Number of times the JCIO has conducted an investigation in collaboration with the Judicial Office

Dudley Jones made this Freedom of Information request to Judicial Conduct Investigations Office This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was refused by Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.

Dear Judicial Conduct Investigations Office,

Can you tell me the number of times in the last 5 years the JCIO has conducted an investigation of a Chamber President Judge in collaboration with the Judicial Office, knowing that the JO was involved in a complaint about the same Judge?

I know that this has happened on at least one occasion. Earlier this year, I submitted an SAR to the JO asking for 'All emails received from, and sent to, the JCIO, during the period 1 Dec 2020 to 30 Sep 2021'. The SAR I was provided with showed that Laura Walters at the JCIO had been forwarding to the JO emails sent to me by Jane Keeling, my JCIO case investigator. Some examples: emails were forwarded on the 30 June 2021 (2 – timed 10:33 and 10:38) and the 16 July There are emails on the 2, 6 of July, and on the 2, 6, 17 (2 emails) and the 18 August 2021 (4 emails on this day). These coincided with the period Ms Keeling was investigating my complaint about a Chamber President Judge and the emails refer to this complaint. Ms Keeling knew that the JO was involved in a complaint about the same Judge and she even asked the JO Data Privacy Officer who has no legal or GDPR qualifications for advice on a data privacy issue related to my complaint about the Judge. Unfortunately, she sent the JO DP Officer a false account of my complaint about the Judge's breach of my DP rights.

All of these emails coincided with the JCIO’s ongoing investigation of my complaint about a Chamber President Judge at a time when the JCIO knew that the Judicial Office was involved in a complaint that was separate from, but closely related to, my complaint about the same Judge.

On how many other occasions has this kind of collaboration/collusion between the JCIO and the JO - or indeed any other organisation - taken place? And was Claire Farren, Joint Head of the JCIO made aware of this collaboration?

Yours faithfully,

Dudley Jones

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.

 

══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

This e-mail and any attachments 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. 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. https://jcio.microsoftcrmportals.com/
2. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.g...
3. https://jcio.microsoftcrmportals.com/
4. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.g...
5. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.g...
6. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.g...

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.

 

 

 

 

 

══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

This e-mail and any attachments 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. 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. https://jcio.microsoftcrmportals.com/
2. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.g...
3. https://jcio.microsoftcrmportals.com/
4. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.g...
5. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.g...
6. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.g...

Dear Judicial Conduct Investigations Office,

You should by law have now responded to my FOI Request about the 'Number of times the JCIO has conducted an investigation in collaboration with the Judicial Office'.

Please ensure you address this failing, comply with the law, and respond to the Request as a matter of urgency.

Yours faithfully,

Dudley Jones

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.

 

══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

This e-mail and any attachments 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. 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. https://jcio.microsoftcrmportals.com/
2. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.g...
3. https://jcio.microsoftcrmportals.com/
4. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.g...
5. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.g...
6. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.g...

OLoughlin, Anthony (JCIO), Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

5 Attachments

Good afternoon,

 

Please find attached a response to your freedom of information request
sent to the JCIO on 10^th June 2022.

 

With regards,

Anthony O’Loughlin

Senior Caseworker

Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

 

81-82 Queens Building 

Royal Courts of Justice

WC2A 2LL

020 7071 5688

[1][IMG]  [2][IMG]  [3][IMG]  [4][IMG]

 

Please note: In accordance with Section 139 of the Constitutional Reform
Act 2005, information about judicial disciplinary cases which relates to
an identified or identifiable individual is confidential and must not be
disclosed without lawful authority. This does not apply to formal action
taken at the conclusion of the disciplinary process, which is published on
the JCIO’s website as per the Lord Chief Justices and Lord Chancellors’
publication policy.  Personal data is protected under the UK General Data
Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018.

 

══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

This e-mail and any attachments 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. 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. https://twitter.com/JudiciaryUK
2. https://www.facebook.com/judiciaryuk/
3. https://www.instagram.com/judicialoffice/
4. https://www.linkedin.com/company/judicia...

