Prevention of the use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

Waiting for an internal review by Ministry of Justice of their handling of this request.

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Sir or Madam,

Does a civil restraining order prevent a citizen from the use of the FOIA to obtain information via the Act.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Sir or Madam,

I request an internal review to this request be made with regard to both the CPR and the Human Rights Act.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Sir or Madam,

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

Freedom of Information Good Practice Guidance No. 5

Time limits on carrying out internal reviews

following requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has produced this guidance as part of a series of good practice guidance designed to help understand and apply the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). FOIA makes reference to complaints procedures at section 45 (concerning the Code of Practice) and at section 50; both relate to circumstances where an applicant wishes to complain about the response of a public authority to a request for information. The reference at section 50 concerns the discretion that the Commissioner is allowed to exercise not to make a decision in cases where a complainant has not exhausted a public authority’s complaints procedure (also referred to as internal review). The Commissioner considers it important that internal reviews are completed as promptly as possible and so is introducing this guidance setting out what he considers to be a reasonable timescale for public authorities to undertake an internal review following a request by an applicant. Section VI of the Section 45 Code of Practice states that “each public authority should have a procedure in place for dealing with complaints .... in relation to its handling of requests for information.” This comprises desirable practice for the purposes of FOIA, but it should be noted that under the Environmental Information Regulations it is a requirement for public authorities to consider representations made by applicants for information. Consequently, most public authorities under FOIA should already have the procedures in place to allow them to perform an internal review. It is also important to note that Refusal Notices must include either details of the public authority’s complaints procedure or a statement that it does not have one. This will assist the Commissioner in determining whether or not an applicant, on making a complaint under section 50, has exhausted the complaints procedure of the public authority.

The spirit of the Code is that internal reviews should be completed as soon as possible. For example:

• a complaints procedure should be designed to allow prompt determination of complaints (para 39) • target times should be set for dealing with complaints (para 42).

• the code also recommends that the target times are reviewed regularly and that each authority should publish them together with information on its success in meeting those targets.

• there is also an implied recommendation, supported by guidance issued by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, that the complainant should be kept fully informed throughout the review process. The Commissioner supports these recommendations and intends, from time to time, to monitor conformity with them. Some other factors to be noted are as follows:

• FOIA requires a request to be complied with “promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth working day following the date of receipt” which suggests that internal reviews should also be completed promptly.

• Internal review is an important second opportunity for the public authority to engage with an applicant and there are clear benefits to both parties if the review is concluded within a reasonable timeframe.

• The Freedom of Information Act (Scotland) 2002 stipulates an internal review should be completed within 20 working days following receipt of the request for review.

In view of all the above the Commissioner considers that a reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the request for review. There may be a small number of cases which involve exceptional circumstances where it may be reasonable to take longer. In those circumstances, the public authority should, as a matter of good practice, notify the requester and explain why more time is needed.

In our view, in no case should the total time taken exceed 40 working days. In such cases we would expect a public authority to be able to demonstrate that it had commenced the review procedure promptly following receipt of the request for review and had actively worked on the review throughout that period. Some public authorities have complaints procedures which have a number of stages or levels. The Commissioner does not expect an internal review of a response to an FOI request to have more than one stage. Given that this is a review of a statutory process with clear rights for requesters and obligations on public authorities, a degree of formality is expected.

Enforcement

The Commissioner wants to ensure that a complainant has exhausted a public authority’s internal review procedure, but at the same time the complainant should not be unreasonably delayed in having his complaint considered under section 50. Equally, it will be beneficial to both complainant and public authority if an internal review leads to a prompt and satisfactory outcome such that a subsequent complaint to the Commissioner is not required. The Commissioner has therefore set out above what he regards as “reasonable” in terms of the timescale for completing an internal review. He is keen to ensure that the time limit is adhered to and that there are no unreasonable delays in carrying out reviews.

Internal reviews are referred to in the Code of Practice, and significant or repeated unreasonable delays in dealing with internal reviews may lead to monitoring by the Enforcement team and, in some instances, structured intervention, for example, the issuing of a Practice Recommendation. The Commissioner’s Enforcement Strategy provides more detail about practice recommendations and structured intervention.

More information

If you need any more information about this or any other aspect of freedom of information, please contact us.

Phone: 08456 30 60 60 01625 54 57 45 (National rate) E-mail: please use the online enquiry form on our website

Website: www.ico.gov.uk

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Ministry of Justice

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Robinson,

Please find attached your acknowledgement to your Internal Review
request.

Yours sincerely

Katie Dimon

(sent on behalf of Michael Evans)

Katie Dimon

Data Access & Compliance Unit

Postal Point 1.41, Zone C

102 Petty France

London SW1H 9AJ

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.

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear KATE DIMMON

THANK YOU FOR YOUR E-MAIL BELOW:

Data Access & Compliance Unit
Information Directorate
Zone 1 C
Post point 1.41
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

T 020 3334 3243
F 020 3334 2245
E [email address]

www.justice.gov.uk

Email: [email address]

08 January 2009
Our Ref: FOI/57017/ME

Dear Mr Robinson,

Thank you for your email dated 23rd December 2008 in which you have asked for an Internal Review into the handling of your request for information with reference number FOI/57017/ME

Your request for an Internal Review is being handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and will be passed to the Unit that will carry out this process.

You will be contacted separately by the person conducting the review but in the meantime please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries.

Yours sincerely,

Katie Dimon
Data Access & Compliance Unit

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear KATIE DIMMON

FOR YOUR INFORMATION:

ALMOST EVERYTHING I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO EXTRACT FROM THE MANY
AUTHORITIES OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS OR SO IS ROOTED IN A FALSE
INSURANCE CLAIM REFERENCED W215732 DATED 1993, A CLAIM ALLEGEDLY
MADE BY ME AGAINST SEFTON COUNCIL FOR THE DEMOLITION OF NONE
EXISTENT BUILDINGS, AND BECAUSE OF THAT FALSE CLAIM, MANY
"AUTHORITIES" HAVE BEEN DRAWN IN AND BECOME INSTRUMENTAL IN
ASSISTING SEFTON IN THE CONCEALMENT OF, OR THE UPHOLDING OF THIS
INANE UNFOUNDED CLAIM, AND THE OTHER FRAUDULENT CLAIMS THAT FLOWED
FROM IT.

THIS IS INEVITABLY DONE BY "AUTHORITIES" EITHER PROVIDING ME WITH
FALLACIOUS INFORMATION WHICH, WILL NOT, EVEN WHEN THE "AUTHORITIES"
ARE CONFRONTED WITH THE EVIDENCE OF ITS UNTENABILITY ADMIT ITS
FALLACIOUS, AND CENSURE ME FOR ATTEMPTING TO HAVE IT DISCLOSED OR
PASS IT AROUND LIKE THE BAD SMELL IT IS IN THE HOPE IT WILL NOT
COME BACK, OR LIKE THE IC AND SEFTON, ACT AS IF IT IS I WHO AM IN
THE WRONG AND VEXATIOUS FOR DARING TO ASK FOR THE INFORMATION AGAIN
AND AGAIN AND AGAIN WITH NO CONSTRUCTIVE RESPONSE BEING GIVEN OR,
BEING TOLD THAT I HAVE BEEN GIVENTHE INFORMATION.

