Misconduct by Court Staff and Officers

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, HM Courts and Tribunals Service should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service,

I am writing to make the following FOI request

1) Please provide a copy of the procedures or guidance for dealing with allegations of misconduct of any person working in or for the Court Service including Judges.
2) Please provide the procedure relating to allegations of misconduct by Court Officers:
a) Barristers
b) Judges
c) Solicitors
d) HMCTS employees
In particular I am interested when a person makes an allegation about one or all of the above in respect of misleading a court what are the legal obligations on the four named individuals above to deal with it.
Example: barrister knowingly misleads a court, matter is reported to the Judge and Court manager what action and to whom should be taken.
3) Where a case is heard in the County Court but the Judge runs out of time to make the Judgement there and then,
a) is there a time limit set either within law or within HMCTS procedure for the Judgement to be made?
b) What is the HMCTS procedure for the Judge to follow having made a judgement after the event?
c) Please advise what evidence is held that the Judgement was made on the date that it is claimed on the form?
d) Is there a maximum period during which service must be made in this circumstance?
4) Where a court has ignored correspondence, including complaints in the same repeatedly what does HMCTS advise is the procedure to rectify the matter? If this requires correspondence with a 3rd party please advise who this is.

Yours faithfully,

James MacDonald

Woods, Dave,

1 Attachment

Dear Mr MacDonald,

 

I attach an acknowledgement for your FOI request.

 

 

 

Dave Woods

 

Allocation Manager

 

Judicial Conduct Investigations Office 

81-82 Queens Building

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London WC2A 2LL 

 

0207 073 4731

 

DX44450 Strand  

 

 

 

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.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Woods, Dave,

1 Attachment

 

Mr MacDonald,

 

Please see the attached document.

 

 

 

Dave Woods

 

Allocation Manager

 

Judicial Conduct Investigations Office 

81-82 Queens Building

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London WC2A 2LL 

 

0207 073 4731

 

DX44450 Strand  

 

 

 

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.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Woods, Dave,

2 Attachments

Apologies forgot to enclose the EX343

 

Dave Woods

 

Allocation Manager

 

Judicial Conduct Investigations Office 

81-82 Queens Building

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London WC2A 2LL 

 

0207 073 4731

 

DX44450 Strand  

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Woods, Dave,
Thank you for your response however it appears incomplete I note in particular you have failed to answer point 2 fully. Specifically where a complaint of misleading a court in made to the Court and Judge what is the procedure to be followed?

This is particularly relevant as none of the bodies you allude to carry out reviews of this conduct and in particular the SRA does not investigate 3rd party complaints. The BAR Standards board suggest referring the matter to the Police and the Police back the BAR Standards.

You have an obligation to provide information however recorded and it would seem reasonably appropriate that you would have a rule or procedure for deal with it. I have checked the public domain however I have yet to find it.

Yours sincerely,

James MacDonald

Woods, Dave,

Mr MacDonald,

Thank you.

I'm not sure how I can assist you. The answers I have given you are the correct paths to take for the named job holder roles.

If a judge believes a solicitor or barrister has deliberately misled the court, the judge could inform the Bar Council/SRA if he/she felt justified to do so.

I've looked at the Guide to Judicial Conduct 2013 (link below) and I cannot see any requirement for a judge to report this issue.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/u...

Dave Woods

Allocation Manager

Judicial Conduct Investigations Office
81-82 Queens Building
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London WC2A 2LL

0207 073 4731

DX44450 Strand

show quoted sections

Helen Borodzicz left an annotation ()

James, if a barrister misleads the court then the remedy for the losing party is appeal.

James MacDonald left an annotation ()

Except that as we know most Judges are incapable of punishing any lawyers that lie in court.

Helen Borodzicz left an annotation ()

James, there is a fair bit of lying in court. It can come as a shock to first-timers who've only ever heard that British justice is the finest system in the world etc.
But look at it from a barrister's point of view. His livelihood would be at risk if he was known to regularly lose cases.
All judges were once lawyers, and know the score. They, I understand, take the view that, if any untruths were material to the decision, then the thing can be ironed out on appeal. The problem, from the litigant's point of view, is that the judge at first instance might refuse permission to appeal. And that's that.
Apparently most of the complaints made to the Bar Council come from litigants-in-person who lost to a lawyer they say lied. I've never heard of any of them succeeding though figures are apparently available.

James MacDonald left an annotation ()

A key point here is Judges are protecting barristers and lawyers from sanction a recent CPD unit I listened to about facebook by Byron James (a barrister) he referred to the 'filter of your lawyer' or words to that effect in relation to disclosure. He was directly insinuating that in Form4 claim one of the parties claiming poverty was busted by facebook for a picture with an annotation of 'my new baby' the baby being a boat, he said that had that not been on FB the filter of his lawyer would have prevented the finding. This is one of the most open admission that Solicitors and Barristers routinely and knowingly lie to cover up fraud, abuse etc and its wholly condoned by the Judiciary in part because they too have done it all their lives and consider it acceptable.