Dear Anthony O’Loughlin,

I would like to request an internal review of your response to my FOI Request of the 10 June. I can well understand your delay. You must have been thinking ‘how do we wriggle out of responding honestly to this FOI Request, because to do so would be immensely damaging to our reputation as a supposedly INDEPENDENT investigator of judges’ misconduct’.

My FOI Request was:
Can you tell me the number of times in the last 5 years the JCIO has conducted an investigation of a Chamber President Judge in collaboration with the Judicial Office, knowing that the JO was involved in a complaint about the same Judge?
On how many other occasions has this kind of collaboration/collusion between the JCIO and the JO - or indeed any other organisation - taken place?
And was Claire Farren, Joint Head of the JCIO made aware of this collaboration?

In your (delayed) 28 July 2022 response you say: ‘The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) does not hold any information within the scope of the request for the purposes of the FOIA’.

Regrettably, you are not telling the truth. I can prove you are dissimulating, and that you must know you are dissimulating. What does this say about the integrity of the JCIO and you as a Senior Caseworker Manager?

Your Response also carries the implication that I am lying. In my FOI Request I pointed out that this collaboration has occurred on at least one occasion. This involved an investigation into my complaint about a Chamber President Judges’ misconduct. In a Background note to my complain, I referred to the fact I had an SAR which showed that Laura Walters (like you, a Senior Caseworker Manager) at the JCIO had been forwarding to the Judicial Office emails sent to me by Ms J K, my JCIO case worker investigator. Some examples: emails were forwarded on the 30 June 2021 (2 – timed 10:33 and 10:38) and the 16 July There are emails on the 2, 6 of July, and on the 2, 6, 17 (2 emails) and the 18 August 2021 (4 emails on this day). These coincided with the period Ms J K was investigating my complaint about the Chamber President Judge and the emails refer to this complaint. Ms J K knew that the JO was involved in a complaint about the same Judge and she even asked the JO Data Privacy Officer who has no legal or GDPR qualifications for advice on a data privacy issue related to my complaint about the Judge. Unfortunately, she sent the JO DP Officer a false account of my complaint about the Judge's breach of my DP.

Are you seriously telling investigative journalists who might be reading this case, that you have sent a large number of emails to the JO without having any records of those being sent? I think the ICO will be interested in this.

But readers might also suspect - in view of your response - that I have been fabricating these emails, especially since you claim you have ‘no information on record’ of these emails’. Is there nothing on your database – or do you not have a database?

I am compelled to prove that it is me who is telling the truth, you who are not. To that end, I append a SMALL sample of the emails below (I have many more).

Can I request therefore that your internal review provides a truthful response.
Kind regards,
Dudley Jones

A small sample of emails with annotations in square brackets where false statements are made. I haven’t included the one where the full text of my Complaint about Judge Farbey is reproduced by our INDEPENDENT investigatory body and passed to a very grateful JO (their ‘Partners in XXXXX’)

Walters, Laura (JCIO)

From:
Sent: 17 August 2021 12:42
To:
Subject: RE: Request for advice from the JCIO
[it’s to the Judicial Office]

Dear

Thank you very much for your prompt assistance. Kind regards

Caseworker
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office 81-82 Queen’s Building
Royal Courts of Justice, Strand London WC2A 2LL

https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/

Sent: 17 August 2021 12:38
To:
Subject: RE: Request for advice from the JCIO

Dear ,

Thanks for this. You are correct JCIO has not committed a data breach and JCIO has no responsibility for reporting this to the ICO. [demonstrates the fundamental dishonesty of Caseworker Ms J K. – falsifies my complaint by misrepresenting it as a complaint about a data breach by the JCIO. The JO DP Officer would have recognized this as absurd but plays along with the lie and dutifully reassures JK the 'JCIO have not committed a data breach'. Ergo, she's free to reject my complaint - this is what passes for justice an d adherence to the law with the JCIO and the MoJ - they are an 'arms length body of the MoJ I've just discovered. My complaint was about Chamber President Mrs Justice Farbey’s breach of my Data Privacy rights not the JCIO's!] It is also very likely that the judge has not breach any data protection laws in contacting GLD.

