Procedure when someone has suppressed information
Dear Tribunal Procedure Committee, Could you please tell me the procedure if, after a hearing, it is found that the respondent has suppressed information and committed perjury within that legal hearing? Said suppressed information would have changed that hearing immeasurably and can be proven beyond doubt.
Yours faithfully,
Christopher Barrs
Dear Mr Barrs,
Thank you for your e-mail, I am writing to advise you that your enquiry does not fall under the Freedom of Information regime and will be treated by the department as Official Correspondence.
It may be helpful if I explain that the Freedom of Information Act (2000) gives individuals and organisations the right of access to all types of recorded information held, at the time the request is received, by public authorities such as the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Section 84 of the Act states that in order for a request for information to be handled as a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, it must be for recorded information. For example, a Freedom of Information request would be for a copy of a policy, rather than an explanation as to why we have that policy in place. On occasion, the Ministry of Justice receives requests that do not ask for recorded information, but ask more general questions about, for example, a policy, opinion or a decision.
Since you are asking for the procedure process in a Tribunal this will be dealt with as Official Correspondence and you can expect a response from the appropriate area of the department.
If you do have any questions relating specifically to the Freedom of Information or Data Protection Act, please contact the Data Access and Compliance Unit at the following e-mail address: [Tribunal Procedure Committee request email].
Many Thanks
Data Access and Compliance Unit
Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,How do you intend to contact me with an answer to this question?
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Barrs
Dear Mr Barrs,
Thank you for your email.
You will receive a response through your what do they know account, please refer any queries to [email address]
Many Thanks
Laura
Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit, These people are telling me that the AHMLR has no power to investigate perjury and suppression of information, that can be proven to have taken place at one of their hearings! This can't be right?
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Barrs
Mr Barrs,
Please find attached letter in response to you request for an internal
review.
Thanks
Michael Nuna,
Band C - Delivery Manager
Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber (UTIAC)
Field House, 15 -25 Breams Buildings, London, EC4A 1DZ
Tel: 020 7073 4129 | E-mail: [email address]
I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to
make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry of
Justice in any way via electronic means.
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.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
Dear Nuna, Michael,
I thank you for your very late reply to my query however, you are still not answering the question as posed. I am not requesting that the AHMLR change his verdict nor am i asking for the title of the land to be changed. I am telling you that I have irrefutable proof that the respondent suppressed information and committed perjury in the AHMLR court of law. It is the AHMLR duty to uphold the law and to see that justice has been done. The crimes of perjury and suppression of information were perpetrated under your jurisdiction, to mislead the AHMLR and cause a miscarriage of justice. I understand that a decision has been made and that you cannot change that and that is not my request.
What I am asking is what other steps/sanctions can be imposed in this case?
If the AHMLR are happy to simply accept that they have been cheated in this case and will not be bothering to do anything about this, then please simply say so. You can then send out the message, loud and clear, to all future persons appearing before AHMLR that it is perfectly acceptable to lie, cheat, perjure yourself and put forged documents before the adjudicator as nothing will be done when it is found out.
Once again what steps can be taken by AHMLR to address these crimes?
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Barrs
I will be out of the office until the 2nd September 2013. Paul Sagoe will be covering my role, please continue to send emails to my inbox as he will have access to it.
Thanks
Michael Nuna
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.
Dear Mr Barrs,
Please find attached the internal review reply.
Thanks
Michael Nuna.
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.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
Dear Tribunal Procedure Committee,If what Mr Nuna is telling me, is true, then it leaves the AHMLR as an absolute joke. If there is no procedure in place to deal with suppression of information and perjury then what is the point of adjudication? Surely the adjudicators aim is to seek the truth and then make his findings based on that truth? The adjudicators directions are perfectly clear, you must declare all evidence even if it harms your own case and is helpful to the other party. This clearly has not been done by the respondent, so what is the point of that statement if the adjudicator is not going to act when his directions are not complied with? Also all witnesses in his court swear an oath to tell the truth, if they are then proven to have lied then that is perjury and if the adjudicator is not going to take action against that, then again, what is the point of being made to swear to tell the truth?
I have written documentation that proves suppression of information has taken place. This in turn proves that the majority of the witness statements on the respondents behalf contain outright lies. This then facilitated verbal evidence being given to the adjudicator that is also proven to be untrue. If you are telling me that the AHMLR is powerless to act on that then the adjudication system is a complete waste of time and public money and a waste of my money because there was no interest in seeking the truth.
At the very least I would expect the adjudicator. Mr Cowan, to be very indignant about being lied to in his court and having the wool pulled over his eyes and would therefore pressurise the police into investigating this matter. If not then where does that leave the adjudication system?Totally corrupt and void of any moral worth!
Will you go to the police with this matter?
Yours faithfully,
Christopher Barrs
Good afternoon Mr Barrs
Thank you for your e-mail, I am writing to advise you that your enquiry does not fall under the Freedom of Information regime.
It may be helpful if I explain that the Freedom of Information Act (2000) gives individuals and organisations the right of access to all types of recorded information held, at the time the request is received, by public authorities such as the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Section 84 of the Act states that in order for a request for information to be handled as a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, it must be for recorded information. For example, a Freedom of Information request would be for a copy of a policy, rather than an explanation as to why we have that policy in place. On occasion, the Ministry of Justice receives requests that do not ask for recorded information, but ask more general questions about, for example, a policy, opinion or a decision.
If you do have any questions relating specifically to the Freedom of Information or Data Protection Act, please contact the Data Access and Compliance Unit at the following e-mail address: [Tribunal Procedure Committee request email]
Kind regards
Data Access and Compliance Unit
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France, 10.34
SW1H 9AJ
www.gov.uk
Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,So you are telling me that it is perfectly acceptable to commit any crime you like before the adjudicator and he will not take any action? You are supposed to be upholders of the law! Why will you not go to the police and report these crimes?
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Barrs
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
Christopher Barrs left an annotation ()
I am actually asking for the procedure or process post tribunal for something that went seriously awry during the tribunal rather than a procedure or process during the tribunal.