This FOI is telling that HMCTS have no procedure to deal with fraud, misconduct or lying in court how exactly is that in the interest of justice?

Helen Borodzicz left an annotation ()

James, I should like to clarify something about the way our justice system works. In contrast to Europe, which has an inquisitorial system, we have an adversarial system. You can google these.
Essentially our judges are passive and decide which of the two parties has the better argument. Inquisitorial judges are much more proactive. They participate much more in court.
Under our system barristers have a duty to the court to always tell the truth about the law. They are, in fact, a judge's helpers.
They are very powerful in court, especially in lower courts where they are usually much more knowledgeable than the judge.
Justice for the judges too though. In the adversarial system they are not required, nor have the powers, to supervise the honesty of barristers.
Hopefully we are moving more to the inquisitorial system. Family justice, for instance, has embraced it as there is no other way given all the LIPs.
One correction to what I said before. Someone who has been refused PTA by the first instance judge is entitled to try again before a higher judge.

James MacDonald left an annotation ()

Helen I am more than aware of the way the system works and this doesn't change the fact that Judges are failing to deal with professionals misleading a court. They are equally too reliant on barristers to fill in their blanks in knowledge this is self defeating to public confidence in the Court system. The fact HMCTS have no policy how to handle misconduct says it all

Helen Borodzicz left an annotation ()

Helen I am more than aware of the way the system works and this doesn't change the fact that Judges are failing to deal with professionals misleading a court. They are equally too reliant on barristers to fill in their blanks in knowledge this is self defeating to public confidence in the Court system. The fact HMCTS have no policy how to handle misconduct says it all

James, it is true that judges fail to deal with professionals misleading a court. But, there is so much of it that it is hard to see how they could oversee any dishonesty by professionals whilst at the same time deciding the case.
You are incorrect when you speak of judges being too reliant on barristers to fill in their "blanks" in knowledge. Judges are not allowed to research cases. When Lord Denning was in the House of Lords his fellow law lords humiliated himin their individual judgments when part of the law in Denning's judgment had been researched by himself. They pointedly distanced themselves from what he had done. The case was Rahimtoola v Nizam of Hyderabad [1958] AC 379. Unfortunately it is not available online. You'd have to get it from somewhere like the Guildhall Library.
More recently a Chancery (high court) judge, Hugh Laddie, stood down as a judge giving interviews to the media. One of the things he said was that he always got lumbered with taxation cases when he knew not the first things about tax law. It is all, as I say, because of the required passivity of judges in the adversarial system. Thankfully the EU courts are helping to change some of that.
You are incorrect too when you say that HMCTS have no policy on how to handle misconduct. HMCTS are civil servants who just run the courts. They definitely don't tell a judge what to do. It is in fact the other way round. It goes back to when judges gained their independence in the late 17th/early 18th century.
No-one tells a judge what to do.

James MacDonald left an annotation ()

HMCTS are public servants and Judges are not and should not be above the law, if you're seriously suggesting that dealing with fraud and misconduct is entirely in the discretion of Judges this is wrong and this is entirely how corruption occurs when unchecked power is given to any body.

Lets not lose sight of the fact in administrative law Judges only act with consent of the parties, they are only on oath where a jury is present. Therefore Judges have no authority unless on Oath so if you're correct HMCTS are allowing unelected individuals to decide on what constitute a crime and whether it is and should be investigated. I would say that the reason Judges are not prosecuting misconduct and misleading of the courts is because they are lawyers and it would embarrass the legal industry, furthermore it does not suit the ends of the profession ie fee income. The best demonstration of these behaviours is The Law Society attacking the Legal Aid changes and the flat refusal of the Family Division and family lawyer generally to open these courts to scrutiny. Munby is taking steps but it is clear no family lawyers agree, even he who I credit with exposing fraud and double dealing social workers took no steps to prosecute the offenders, letting them off with some terse words in his judgement.

Bottom line is Judges need to grow some balls and stop allowing their misguided loyalty to their profession cloud their minds. The swore to the queen to uphold the law and fairness they are some way off.

Helen Borodzicz left an annotation ()

James, I am enjoying our discussion but, unfortunately, it has to end otherwise What Do They Know will intervene. This is not meant to be a chat website.
We can continue privately if you contact me via the website.
I will just make two points that might be of interest to others.
Firstly you are not the only requester who assumes that HMCTS is like a company and that judges are its employees whom they can tell what to do. But it is nothing like that. HMCTS are just an executive agency. Asking what their policy is in relation to aspects of legal decision-making is completely meaningless.
Secondly, on lying lawyers. How is a judge, who suspects a lie, to know where it emanates from? It might be from the party, the solicitor or the lawyer him/herself. If it is from a professional then such an accusation is a serious thing and he is entitled to due process, i.e. a proper disciplinary hearing in which he has the chance to defend himself. A judge can't just go "off piste" during the course of a dispute between two parties and start deciding other matters.
In any event a lie might be irrelevant to the judge's eventual decision.