Dear Judicial Conduct Investigations Office,
The Guardian refers, 19 June 2019
“Perhaps most seriously, given the identity of the respondent [the MoJ], is the forgery by late production and backdating of documents designed to ‘plug gaps’,” the tribunal ruling states.
It also refers to “corruption of documents by conflation, amendment or post-dated creation” and said the MoJ’s failings go “beyond error”.
Was the JCIO aware about the tribunal discovering that the Ministry of Justice had forged documents and if so did it take this into account when investigating a complaint which was later discovered to have involved similar criminal misconduct (see outcome below):
Thank you for your email. This an automated response. Please do not
This email address is for general enquiries only. We aim to reply to
enquiries within 10 working days.
We do not accept or respond to complaints sent to this email address. If
you wish to make a complaint, please submit your complaint on our
If you have not made a complaint this way before, you will need to
register first before you can submit your complaint.
We do not respond to requests to intervene in court cases, requests for
advice about court procedures or requests for legal advice.
We suggest seeking advice from a solicitor, law centre or the Citizens
Before making a complaint, please read the guidance on our website
about the types of complaints we can and cannot accept. Complaints which
are outside our statutory remit will be rejected.
Complaints about judges and coroners
Make your complaint using our online portal.
Complaints about magistrates (justices of the peace)
Send your complaint to the relevant local advisory committee.
Complaints about tribunal judges and members
Send your complaint to the relevant tribunal president’s office.
Your personal data
You can find information about how the JCIO collects and processes
personal data in our Privacy Notice
Thank you for your email.
The JCIO is a statutory body which supports the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice in their joint responsibility for judicial discipline. Our statutory remit is to deal with complaints of misconduct about judges. This means how a judge has behaved personally, e.g. making a racist remark, inappropriate use of social media, or falling asleep in court. We cannot look into allegations made against government departments.
Our remit and procedures are governed by statutory rules and regulations, which can be found on our website at: https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk.
The issues referred to in your attachment appear to relate to case management and judicial decisions. We cannot consider complaints about a judge’s decision or how that judge has managed a case. The reason for this is because judges are independent. Judicial independence is a vital and long-established feature of our system of justice. It means that judges must be free to manage cases and make decisions without interference from external agencies, including from this office, from politicians, or from Government ministers. If you believe that a judge’s decision or the way a judge has managed a case was incorrect or unfair, you might be able to appeal to a higher court. You should consider seeking advice about your options from a solicitor, law centre or the Citizens Advice Bureau.
In addition, any allegations of criminality should be made to the police. It is not the JCIO's responsibility to report such allegations.
Senior Caseworker | Judicial Conduct Investigations Office | 81 - 82 Queen's Building | Royal Courts of Justice | Strand | London WC2A 2LL | Phone: 0207 071 5679 | http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/
Thank you for your e-mail, I am writing to advise you that your enquiry does not fall under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) regime and has been rejected by the Disclosure Team.
It may be helpful if I explain that the FOIA gives individuals and organisations the right of access to all types of recorded information held, at the time the request is received, by public authorities such as the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Section 84 of the FOIA states that in order for a request for information to be handled as a FOI request, it must be for recorded information.
For example, a FOI request would be for a copy of a policy, rather than an explanation as to why we have that policy in place. On occasion, the MoJ receives requests that do not ask for recorded information, but ask more general questions about, for example, a policy, opinion or a decision.
You may wish to re-submit your enquiry to the Ministry of Justice, which will be treated as Official Correspondence. Our contact details are as follows:
102 Petty France
020 3334 3555
If you do have any questions relating specifically to the FOIA or Data Protection Act (DPA), please contact the Disclosure Team at the following e-mail address: [email address]
The Disclosure Team
Dear Disclosure Team,
Thank you for your 9 and 10 July emails. Can you please clarify whether either of these responses were sent erroneously.
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.Donate Now