AUTHORISES LIKE THE IC, WHO DENIED ME OF MY RIGHT TO INFORMATION ON
SEFTON'S BEHALF, CULMINATING WITH THE PROVISION OF THE CONTENTION
THAT IT WAS NOT HELD IN A 'RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM' WHEN, SEFTON -
IF NOT THE COMMISSION - KNEW, IT WAS NOT HELD AT ALL AS IT WAS ,
APART FROM A HANDFUL OF MY PERSONAL INFORMATION FROM 1994, NONE
EXISTENT.

THE COVERT INFORMATION PROVIDED TO SEFTON BY THE COMMISSION,
ALLOWED SEFTON TO UPHOLD THE FALLACIOUS CONTENTION THAT I MADE AN
INSURANCE CLAIM AGAINST SEFTON IN 1993 TO REMAIN THE PRIME CAUSE OF
WHY MY HOUSE HAS A CHARGE ON IT BY ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE AND I OWE
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF POUNDS TO SEFTON COUNCIL AND OTHER PARTIES WHO
HAVE AIDED THEM, AGAIN, ALL DUE TO CLAIM W215732 DATED 1993.

IF THE REAL BILL TO THE PUBLIC FOR EVERTHING THAT HAS FLOWED FROM
THAT FALSE CLAIM, POSSIBLE FRAUDULENT SALE OF LAND AND TIME WASTED,
WAS ADDED UP. IT MUST BE IN THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF POUNDS BY
NOW WITH NO END IN SIGHT WITHOUT DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.

MY PERSONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN CYNICALLY PASSED FROM ONE
AUTHORITY TO ANOTHER FOR YEARS, INCLUDING PASSING BETWEEN THE IC
AND SEFTON MBC TO MY HUGE DISADVANTAGE AND COST.

THE ONLY WEAPON A CITIZEN HAS IS ACCURATE INFORMATION TO DEFEAT
AUTHORITIES WHO HAVE A HORRIBLE EFFECTS ON HIS HIS LIFE.

IT IS THEREFORE A GRIM IRONY THAT THE BODY CHARGED WITH THE
PROVISION OF INFORMATION, SEEKS TO DENY ITS ACCESS ON THE SAME
BASIS AS SEFTON AND THE COURTS - VEXATION.

NOTWITHSTANDING THE VEXATION I HAVE BEEN PUT TO BY THE ACTIVITIES
OF BOTH "AUTHORITIES NONE DISCLOSURE OF MY PERSONAL DATA AT THE
RELEVANT TIME.

I KNOW ITS HARD FOR A PERSON TO CONTEMPLATE DISMISSLE FROM YOUR JOB
AND PERHAPS CRIMINAL CHARGES, BUT THATS NOT MY FAULT AS THAT PERSON
CHOSE TO DO AS HE, OR SHE DID.

NOR SHOULD IT BE SEEN TO BE BY THE CONSTANT DENIAL OF ONE SIMPLE
TRUTH THAT WILL UNDO THE MATTER.

THAT SIMPLE TRUTH LIES AT THE HEART OF THE MATTER AND IS:

HOW COULD I HAVE MADE A LEGITIMATE CLAIM FOR THE DEMOLITION OF NONE
EXISTENT BUILDINGS WHEN I LIVED IN A MID TERRACE LOCATION IN LIME
GROVE ?

WHICH LEADS TO, THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE LAND REGISTRY PROVIDING ME
WITH FALSE TITLE PLANS AND SUPPORT THAT 19 AND 21 LIME GROVE WERE
ADJOINED AND THE OS DENYING THEIR OWN MAPPING.

TURNING TO YOUR E-MAIL BELOW FEIGNING IGNORANCE OF THE CONSTANT
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE COMMISSION FOR YEARS:

Thank you for your correspondence dated 24 December, however it is
not clear what further information you are seeking. In your email
you ask how we can conclude that a request can be deemed to be
vexatious under the FOIA without knowing the identity of “an
authority.” In your email of 19 December you had asked us to
“please confirm or deny that a first time request, that has never
been asked before and, therefore, never been answered within the
confines of the Act, can be vexatious under any section of the
Act.” This is a general question about the Act itself and not about
the decision of a particular public authority and thus in answering
it we would not need to know the identity of any authority as the
Act applies the same to all public authorities.

TO ANSWER PART OF THAT QUESTION IN TERMS OF THE FOIA AND DPA:

Two of he "authority" were the "IC's" Mr Andrew Damm's who engaged
in correspondence with the other "authority" Sefton Council
regarding two boxes of my data allegedly from 1994 held by Sefton.

Ultimately Sefton used and passed onto Royal & SunAlliance, the
contention - given to them by Mr Damms - that my information from
1994 fell under the 'Durant' ruling as it was not held in a
relevant filing system and consisting of some 700 documents held by
Sefton's Technical Services and Insurance Sections.

The evidence provided by Mr Damns was referred to by myself in
claim W215732 on April 16th 2005 preventing Sefton from using it
with regard to 'Durant' it in the same manner as Royal &
SunAlliance had done in February 2005 to deny me access to my
personal data held by them regarding another fraudulent claim
RR98XN dated January 17th 1994 and, appear to have persuaded two
District Judge's, to strike out my claims against both Sefton and
Royal & SunAlliance on the basis of 'Durant" and deny me access to
my personal information to the font of my January 1994 'claims'.

I HAVE RECENTLY MADE FIRST TIME FOI REQUESTS TO THE IC, AND SEFTON
REGARDING THE TIME WHEN THE PROPER DISCLOSURE TO ME SHOULD HAVE
BEEN MADE REGARDING THEIR "COVERT CORRESPONDENCE" AND MEETINGS THEM
REGARDING MY DPA APPLICATION - ALLEGEDLY REGARDING 700 DOCUMENTS
DATED 1994.

BOTH THE COUNCIL AND THE IC NOW RELY ON EACH OTHER NOT TO CONFIRM
OR DENY WHAT IN FACT THEY KNOW AND IT WILL COME TO TRANSPIRE THAT
ANY ACTION SEFTON TAKE IN NOT RESPONDING TO MY FOI REQUESTS, NOT
ONLY WILL, BUT MUST, BE SUPPORTED BY THE IC AS IT HAS BEEN IN THE
PAST AND WHO KNOWS - EVEN NOW THERE MAY BE COVERT INFORMATION
FLOWING BETWEEN THE IC AND THE COUNCIL AGAIN IN PREPARATION.

FOR YOUR FURTHER INFORMATION - SOME CORRESPONDENCE FROM 2003 TO
2005 REGARDING THESE 700 DOCUMENTS NOT HELD IN A "RELATIVE FILING
SYSTEM" AND THE PERNICIOUS EFFECT OF THE CONCEALMENT OF WHAT THE IC
AND SEFTON KNEW, AND COLLUDED ABOUT DURING THAT TIME.

As you see below I am reliant on the information being fed to me by
the being true.