It appears JCIO has done all it can to assist the complainant. Regards,

|Data Privacy Officer|Judicial Office|11th floor Thomas More|Royal Courts of Justice|Strand|London WC2A 2LL| |www.judiciary.gov.uk|www.twitter.com/JudiciaryUK

Sent: 17 August 2021 12:06
To:
Subject: RE: Request for advice from the JCIO Dear
Thank you for your prompt response.

I am sorry if my email was not clear, the JCIO did not make the GLD aware of the complaint, neither have we had sight of the letter to which the complainant refers. It was the judge that referred the matter to the GLD and it is the complainant’s contention that she wished the GLD to respond.

The complainant considers the judge breached their rights by providing sight of the letter to the GLD and involving them in the matter.
In respect to the JCIO’s response I said the following:

“….Specifically, you are of the view that XXX abdicated XXX responsibility by refusing to respond to your request for permission to publish XXX 15 April 2020 letter. You have said that in so doing, the judge betrayed XXX oath of office and breached the Judicial Code of Conduct, in that XXX actions lacked impartiality and integrity. You also state that XXX request to the Ministry of Justice’s Judicial Office to convey the decision was a breach of XXX independence from the legislative and executive arms of government and that XXX violated your data privacy rights.
Why we cannot accept your complaint
As you are aware, the JCIO is a statutory body which supports the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice in their joint responsibility for judicial discipline. Our remit and procedures are governed by statutory rules and regulations, which can be found on our website at: https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk

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. Rule 8 of the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014 requires that a complaint must “contain an allegation of misconduct” about a person holding judicial office and it is important to note that a complaint does not contain an allegation of misconduct about a judge simply because a person is unhappy about something a judge has said or done. We can only accept complaints which contain a specific allegation of behaviour that, if true, could result in a finding of misconduct.

As I previously outlined, judicial independence means that we cannot question a judge’s decision or management of a matter, be it within court proceedings, or in the scope of administrative matters. Furthermore, we cannot consider complaints about a judge making an error of law or procedure. [curious, since none of my complaints related to a judges’ decision or an ‘error in law]

I am afraid members of staff at the JCIO are not legally trained and cannot provide advice outside of our remit. In terms of the judge’s delegated request to the Ministry of Justice’s Judicial Office to convey the decision to you, you may wish to consider seeking advice from a solicitor, law centre or Citizens Advice. You can find information about sources of free legal advice at:
http://www.lawcentres.org.uk/other-sourc...
In respect to your concerns about a breach of your data protection rights, the appropriate course is to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Their address is: [email address] …”

Given the above, and your response, am I correct in thinking it would appear that neither the JCIO nor the judge were in breach? [totally falsifies my complaint but this is par for the course with the JCIO]

Kind regards

Caseworker
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office 81-82 Queen’s Building
Royal Courts of Justice, Strand London WC2A 2LL

https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/

Sent: 17 August 2021 11:40
To:
Subject: RE: Request for advice from the JCIO

Dear

I am not certain organisations are obliged (under the UK GDPR) to respond to a data privacy breach complaint although it would certainly be good practice. And the response should address the complaint, just as a response to any other complaint should.

Individuals are able to complain to the ICO if they are unhappy about any aspect of how an organisation has handled their personal data, although the ICO expects the complain to be raised with the organisation first. In my experience if the ICO receives a complaint they contact the organisation and as what happened.

Is the author of the email unhappy because they believe that by making GLD aware of their complaint JCIO committed a breach of security? In my view sharing data with GLD would not be a data breach, processing data for the purposes of seeking legal advice is expressly permitted by the UK GDPR and DPA 2018.

|Data Privacy Officer|Judicial Office|11th floor Thomas More|Royal Courts of Justice|Strand|London WC2A 2LL| |www.judiciary.gov.uk|www.twitter.com/JudiciaryUK

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

Yours faithfully,

Dudley Jones

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.

