We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are P Kernman (Account suspended) please sign in and let everyone know.

Ministry of Justice (MoJ) criticised over forging documents

We're waiting for P Kernman (Account suspended) to read a recent response and update the status.

P Kernman (Account suspended)

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):

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?fil...

Yours faithfully,

P Kernman

JCIO General Enquiries, Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

Thank you for your email.  This an automated response.  Please do not
reply.

 

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
[1]online portal.

 

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
Advice Bureau. 

 

Before making a complaint, please read the [2]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 [3]online portal.

 

Complaints about magistrates (justices of the peace)

Send your complaint to the relevant local [4]advisory committee.

 

Complaints about tribunal judges and members

Send your complaint to the relevant tribunal [5]president’s office.

 

Your personal data

You can find information about how the JCIO collects and processes
personal data in our [6]Privacy Notice

 

 

show quoted sections

Rasul, Nazir, Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

Dear Sir/Madam

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.

Sincerely

Nazir Rasul
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/

show quoted sections

Disclosure Team,

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
London
SW1H 9AJ

Contact Form:

https://contact-moj.dsd.io/

Telephone Number:
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]

Kind regards,

The Disclosure Team

show quoted sections

P Kernman (Account suspended)

Dear Disclosure Team,

Thank you for your 9 and 10 July emails. Can you please clarify whether either of these responses were sent erroneously.

Yours sincerely,

P Kernman

Jean James left an annotation ()

The ministry might find this helpful

THE FORENSICS OF LEGAL FRAUD: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ac2eb2g0l6f1aw...

and this

https://sachastone.com/the-great-insolve...

and this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4fKJ6u-...

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SHARE THESE LINKS

P Kernman (Account suspended)

Dear Disclosure Team,

I asked on 11 July 2019 the following and have not yet had a reply:

"Thank you for your 9 and 10 July emails. Can you please clarify whether either of these responses were sent erroneously."

Yours sincerely,

P Kernman

P Kernman (Account suspended)

Dear Disclosure Team,

Will you please deal with my query.

Yours sincerely,

P Kernman

Disclosure Team,

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your email.

Please do refer to our previous correspondence in regard to this matter.

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.

Regards

Disclosure Team

show quoted sections

P Kernman (Account suspended)

Dear Disclosure Team,

If I ask for this to be reviewed I want to be sure I am doing so on the right basis.

Please confirm that your 9 July response was sent in error (it is irrelevant) and your official response is that which you provided on 6 September (10 July).

Yours sincerely,

P Kernman

Disclosure Team,

Dear Mr Kernman,

We can confirm that our initial response was not sent in error as your request did not fall under the FOIA. However, your request was forwarded onto a separate team who have confirmed that they have dealt with your request outside of the act. We hope this clarifies your questions.

Kind Regards,
Disclosure Team

show quoted sections

P Kernman (Account suspended)

Dear Disclosure Team,

I refer to your 9 July response which we have (I think) established is the response that was dealt with outside of the FOI Act:

"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."

The above is irrelevant to my FOI request so it is not an appropriate response regardless of whether it has been dealt with outside the FOI Act.

All it really amounts to is a standard response the MoJ gives anyone who expresses their dissatisfaction with the dysfunctional judicial system we have in the UK. Obviously from the Government's perspective it is convenient to exploit the so called "Judicial independence" as a way of distancing itself from the system's oppressive consequences. You need only consider who appoints judges and that they know which side their bread is buttered to arrive at the conclusion that the system is anything but independent from the Government.

My request did not to relate to case management or judicial decisions it related to criminally falsifying documents which is a conduct matter (a criminal conduct matter).

I will when I have time submit my review request on the grounds that it has been refused on the basis that the information requested is not recorded information.

Yours sincerely,

P Kernman

P Kernman (Account suspended)

Dear Disclosure Team,

Further to my correspondence of 10 September regarding challenging your view that my request did not fall under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) regime.

I would argue that my request does fall under the FOIA and the JCIO's initial focus needs to be on whether or not the public authority holds the requested information. Section 84 defines the ‘information’ a public authority can be asked to provide under the FOIA. It makes clear that it means recorded information held in any form.

My request asked if the JCIO was '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'.

The above effectively comprises two requests and both are valid according to the definition in s.84. The second request although valid arguably may be exempt information if it were held, however, the first categorically would not.

The JCIO now holds recorded information in relation to the first request in the form of an email I sent on 29 June 2019. The question should be did the JCIO hold the requested information in any form before 29 June and if it was the information should be disclosed. Whether or not the information is held there is no basis to view that my request did not fall under the FOIA regime.

Yours sincerely,

P Kernman

Rasul, Nazir (JCIO), Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Kernman

 

Please find attached a response to your FOI request.

 

Sincerely

 

Nazir Rasul

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/

 

show quoted sections

P Kernman (Account suspended)

Dear Rasul, Nazir (JCIO),

Does your response constitute a decision upholding my appeal that my request did not fall under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) regime?

Secondly, the supplementary description of the JCIO’s statutory remit implies that a blind eye is turned to any evidence of criminal misconduct of judicial office holders that might be revealed in the course of an investigation. Please inform me I am wrong.

Yours sincerely,

P Kernman

Rasul, Nazir (JCIO), Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

Please note that I am out of the office until 7 January 2020. For anything
urgent, please contact [email address]

show quoted sections

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are P Kernman (Account suspended) please sign in and let everyone know.