LETTER TO SEFTONS MR HUFF APRIL 10TH 2003

I still await a response to my allegations of breaches of the act
which was promised to me by the Councils Legal Director on March
4th 2003. I would point out that there are many letters to and from
the Housing and Environmental Departments missing from my data.
Will you send them? I most especially request a copy of my letter
to the Council dated 17/12/98 and responded to by DSOM/402/98/CG on
22/12/98. RSVP

LETTER TO SEFTONS MR HUFF MAY 25TH 2003

I refer you to past correspondence regarding the assertion by the
Council I am not entitled to data you hold on me. I have been
informed by the information commission today that you are in breach
of the act. I have requested ALL of the information I am entitled
to and this has not been provided. I have also been told my
assertions, you have breached the act, would be addressed, this has
not occurred. I have requested an explanation of this and have
received none. I contend that the information I seek is being
withheld against my right to obtain it with the purpose of avoiding
censure. I formally request you address these matters and inform me
why you believe I am not entitled to the information I have
requested and, to address the matter of breaches of the act.

LETTER TO MR HUFF JUNE 13TH 2003

With regard to my recent application under The Data Protection Act,
I formally request that you provide me with ALL copies of my
correspondence with the following Council Departments between the
dates I now provide. I am told by The Information Commission that
you cannot assume I have my own copies. I request copies of my
correspondence with:

The Planning Department between September 1999 and the present.

The Environmental Protection Department (Mr Cannon) between May
2001 and December 2002.

The Housing Department between December 2001 and December 2002.

Building Control Services (Mr Woods and Mr Edgerton and Mr Heywood
CEO - related to this correspondence) between September and
November 2000 also that to Ms Gillard, Housing Maintenance, Pendle
Drive, Litherland.

I still await a copy of my letter to the Council dated 17/12/98
which was answered by Mr Mc Lennan on December 22nd 1998, ref:
DSMO/402/98/CG.

I look forward to the provision of these copies and a response to
my correspondence with you dated 10/4/03 - 25/5/03 - 15/5/03.

I REMIND YOU THAT THE DATA (MUCH OF IT FALSE) YOU HOLD WITH REGARD
TO MYSELF IS PART OF A 'SET' AND PARTS OF IT CANNOT BE WITHHELD, I
THEREFORE REQUEST ALL OF MY CORRESPONDENCE FROM 1994 TO MR BOARDMAN
AND MR BARR BE COPIES TO ME. [6 items]

NB I would also request any 'fax' messages and memos associated
with the above on the basis that these are also part of a 'set' of
data. I also request ALL documents to and from third parties with
regard to the above.

I wish to complain that some documents sent to me already have been
'cropped', this appears to have been done to remove information
from them. The normal copying process does not reduce the size of
the copy paper.

LETTER TO MR HUFF NOVEMBER 1ST 2003: DATA PROTECTION FORMAL REQUEST
FOR DATA

With regard to my letter to you dated June 31st 2003 I request you
send me the data I requested, and am entitled to. BY LAW.

WITH REGARD TO THE DATA FROM 1994 I REQUEST THAT YOU SEND ME COPIES
OF MY LETTERS TO SMBC WHICH WERE ACKNOWLEDGED ON FEBRUARY 28TH 1994
BY MRB/HMB/HSG1197AR. AND FROM APRIL 6TH 1994 ACKNOWLEDGED BY
MRB/HSG/1197AR DATED APRIL 15TH 1994.

WITH REGARD TO A CLAIM - I ALLEGEDLY MADE IN 1993 AGAINST SMBC
UNDER POLICY: SEFPPL93 WITH AON CLAIMS MANAGERS - AND WHICH IS ALSO
KNOWN BY THE REFERENCE W215732 - ROBINSON. I REQUEST COPIES OF ANY
CORRESPONDENCE WITH AON* BETWEEN AUGUST 1993 AND MARCH 1996 WHICH
REFERS TO CLAIM REFERENCE W215732 - ROBINSON.

I also request details of a claim said - by Mr Barr, ref:
GRB/JBJ/HSG1187 and dated 12th January 2000 - to have been "settled
off" in August 1997, which was made by me against SMBC with regard
to my gable wall related to demolition of a "nib wall."

* Aon/Rollin Hudig Hall.

LETTER FILED AT COURT IN CLAIM LV360271 ROBINSON V SEFTON MBC ON
APRIL 15TH 2005

RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM - INFORMATION COMMISSION

WITH REGARD TO THE DATA REFERRED TO IN THE LETTER WRITTEN TO THE
COURT ON OCTOBER 11TH 2004 BY MR GIBSON. THE DATA THAT THE
INFORMATION COMMISSION AFFIRM IS NOT HELD IN A RELEVANT FILING
SYSTEM IS SOLELY THAT FROM 1994. IT APPEARS THAT THIS DATA HAS
ALLEGEDLY BEEN 'LOST' BY THE COUNCIL IN ANY CASE. THE INFORMATION
COMMISSION CONFIRMS TO ME THAT MY OWN CORRESPONDENCE CANNOT BE
WITHHELD FROM ME - WHICH IS THE CASE REGARDING MY CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE COUNCIL OF 1994. SEFTON HAVE NOT CONFIRMED TO THE COURT
THEY HAVE THIS CORRESPONDENCE FROM 1994.

THE INFORMATION COMMISSION HAS NOT MADE ANY ASSESSMENT REGARDING
DATA AFTER 1994. THEIR VIEW, WITH REGARD TO THE NUMBERED
DOCUMENTATION I CLAIMED I HAD NOT HAD, IS THAT THE COUNCIL MAY HAVE
PROVIDED IT TO ME IN AN UN-NUMBERED FORM. THIS VIEW IS STATED TO ME
BY THE INFORMATION COMMISSION IN A LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 25TH 2003
AND SEEMINGLY CONFIRMED BY MYSELF, AS DURING THE BUILDING OF THE
FILE FOR THE COURT CASE, I STRIPPED ALL THE HUNDRED OF DOCUMENTS
THAT COMPRISE MY OWN FILES, COMPLAINT FILES AND VARIOUS
CORRESPONDENCES, DURING THE COURSE OF WHICH I DISCOVERED MANY MORE
COPY DOCUMENTS THAT INDEED I DO HAVE IN NUMBERED, TWICE NUMBERED
WITH DIFFERENT NUMBERS, AND UN - NUMBERED FORM. FROM WHAT I NOW
HAVE, IT IS POSSIBLE TO EXTRAPOLATE SOME OF THE NUMBERED DOCUMENTS
I DO NOT HAVE.

THE COUNCIL STATE A LIST OF NUMBERED DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN SENT TO THE
INFORMATION COMMISSION. THIS MAY HAVE CONFIRMED THE COMMISSIONERS
VIEW I HAD COPIES OF THEM. THE DOCUMENTS BETWEEN OCTOBER 1993 AND
JANUARY 1995 ARE NOT NUMBERED.

14 UNDISCLOSED TO ME, DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO AUGUST 1993 ARE NUMBERED.

THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONS LETTER TO ME OF NOVEMBER 25TH 2003, MAY
WELL HAVE BEEN COPIED TO SEFTON MBC AS, ON THAT DATE MR GIBSON
WROTE TO ME STATING THAT, WITH REGARD TO "MY FILE" HE WANTED TO
MEET ME REGARDING LETTERS I HAD WRITTEN TO THE LEGAL AND TECHNICAL
SERVICES DIRECTORS ON NOVEMBER 20TH 2003 - COPIES OF WHICH I
ATTACH.