 

══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

This e-mail and any attachments 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. 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. https://jcio.microsoftcrmportals.com/
2. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.g...
3. https://jcio.microsoftcrmportals.com/
4. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.g...
5. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.g...
6. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.g...

BROWN, Alexander (JCIO), Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

1 Attachment

Dear Dudley Jones,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Please find the JCIO response to your request for a review of our
position, attached. 

 

All the best

 

Alex

 

Alexander Brown

Senior Caseworker

Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

 

80-82 Queen’s Building

Royal Courts of Justice

[1]https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Anthony O'Loughlin (JCIO),

My request for an internal review exposed the lies you had told in your initial FOI Response. I demonstrated that - contrary to what you claimed - you DID have records of having conducted on at least one occasion, (probably more) an investigation of a Senior President Judge in collaboration with the Judicial Office. To prove the so-called “INDEPENDENT” investigator of judges' misconduct had been lying, and that Caseworker Jane Keeling had deliberately misrepresented a complaint (something a lawyer has described as criminal behaviour), I produced proof: the emails passed on by Laura Walters (Senior Caseworker Manager) to the JO at each stage of an ongoing investigation. This despite the fact that Ms Walters knew the JO was also involved in a separate but related investigation of the same judge.

These revelations are hugely damaging to the already tattered reputation of the JCIO. You have constantly abused the FOIA by failing to keep records for the last 4 years. You’ve ignored the obligation placed upon you by the ICO to maintain efficient record-keeping. Your priority was to avoid transparency at all costs.
My request for an internal review left you with the task of trying to defend the indefensible. You came up with the perfect solution: you decided that henceforth you would be 'exempt' from responding to FOI requests. You purported to believe that you'd always been 'exempt' from the FOIA, that the only reason you'd responded to 188 FOI Requests over the last 13 years was attributable to your passionate commitment to transparency.

At the very same time, the Judicial Office, who've also become more and more embarrassed by my exposure of their illicit activities, reacted in the same way, declaring that they also were 'exempt' from any obligation to respond to FOIA requests.
It's a win/win situation for these 2 organisations who have just informed me they are both “arms-length bodies of the Ministry of Justice”. Like the JCIO, the JO have responded to 186 FOI requests in the past 12 years (this is on the whatdotheyknow.com website). They were obviously motivated by the same passionate commitment to transparency!

Evidently, the MoJ feels that the principles of fairness and justice could best be served by:
1) allowing the JCIO, the INDEPENDENT investigator of judges' misconduct to be immune from public scrutiny. They no longer have to respond to those tiresome, investigative journalists trying to find out what they’ve been up to. They can now do their "investigating" in secret. In effect, they are now UNACCOUNTABLE, hidden from public gaze.
2) simultaneously, allowing the JO to also be 'exempt' from responding to FOI requests. Of course, the JO’s parent body - the MoJ – is obliged to respond to FOI Requests but this 'cunning plan' enables them to delegate to the JO, all those things they dare not risk doing themselves: things that could get revealed by an FOI Request. The JO becomes the MoJ's Stasi department.

Both these MoJ 'arms-length bodies’ become UNACCOUNTABLE: with one leap they’re set free. Free to collude with each other when investigating a judges' misconduct. The payback for judges is obvious: they’re ring-fenced, they enjoy almost absolute protection. Jointly the JCIO and JO ensure their conduct remains free from scrutiny.

The MoJ clearly sees no threat to the JCIO's INDEPENDENCE in making them exempt from the FOIA. They don’t believe their independence will be compromised by a potential conflict of interests when they investigate complaints about the same judge in collaboration with the JO. So much for the Ministry of Justice’s commitment to the Bangalore principles, to the principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. Our glorious Ministry of Justice whose “vision is to deliver a world-class system of justice”. One in which they “work to protect and advance the principles of justice”.
Given that they appeared to be looking the other way for 15 years whist the largest miscarriage of justice in British legal history – the illegal persecution of 900 innocent sub postmasters – took place in plain sight, how successful have they been? Then there’s Windrush, and Hillsborough, and infected blood transfusions. Is this what a ‘world-class system of justice’ looks like?

Yours sincerely,

Dudley Jones