI REQUEST TO MOJ – Ref: FOI / 104758

I made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MoJ’) on 18 April 2016. The details can be found on the “what do they know” website at the following address:

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

On 9 May 2016 the MoJ gave notice that it was refusing to supply the information under Section 32(3) and 40(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

A request for internal review was submitted on 17 May 2016, and it explained why it was my opinion that the application of the exemption Section 32 was not valid as it clearly related to material only held in relation to particular court cases and a judge's complaint record might not relate to any specific cases. Any link to a particular case would be incidental and could be removed before disclosure etc. In respect of Section 40(5), a judge when acting as a judge is an office holder who is not acting in a personal capacity. While there may be personal information in a complaints record, that shouldn't preclude most of the record being released with any personal material redacted.

In its letter on 7 June 2016, the MoJ concluded that the response was compliant with the FOIA.

For these judges to be properly held accountable, it is essential that their conduct records are made available to members of the public and for that reason think it warranted that the expertise of the Information Commissioner is called on to review this.

Yours sincerely

fFaudwAtch UK

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

The Commissioner has deemed it not necessary to consider the exemptions 32(3) (court records) and 40(5) (personal information) because it was agreed that there was no obligation to confirm or deny whether it held the information under Section 44(2) of the FOIA.

Link to the Information Commissioner's 'Decision Notice':

(Date: 26 July 2016)
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