WITH REGARD TO DATA PROVIDED TO ME BY ROYAL & SUNALLIANCES
HOXWORTH,

COUNCIL DOCUMENTATION REGARDING THE KEPLER STREET DEVELOPMENT,
WHICH I AM NOT ENTITLED TO UNDER THE DATA PROTECTION ACT EMERGED.
IT MAY WELL BE THAT THIS IS THE DATA THAT THE COUNCIL REFER TO AS
THAT OF 1994.

IN SHORT, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM MY CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE
INFORMATION COMMISSION, IS THAT.

NO DATA REGARDING FALSE CLAIMS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY MYSELF ARE
ASSESSED BY THE INFORMATION COMMISSION TO BE EXEMPT UNDER THE ACT.
THIS IS CONFIRMED IN THEIR LETTER TO ME DATED AUGUST 6TH 2002 WHICH
I SUBMITTED TO THE COURT ON DECEMBER 17TH 2003 TO PROVE THE COURT
HAD JURISDICTION IN MY CLAIM.

WITH REGARD TO THE DATA SEFTON HOLD IN THEIR CARDBOARD BOXES IT
APPEARS - AS WITH THE DATA FROM 1994 - THAT THIS DATA FORMS NO PART
OF THE DATA SUPPLIED TO ME UNDER THE ACT BECAUSE IT IS PRIVILEGED
AND NOT NUMBERED.

IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE COUNCILS MISLEADING ASSERTION THAT THE
INFORMATION COMMISSION ALLEGEDLY ENDORSED THE VIEW THAT 'NO DATA'
WAS HELD IN A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM - PROVIDED TO THE COURT ON
OCTOBER 11TH 2004 AFTER THE SEFTON AND ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE CASES
HAD BEEN COMBINED - IS THE 'EVIDENCE' ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE RELIED ON
WITH REGARD TO THE 'DURANT CASE' IN MY CLAIM AGAINST THEM.

CLEARLY THIS ALLEGED EVIDENCE WAS NOT, NOR COULD BE, EVIDENCE
RELIED ON IN ANY APPLICATION TO THE COURT PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11TH
2004 BY EITHER DEFENDANT.

SEFTON, BY NEVER MAKING AN APPLICATION OR DEFENCE, HAVE NEVER
STATED ANYTHING THEY RELY ON AS EVIDENCE.

I WILL HAND DELIVER A COPY OF THIS LETTER TO SEFTON MBC.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Sir or Madam,

FOR INFORMATION 

I REFER YOU TO THE "EQUAL TREATMENT BENCH BOOK"



Chapter 1.3 Unrepresented parties - Key points

The ‘litigant in person’

Most unrepresented parties are stressed and worried, operating in
 an alien environment in what for them is a foreign language.

They
 are trying to grasp concepts of law and procedure about which they
may be totally ignorant. They may well be experiencing feelings of
fear, ignorance, frustration, bewilderment and disadvantage,
especially if appearing against a represented party.

The outcome of
the case may have a profound effect and long-term consequences upon
their life.

They may have agonised over whether the case was worth
 the risk to their health and finances, and therefore feel 
passionately about their situation.



Role of the judge



Judges and those who chair tribunals must be aware of the feelings 
and difficulties experienced by unrepresented parties and be ready 
and able to help them, especially if a represented party is being
 oppressive or aggressive.

Maintaining patience and an even-handed
approach is also important where the unrepresented party is being
 oppressive or aggressive towards another party or its
 representative or towards the court.

The judge should, however,
 remain understanding so far as possible as to what might lie behind
their behaviour.

Maintaining a balance between assisting and 
understanding what the unrepresented party requires, while
 protecting their represented opponent against the problems that
can be caused by the unrepresented party ’s lack of legal and
procedural knowledge, is the key.



1.3.1 Introduction



There are a number of reasons why individuals may choose to
 represent themselves rather than instruct a lawyer.

Many do not
 qualify for public funding, either financially or because of the 
nature of their case.

Some cannot afford a solicitor and even
 distrust lawyers.

Others believe that they will be better at
 putting their own case across.



This section aims to identify the difficulties faced (and caused)
 by litigants in person before, during and after the litigation
 process, and to provide guidance to judges with a view to ensuring
that both parties receive a fair hearing where one or both is not
represented by a lawyer.

This chapter supplements and should be
 read in conjunction with Chapter 1.1.

Subject to the law relating to vexatious litigants, everybody of
full age and capacity is entitled to be heard in person by any
 court or tribunal which is concerned to adjudicate in proceedings
in which that person is a party.

But on the whole those who 
exercise this personal right find that they are operating in an
alien environment.

The courts and tribunals have not traditionally
 been receptive to their needs.

All too often the litigant in person 
is regarded as a problem for judges and for the court system rather 
than a person for whom the system of civil justice exists.



Lord Woolf, Access to Justice, Interim Report June 1995



It is curious that lay litigants have been regarded … as problems,
almost as nuisances for the court system. This has meant that the 
focus has generally been upon the difficulties that litigants in 
person pose for the courts rather than the other way around.



Prof. John Baldwin, Monitoring the Rise of the Small Claims Limit



Unrepresented parties are likely to experience feelings of fear,
ignorance, anger, frustration and bewilderment.

They will feel at a
profound disadvantage, despite the fact that the outcome may have a 
profound effect and long-term consequences on their lives.

The aim
 of the judge or tribunal chair should be to ensure that the parties 
leave with the sense that they have been listened to and had a fair
hearing – whatever the outcome.

In what follows, the term ‘unrepresented party’ encompasses those 
preparing a case for trial, those conducting their own case at
 trial and those wishing to enforce a judgement or to appeal.



Disadvantages faced



The disadvantages faced by unrepresented parties stem from their 
lack of knowledge of the law and court procedure.

For many
 their perception of the court environment will be based on what 
they have seen on the television and in films.

They tend to:

be unfamiliar with the language and specialist vocabulary of legal 
proceedings;

have little knowledge of the procedures involved and
 find it difficult to apply the rules even if they do read them;


lack objectivity and emotional distance from their case;

be 
unskilled in advocacy and unable to undertake cross-examination or 
test the evidence of an opponent;

be ill-informed about the 
presentation of evidence;

be unable to understand the relevance of
 law and regulations to their own problem, or to know how to
 challenge a decision that they believe is wrong.



All these factors have an adverse effect on the preparation and
presentation of their case.

Equally, there are other unrepresented
parties who are familiar with the requirements of the process.



Numbers



Increasing numbers of people are now also representing themselves 
in the civil and family courts.



The small claims procedure in the county court is designed
specifically to assist the public to pursue claims without recourse 
to legal representation and has created a huge increase in the 
number of unrepresented parties.

The vast majority of defended
civil actions in the county court are dealt with under this procedure
dure and it is a sign of its success that its jurisdiction was 
increased (subject to certain exceptions in personal injury cases) 
from claims of up to £1,000, to claims of up to £5,000.

With the 
consent of the parties, cases of a certain type can encompass
substantially greater claims.

Public funding has never been 
available for small claims.



Unrepresented parties also appear with increasing frequency in the
Court of Appeal in criminal, civil and family cases.

Some have represented themselves at first instance.

Others, having had lawyers
 appear for them in the court below, take their own cases on appeal,
often through a withdrawal of public funding after the first
 instance hearing.



Ways to help



The aim is to ensure that unrepresented parties understand what is
going on and what is expected of them at all stages of the
proceedings – before, during and after any attendances at a
hearing.



This means ensuring that: the process is (or has been) explained to
them in a manner that they can understand; they have access to
appropriate information (e.g. the rules, practice directions and
guidelines – whether from publications or websites); they are
 informed about what is expected of them in ample time for them to
 comply; wherever possible they are given sufficient time according
to their own needs.

1.3.2

Particular areas of difficulty



Those who are involved in legal proceedings without legal
representation may face a daunting range of problems of both
knowledge and understanding...

...

Information



...

Many unrepresented parties believe that the court staff are there 
to give legal advice.

Under the Courts Charter court staff can only
 give information on how a case may be pursued; they cannot give
 legal advice under any circumstances.



1.3.3 Before the court appearance



Statements of case and witness statements

Unrepresented parties may make basic errors in the preparation of
civil cases by:

failing to choose the best cause of action or
defence; overlooking limitation periods;

not appreciating that they 
are witnesses in their own cases;

failing to file their own witness
s statements in advance of trial (and not understanding that in
consequence they may not be able to give evidence).



The individual’s level of knowledge should be taken into account in
 civil cases when deciding whether to make allowances for such 
failures.

A flexible approach ought to be adopted where possible,
even if this involves an adjournment.



Some of these problems are addressed in the Protocols of the Civil
Procedure Rules (CPR).

The Court Service has produced a new series
 of leaflets for unrepresented parties in the light of the CPR.



Directions and court orders



Unrepresented parties often do not understand pre-hearing
 directions (in particular those imposing time deadlines and ‘unless
 orders’) or the effect of court orders so:



ensure that they leave a directions hearing appreciating exactly 
what is required of them;

involve them in the process of giving 
those directions (e.g. asking them how much time they need to take
a particular step and why) so that they realise that the directions
 relate to the conduct of their own case;

explain fully the precise
meaning of any particular direction or court order.



Sometimes they believe that if the other side has failed to comply 
with such directions, that in itself is evidence in support of 
their own case, or the opponent should be prevented from defending
 or proceeding further.

They often feel upset at what they regard as 
an over-tolerant attitude by the courts to delays by solicitors.



Documentary evidence



A common problem is lack of understanding about the use and
application of documents and bundles.

Experience shows that
 unrepresented parties:



tend not to make sufficient use of documentary or photographic
evidence in their cases;

fail to appreciate the need for maps and
plans of any location relevant to the case.



Preliminary hearings represent an opportunity to give guidance on 
these matters.



Disclosure of documents



The duty to disclose documents is frequently neglected by
unrepresented parties.

Some will have little or no appreciation
that they should adopt a ‘cards on the table’ approach.


Consequently there can be delay, either because of the need to 
adjourn or because the judge or the other side requires time at the 
hearing to read recently disclosed documents.

When a pre-trial 
hearing takes place, a short clear explanation of the duty of
 disclosure and the test as to whether or not a document needs to be 
disclosed helps both parties and the court in terms of time saved.



Preparing bundles



Many unrepresented parties do not have access to office facilities
 and have difficulties in photocopying documents, preparing bundles
 and typing witness statements.

They have little concept of the need
 for documents to be in chronological order and paginated.

Putting 
the case back is often the sensible course to take, in the event of 
litigants coming to court with their bundles in other than proper
order.



Producing documents



All too often unrepresented parties do not bring relevant documents
with them to the hearing.

The court or tribunal is faced with the
comment:

‘I can produce it – it is at home’, but it is then too
 late and an adjournment is likely to be expensive and will usually 
be refused.



The party should have been warned in advance not only to disclose
relevant documents to the other side but to produce the originals 
at the hearing.



Sources of law



Most unrepresented parties do not have access to legal textbooks or
libraries where such textbooks are available and may not be able to
down-load information from a legal website.

Why not let an
 individual, accompanied by a member of the court staff, have access
to the court library or to a particular book?



Sometimes unrepresented parties do not understand the role of case
law and are confused by the fact that the judge or tribunal appears
 to be referring to someone else’s case.



A brief explanation of the doctrine of precedent will enable an
unrepresented party to appreciate what is going on and why.

A
re presented party’s lawyer should be told to produce any
 authorities to be relied on at the outset.

An unrepresented party
 must be given proper opportunity to read such authorities and make
 submissions in relation to them.



Live evidence



Judges and tribunal chairs are often told: ‘All you have to do is
 to ring Mr X and he will confirm what I am saying.’

When it is
 explained that this is not possible, unrepresented parties may 
become aggrieved and fail to understand that it is for them to
prove their case.



They should be informed at an early stage that they must prove what
they say by witness evidence so may need to approach witnesses in
advance and ask them to come to court.

The need for expert evidence
 should also be explained and the fact that no party can call an
 expert witness unless permission has been given by the court, 
generally in advance.



When there is an application to adjourn, bear in mind that
unrepresented parties may genuinely not have realised just how
important the attendance of such witnesses is.

If the application
is refused a clear explanation should be given.



Adjournments



Un represented parties may not appreciate the need to obtain an
adjournment order if a hearing date presents them with
 difficulties.



It is a common misconception that it is sufficient to write to the 
court without consulting the other side, merely asking for the case
to be put off to another date, or that no more than a day’s notice
of such a request is required.

Conversely, unrepresented parties 
may find it difficult to understand why cases need to be adjourned
 if they over- run because of the way in which they or others have
 presented their cases, or why their cases have not started at the
time at which they were listed.

..

...The hearing



The judge or chair of a tribunal is a facilitator of justice and
may need to assist the unrepresented party in ways that are not
 appropriate for a party who has employed skilled legal advisers and 
an experienced advocate.

This may include:



attempting to elicit the extent of the understanding of that party
 at the outset and giving explanations in everyday language;

making
clear in advance the difference between justice and a just trial on
 the evidence (i.e. that the case will be decided on the basis of
 the evidence presented and the truthfulness and accuracy of the 
witnesses called).



Explanations by the judge



Basic conventions and rules need to be stated at the start of a 
hearing.

The judge’s name and the correct mode of address should be
clarified. Individuals present need to be introduced and their
 roles explained... An unrepresented party who does not understand
 something or has a problem with any aspect of the case should be
 told to inform the judge immediately so that the problem can be 
addressed.

The purpose of the hearing and the particular matter or
 issue on which a decision is to be made must be clearly stated.

A
 party may take notes but the law forbids the making of personal
tape-recordings. If the unrepresented party needs a short break for
personal reasons, they only have to ask. The golden rule is that 
only one person may speak at a time and each side will have a full
opportunity to present its case.

..

...1.1.

Purpose of hearing



The purpose of a particular hearing may not be understood. For
example, the hearing of an application to set aside a judgement may
be thought to be one in which the full merits of the case will be 
argued.

The procedure following a successful application should be 
clearly explained, such as the need to serve the proceedings on the
defendant, for a full defence to be filed and directions which may
be given thereafter so that the parties know what is going to
 happen next.



The judge’s role 

It can be hard to strike a balance in assisting an unrepresented
 party in an adversarial system. An unrepresented party may easily
 get the impression that the judge does not pay sufficient attention
 to them or their case, especially if the other side is represented
 and the judge asks the advocate on the other side to summarise the 
issues between the parties.



Explain the judge’s role during the hearing.

If you are doing
 something which might be perceived to be unfair or controversial in
 the mind of the unrepresented party, explain precisely what you are
 doing and why.

Adopt to the extent necessary an inquisitorial role
 to enable the unrepresented party fully to present their case (but
 not in such a way as to appear to give the unrepresented party an
undue advantage).



The real issues



Many unrepresented parties will not appreciate the real issues in
 the case. For example, a litigant might come to court believing
 that they are not liable under a contract because it is not in 
writing, or that they can win the case upon establishing that the
 defendant failed to care when the real issue in the case is whether
or not the defendant’s negligence caused the loss.



At the start of any hearing it is vital to identify and if possible
 establish agreement as to the issues to be tried so that all
 parties proceed on this basis. Time spent in this way can shorten 
the length of proceedings considerably.



Compromise



Unrepresented parties may not know how to compromise or even that
they are allowed to speak to the other side with a view to trying
to reach a compromise.



Tell them, particularly in civil proceedings, that the role of the 
court is dispute resolution – explanations as to forms of 
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) may be appropriate.

Ask them
 whether they have tried to resolve their differences by negotiation 
and, if possible, spell out the best and worst possible outcomes at 
the outset.

This can lead to movement away from the idea that to 
negotiate is a sign of weakness.

Remind them to tell the court in 
advance if their case has been settled.



Advocacy



Often unrepresented parties phrase questions wrongly and some find
 it hard not to make a statement when they should be
cross-examining.

Explain the difference between evidence and
 submissions, and help them put across a point in question form.



Unrepresented parties frequently have difficulty in understanding
 that merely because there is a different version of events to their
 own, this does not necessarily mean that the other side is lying.


Similarly, they may construe any suggestion from the other side
 that their own version is not true as an accusation of lying.

Be 
ready to explain that this is not automatically so.



Where one party is represented, invite this advocate to make final
submissions first, so that an unrepresented party can see how it
 should be done.



Criminal cases

Under Article 6(3) of the European Convention of Human Rights,
everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to defend
him or herself in person or through legal assistance of his or her
 own choosing or, if he or she has not sufficient means to pay for 
legal assistance, to be given it free where the interests of
 justice so require.



Those who dispense with legal assistance do so, almost always,
because they decline to accept the advice which they have been
 given, whether as to plea or the conduct of the trial.

A firm hand 
almost always persuades such defendants that they are much better 
advised to retain their representatives.

If this does not work the 
problem for the judge is to do with retaining control over the 
proceedings rather than sensitive explanation to the defendant of
 the rules of procedure and evidence.



Cross-examination



Throughout a trial a judge must be ready to assist a defendant in
 the conduct of their case.

This is particularly so when the
 defendant is examining or cross-examining witnesses and giving 
evidence:



always ask the defendant whether they wish to call any witnesses;


be ready to restrain unnecessary, intimidating or humiliating 
cross-examination;

be prepared to discuss the course of proceedings
with the defendant in the absence of the jury before they embark on 
any cross-examination;

note the statutory prohibitions on
 cross-examination by an unrepresented defendant.



Conduct of the defence



Paragraph 5 of the Practice Direction Crown Court (Defendant’s
Evidence) [1995] 2 Cr App R 192 puts a duty on a judge to address 
an unrepresented defendant at the conclusion of the evidence for
 the prosecution and in the presence of the jury as follows:



You have heard the evidence against you. Now is the time for you to
make your defence.

You may give evidence on oath, and be
 cross-examined like any other witness.

If you do not give evidence
 or, having been sworn without good cause, refuse to answer any
 question, the jury may draw such inferences as appear proper.

That 
means they may hold it against you.

You may also call any witness
or witnesses whom you have arranged to attend court.

Afterwards you 
may also, if you wish, address the jury by arguing your case from 
the dock.

But you cannot at that stage give evidence.

Do you now
 intend to give evidence?



Summing up



In the course of summing up a case to a jury in which the defendant
is unrepresented, tell the jury that it was always open to
 defendants to represent themselves and that the jury should bear
 in mind the difficulty for defendants in properly presenting their 
case.

In some cases, such comments may be more appropriate at the
outset.



Adjournments



Sometimes a defendant in a criminal case becomes an unrepresented
party during the case either by reason of the defendant’s
representatives withdrawing or because they are dismissed by the
defendant.



Bear in mind that you may exercise your discretion in deciding
 whether or not to grant an adjournment to enable fresh legal
representatives to be instructed.

That decision should be based on
 what is in the interests of justice having regard to the interests
 of the witnesses, the public and the defendant, the stage reached
 in the trial and the likely ability of the defendant to conduct the 
defence case properly.

Bear in mind also the duty to warn a 
defendant against any course that might not be in that defendant’s 
best interests, but if the defendant decides to go on alone, allow
t hem to do so.



1.3.5 Assistance and representation



A party to civil or family proceedings may wish to be assisted by a
‘friend’ at a hearing or even represented by a person without
 rights of audience.



In a climate where legal aid is virtually unobtainable and lawyers
disproportionately expensive, the McKenzie friend and lay
representative make a significant contribution to access to
 justice.

But reported cases tend to concentrate upon reasons why 
they should not be allowed rather than circumstances where they may
be of assistance to a party and the court.

The judge has to 
identify those situations where such support is beneficial and
 distinguish circumstances where it should not be allowed.



In addition the need for a litigation friend must be recognised and 
this has changed with the introduction of a new mental capacity
 jurisdiction (see further Chapter 5.4, section 5.4.3).



‘McKenzie friend’



This term refers to an assistant or friend (whether lawyer or not) 
who assists in presenting the case by taking notes, quietly making
suggestions or giving advice.

The role differs from that of the 
advocate in that the McKenzie friend does not address the court or 
examine any witnesses and is generally permitted at trials or full
 hearings although the ‘friend’ can be excluded if unsuitable (e.g.
someone who is pursuing their own or an unsuitable agenda).

It may
be less appropriate to allow such assistance in private (chambers) 
hearings because the judge generally then provides more assistance 
to an unrepresented party.



A McKenzie friend may not act as the agent of the litigant in
 relation to the proceedings nor manage the case outside court (e.g.
by signing court documents).



The Court of Appeal summarised the principles in Paragon Finance
plc v Noueiri [2001] EWCA Civ 1402, [2001] 1 WLR 2357, as follows:



A McKenzie friend had no right to act as such: the only right was
 that of the litigant to have reasonable assistance.



A McKenzie friend was not entitled to address the court: if he did
 so, he would become an advocate and require the grant of a right of
audience.



As a general rule, a litigant in person who wished to have a 
McKenzie friend should be allowed to do so unless the judge was
 satisfied that fairness and the interests of justice did not so
 require.

However, the court could prevent a McKenzie friend from
 continuing to act in that capacity where the assistance he gave
 impeded the efficient administration of justice.



See also R v Bow County Court ex p Pelling [1999] 1 WLR 1811 and Re
G (Chambers proceedings: next friend) [1999] 2 FLR 59, CA.



A differently constituted Court of Appeal in Re O (Children): Re
W-R (A Child): Re W (Children) [2005] EWCA Civ 759; [2005] 2 FLR
967 (Thorpe LJ, Wall LJ) has since offered this guidance in family
proceedings:



There is a strong presumption in favour of a litigant in person
 being allowed the assistance of a McKenzie friend.

A request should
 not be refused without compelling reasons, even where the
 proceedings relate to a child and are being heard in private.

The
fact that the unrepresented party appears to be capable of
conducting his case does not begin to outweigh the strong
presumption in favour of allowing such assistance.

The fact that a
 proposed McKenzie friend belongs to an organisation that promotes a 
particular cause is no reason for not allowing him to undertake the
 role.

It was not for the litigant in person to justify his desire 
to have a McKenzie friend but for the objecting party to rebut the 
presumption in favour of allowing it.

There is no justification for 
refusing to allow a McKenzie friend simply because it is a 
directions hearing.

Proposed McKenzie friends should not be
 excluded from the courtroom or chambers whilst the application for
 assistance is being made.

The proposed McKenzie friend should 
produce a short CV or statement about himself confirming that he
 has not interest in the case and understands his role and the duty
 of confidentiality.



In February 2005, the President of the Family Division produced
guidance to judges in family proceedings and this is reproduced in
 the following pages.



Rights of audience

The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, section 27 regulates the
 right to appear in court.

General rights of audience (advocacy 
rights) are granted to duly qualified barristers or solicitors (and
certain others) and employees of solicitors may appear at hearings
in ‘private’.

In addition:

 the court may refuse to hear a person (for reasons which relate to
 him as an individual) who would otherwise have a right of audience 
but must give reasons;

a court has discretionary power to grant an
 unqualified person a right of audience in relation to particular 
proceedings before that court;

a special provision is made for lay 
representatives in the small claims track of the county court.


There is a right of audience in the presence of the party at the
 hearing itself but the court may in its discretion hear a lay 
representative in the absence of the party – Civil Procedure Rules
1998, PD27 para. 3.2;

Lay Representatives (Right of Audience) Order
1999.



Lay representative



The term ‘lay representative’ relates to a person who does not
 possess advocacy rights and may not even be a lawyer, but to whom
 the court grants a right of audience on behalf of a party in
 relation to the proceedings before that court.

The party must apply 
at the outset of a hearing if he wishes an unqualified individual to
 be granted a right of audience, and parties cannot consent to an
 unqualified person exercising a right of audience – Clarkson v
Gilbert [2002] 2 FLR 839 (CA);

D v S (Rights of Audience) [1997] 2
FCR 206; [1997] 1 FLR 724 (CA).



It may, however, be appropriate to grant a right of audience on a 
one-off basis (e.g. where a party is inform and cannot afford the
 services of a lawyer).

The following guidance was offered by Lord 
Woolf in Clarkson v Gilbert & ors (see above):



“Now that legal aid was not available as readily as it had been in
the past, there were going to be situations where litigants were
 forces to bring proceedings in person where they would need 
assistance. ... litigants in person had to indicate why they needed
some other person who was not qualified to act on their behalf. ...
it would be for them to satisfy the court that it was appropriate. 
If somebody’s health did not, or might no enable them to conduct
 proceedings themselves, and if they lacked means, those were the 
sort of circumstances that could justify a court saying that they
 should have somebody who could act as an advocate on their behalf.
... the objections to someone setting themselves up as an
 unqualified advocate did not exist where a husband was merely
 seeking to assist his wife.

”

But the party should still be present unless there is a justifiable 
reason for absence. It may even in some circumstances be helpful to
 a court or tribunal to recognise the representative as Neuberger J.
pointed out in Izzo v Philip Ross & Co (2001) The Times, 9 August
2001:



“In some circumstances common sense and experience suggests that a
relatively inarticulate and unknowledgeable litigant prompted at
 every turn results in the case taking far longer than if the friend
 speaks directly for him. Every time the court raises a point or 
puts a point to the litigant in person it has to be explained to
 the litigant which often takes longer than explaining it to his 
friend. Then the litigant has to have the answer explained to him
 by the friend, where after the litigant passes the answer to the
court. This is a process which self-evidently prolongs the hearings
and, like chinese whispers, is fraught with potential
 misunderstanding.”



Once the privilege has been granted it is difficult to withdraw it 
even if the representative turns out to be unsuitable.

Problems 
arise where an unqualified person is seeking to provide general
 advocacy services, or appears to be pursuing a separate agenda.

In
Paragon Finance plc v Noueiri (see above) the Court of Appeal
 offered guidance:



The discretion to grant rights of audience to individuals who did
 not meet the stringent requirements of the 1990 Act were only to be
exercises in exceptional circumstances and after careful
 consideration.

The courts had to consider carefully whether to
 grant rights to individuals who made a practice of seeking to 
represent otherwise unrepresented litigants.

The person to be 
represented should normally justify the request and be present at
 the hearing when personal interests are involved.



Conducting litigation



There is a distinction between the conduct of litigation on behalf 
of a party and advocacy at hearings.

The former relates to the 
claim form, statement of case and any applications made during the
course of the hearing.

A ‘statement of truth’ will generally be
required to support such documents and must be signed by the party
(or litigation friend) or the legal representative – CPR
r.22.1(6)(a).

Special provision is made in respect of companies –
see PD 22 para 3 and r.39.6.



The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, section 28 regulates the
 right to conduct litigations.



In Paragon Finance plc v Noueiri (see above) the Court of Appeal
 also offered the following guidance as to right of an unqualified
person to conduct litigation in the courts on behalf of a party:


the existence of such right is determined solely in accordance with 
Part II of the 1990 Act; section 28(2)(c) permits a court to grant
 an otherwise unqualified person the right to conduct litigation in
 relation to particular proceedings and to remove that right if it
 is being abused;

the grant of the right should be carried out 
having regard to the same considerations as the grant of a right of 
audience.



Attorneys

The court controls its own procedures and principles for agency do
 not apply, so a power of attorney cannot confer a right to conduct
 litigation or of audience – Gregory v Turner, R (on application of
 Morris) v North Somerset Council [2003] EWCA Civ 183; [2003] 1 WLR
1149 (CA).



Official Solicitor



The Official Solicitor represents parties prior to proceedings who 
are without capacity, deceased or unascertained when no other 
suitable person or agency is able and willing to do so.

The purpose
is to prevent a possible denial of justice and safeguard the
welfare, property or status of the party.



He usually becomes formally involved when appointed by the Court,
and may act as his own solicitor, or instruct a private firm of 
solicitors to act for him.

The vision statement of the Official
 Solicitor’s Office is:

“...

to be an organisation delivering high quality customer focused
 legal services for vulnerable persons, where those services need to
be provided by the public sector ...

”

Enquiries are frequently made by the judiciary and members of the
legal profession and the Official Solicitor can be contacted at:

81 Chancery Lane London WC2A 1DD DX 141150 London/Chancery Lane WC2
Tel.: 020 7911 7127 Fax.: 020 7911 7105 Email:
[email address] Website: www.offsol.demon.co.uk



Representing adults who lack capacity



An order directing the Official Solicitor to act as a legal
representative in a civil court for an incapacitated party will
 either be made with his prior consent or only take effect if his 
consent is obtained.

The Official Solicitor needs to be satisfied 
that his involvement will be consistent with the Vision Statement
 and in appropriate cases he will also require security that his 
charges and expenses will be met before agreeing to act.



Assisting the civil courts



The Official Solicitor may also be called on to give confidential 
advice to judges, to instruct counsel to appear before a judge to 
assist the court as advocate to the court, or to investigate any
 matter on which the court needs a special report...

...Personal Support Unit & Citizens’ Advice Bureau



Litigants in person should also be aware of the services provided
 by local Personal Support Units and Citizen’s Advice Bureaux. The
PSU at the Royal Courts of Justice in London can be contacted on
 020 7947 7701, by email at [email address] or at the enquiry desk.


The CAB at the Royal Courts of Justice in London can be contacted 
on 020 7947 6880 or at the enquiry desk.

1.3.6

After the hearing



Having won or lost the case, the unrepresented party will need to
understand what has happened and the options available or steps 
that can still be taken.



Explaining the decision



Unrepresented parties often do not understand the outcome of the 
case and the reasons for it.

The following guidance is particularly
 important, therefore, if they have lost.



Always set out clearly the reasons for the decision.

If possible,
provide an unrepresented party with a copy of the order before
 leaving the court.

If judgement is reserved, or the order is to be
 sent on, tell the unrepresented party approximately when they can
 expect to hear further from the court and why there may be a delay.



Costs



Unrepresented parties are frequently unaware that they may recover
costs, either from public funds in criminal matters or from the 
losing side in civil cases.

If such party is entitled to costs but
 says nothing, consider drawing the question of costs to their 
attention, without offering advice, so that any relevant costs 
application can be made.

If an application is made that an
unrepresented party pays the costs, an explanation must be given
 with an opportunity to argue against this.



Appeal



Unless the unrepresented party has been wholly successful in the
case, explain the requirement to seek leave to appeal, if 
applicable. Tell the unrepresented party to consider their rights
 of appeal, but explain that the court cannot give any advice as to
the exercise of those rights.



Enforcement



An unrepresented party may be wholly unaware of the fact that
although a civil judgement has been secured, it still has to be 
enforced.

It is important, therefore:

to explain this in general terms at the end of the case and to make
it clear that the court cannot advise on enforcement, but that
 leaflets are available at the court office; to explain the 
alternatives and that, short of giving advice, the court staff are 
always willing to try to help on matters of enforcement.

I HOPE THIS ASSISTS

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Kate Dimmon

THANK YOU FOR YOUR E-MAIL BELOW:

Data Access & Compliance Unit Information Directorate Zone 1 C Post
point 1.41 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ

T 020 3334 3243 F 020 3334 2245 E [email address]

www.justice.gov.uk

Email: [email address]

08 January 2009 Our Ref: FOI/57017/ME

Dear Mr Robinson,

Thank you for your email dated 23rd December 2008 in which you have
asked for an Internal Review into the handling of your request for
information with reference number FOI/57017/ME

Your request for an Internal Review is being handled in accordance
with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and will be passed to the
Unit that will carry out this process.

You will be contacted separately by the person conducting the
review but in the meantime please do not hesitate to contact me if
you have any queries.

Yours sincerely,

Katie Dimon Data Access & Compliance Unit

MY FOI REQUEST:

Does a civil restraining order prevent a citizen from the use of
the FOIA to obtain information via the Act.

APPEARS TO BE BEING IGNORED, OR PREVENTED BY A RESTRAINING ORDER. PLEASE CLARIFY.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit

I TRUST YOU WILL NOT ANSWER MY FOI REQUEST OR REVIEW IT.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Ministry of Justice

This is an Auto Reply from the Data Access & Compliance Unit.

Thank you for your e-mail.

If your message was a request for information please be advised that your
request is being dealt with and you will receive a written ackowledgement
shortly.

Data Access & Compliance Unit

Information Directorate

Ministry of Justice
1st Floor, Zone C, Postal Point 1.41
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

Fax: 0203 334 2245

E-mail: [email address]

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.

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

I TRUST YOU WILL NOT ANSWER MY FOI REQUEST OR REVIEW IT.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Ministry of Justice

This is an Auto Reply from the Data Access & Compliance Unit.

Thank you for your e-mail.

If your message was a request for information please be advised that your
request is being dealt with and you will receive a written ackowledgement
shortly.

Data Access & Compliance Unit

Information Directorate

Ministry of Justice
1st Floor, Zone C, Postal Point 1.41
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

Fax: 0203 334 2245

E-mail: [email address]

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.

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

I TRUST YOU WILL NOT ANSWER MY FOI REQUEST OR REVIEW IT.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Ministry of Justice

This is an Auto Reply from the Data Access & Compliance Unit.

Thank you for your e-mail.

If your message was a request for information please be advised that your
request is being dealt with and you will receive a written ackowledgement
shortly.

Data Access & Compliance Unit

Information Directorate

Ministry of Justice
1st Floor, Zone C, Postal Point 1.41
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

Fax: 0203 334 2245

E-mail: [email address]

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.

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

I TRUST YOU WILL NOT ANSWER MY FOI REQUEST OR REVIEW IT.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Ministry of Justice

This is an Auto Reply from the Data Access & Compliance Unit.

Thank you for your e-mail.

If your message was a request for information please be advised that your
request is being dealt with and you will receive a written ackowledgement
shortly.

Data Access & Compliance Unit

Information Directorate

Ministry of Justice
1st Floor, Zone C, Postal Point 1.41
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

Fax: 0203 334 2245

E-mail: [email address]

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.

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

IF YOUR E-MAIL IS FOR F ROBINSON PLEASE ADDRESS IT AS SUCH.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Ministry of Justice

This is an Auto Reply from the Data Access & Compliance Unit.

Thank you for your e-mail.

If your message was a request for information please be advised that your
request is being dealt with and you will receive a written ackowledgement
shortly.

Data Access & Compliance Unit

Information Directorate

Ministry of Justice
1st Floor, Zone C, Postal Point 1.41
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

Fax: 0203 334 2245

E-mail: [email address]

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.

Mr fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

I am the applicant formally known as fred robinson.

With regard to my 19 FOI Requests dated between February 19th and March 13th 2009. I have received the following letter from The Access & Data Compliance Unit at Petty France dated July 7th 2009 regarding a DPA Subject Access Request in a letter received on June 1st 2009.

I have not made such a request as I have never address any written correspondence to the Unit at any time, the Unit states:

“Thank you for your letter of June 1st 2009 in which you made a Subject Access Request (SAR) for information held by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relating to yourself. Under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), the MoJ must comply with the request within 40 days of its receipt, or if later within, within 40 calendar days of receipt of the necessary information such as proof of identity or the prescribed fee. The MoJ charge a fee of £10 for this service in line with the provisions of the DPA. The fee can be paid either by cheque or postal order and should be made payable to Her Majesty’s Paymaster General or HMPG. Proof of identity can be confirmed by providing a copy of a recent utility bill or a copy of the photograph page of your passport or driving licence. Unfortunately, we cannot currently process your request due to the requirements of the outstanding charge. It should also be noted that I can see several specific requests in your letter relating to information held by the Information Commission but have been unable to identify exactly what information you are requesting from the MoJ. Due to the size of the Department, it is not possible to conduct a general search of each MoJ location. I would be grateful if you could let me know which parts of the Department you wish me to conduct the searches, eg such as a specific office of the Tribunal Service or court in Her Majesty’s Court Service. Wherever possible please also supply a timescale over which you believe the information would be held.”

Mr fred robinson

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org