RE:- Ndole Assets Ltd Versus Designers Services UK Ltd Judgment 21-12-2018 Paragraph 64 and 79

The request was refused by Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman.

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Dear Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman,

I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee do hereby request that:-

1) There is a Judgment given in the Court of Appeal on the 21st December 2018.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/...
Paragraph 64 of the Judgment does mention of Section 27 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990

2. Do you have the Supreme Court Judgment on Patel versus Mirza which was an appeal on Illegality.

3. Please provide the Numbers of Complaints for Mal-administration causing Injustice which have been reported to the Lord Chancellor SS Ministry of Justice

Yours faithfully,

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

headofoffice, Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman

Thank you for your email. Please note if you have sent your email to a
large number of recipients we will not send you a response unless your
email specifically refers to a matter which is within the Ombudsman's
remit for consideration.

show quoted sections

headofoffice, Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman

Dear Mr Bhamjee,

Thank you for your e-mail to the Office of the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO).

You will be aware that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 creates a general eight whereby any person making a request for information to a public authority (which includes this Office) is entitled to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and, if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him. There are certain exemptions to this general right of access. However, the starting point is that the public authority has to hold the information in question.

Point 1 in your e-mail is a statement. I cannot see that it is requesting any information.

We do not hold the Supreme Court judgment in Patel versus Mirza (point 2) and so there is no requirement on this Office to provide it. However, we have found information about the case on the Supreme Court's website:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2...

I will need more information from you in order to respond to point 3 in your request. You asked for the numbers of complaints for maladministration causing injustice which had been reported to the Lord Chancellor and the Ministry of Justice. It is relevant to this that:

1.The JACO's judicial conduct remit is to consider complaints about the process by which concerns about Judicial Office Holders’ actions have been considered under the arrangements for dealing with personal conduct issues. The Ombudsman can consider whether those who considered such matters (referred to as “First Tier Bodies – see below) followed the set down procedures or whether there was any other aspect of maladministration in the investigation process. If the Ombudsman finds maladministration he can set aside the First Tier Body determination and require that the matter be reconsidered. He can also recommend that compensation be paid in respect of loss suffered from maladministration in the judicial conduct investigation process. However, he cannot review the merits of decisions made and therefore cannot say whether a Judicial Office Holder’s actions amount to misconduct. Nor can he comment on matters before the Courts.

2.In most cases the First Tier Bodies are the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) – who are responsible for the initial consideration of complaints about the Courts Judiciary, Coroners and some other Judicial Office Holders; Tribunal Presidents – who are responsible for initial consideration of complaints about members of their Tribunal (although they can delegate this responsibility to senior Judges within their Tribunal); and local Advisory Committees – who are responsible for the initial consideration of complaints about Magistrates. Their role is set out in legislation and guidance available on the JCIO’s website (the set down procedures referred to above). They are required to consider whether there are issues in a Judicial Office Holder’s personal conduct that might warrant the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice imposing a disciplinary sanction and, if so, passing the matter for further consideration. Ultimately decisions as to whether a disciplinary sanction are imposed are for the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice. A key point is that the Judicial Complaints process does not provide scope to challenge Judicial decisions and that First Tier Bodies are required to reject complaints that do not contain an allegation of misconduct and to dismiss those which fall into a number of categories, including those which are about judicial decisions or judicial case management and which do not raise a question of misconduct or are about people – such as HM Courts and Tribunals Service Staff – who are not Judicial Office Holders. The JCIO’s website contains guidance on the distinction between judicial decisions and judicial case management on the one hand and personal conduct on the other.

3.If the JACO accepts a case for review (or fill investigation) he is required to show his reports in draft to the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice and to take account of comments received in finalising his views.

With this in mind we would be grateful if you could:

1.Confirm that your reference to a complaint of maladministration refers to complaints alleging maladministration in the judicial conduct investigation process.

2.Clarify what you mean by a matter causing injustice.

3.Clarify what you mean by reporting to the Lord Chancellor or Ministry of Justice. Are you referring to matters such as the process by which the JACO refers reports about the judicial conduct investigation process in draft to the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice or are you thinking about some other form of reporting?

We will consider this point in your request again in the light of your response to these points.

I hope that this is useful. Although we have not yet fully determined your request I should advise that if you are dissatisfied, you have the right to apply for an Internal Review of a decision made in respect of a request for information. Please address any request to the Office Manager, Ms Joan Wilson, at the JACO Office (eg by replying to this e-mail). Thereafter if you remain dissatisfied you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner’s Office for a decision. The Information Commissioner’s Office is at Wycliff House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely

John Critchfield

Judicial Appointment and Conduct Ombudsman’s Office
1st Floor (1-55), The Tower
102, Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ

0203 334 2902

show quoted sections

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Dear headofoffice,

I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee do request your attention and consideration that:-

1) Any Parliament Act and Statutory Instrument issued by any Minister of the Crown are public Records, where this includes the treaties which are made on Behalf of Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom with any Foreign State or at the United Nations.

2) The Constitutional Reform Act 2005, This does have the words:-
Mal-administration and you should be aware of the meaning as you are there to serve the members of the Public.

3) You have replied to Paragraph 64 of the Judgment, since it does mention the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 between the 1st January 1991 and the 31st December 2009.

I am not alone who has been involved in a Miscarriage of Justice
as there are many persons involved.

4. You do have the decisions made in the High Court of Justice Administrative Court on the 21st February 2019 and 27th June 2018
Before Mrs Justice Lang DBE

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi...

This case was about British Overseas Citizen- Declaration made

Since the Judges and Masters in the Chancery Division are not familiar with the Immigration and Nationality Cases,

The Transcript of the Judgment does provide evidence that your Office have treated me unfairly in the Past and many persons will suffer injustice as a result.

5. The Parliament does make Laws and Change the Laws and Repeals other Acts and Statutory Instruments,
When the Judge or District Judge makes a decision He or She does rely on the repeal Parliament Acts or Statutory Instruments.

Say for Instance a decision has been made before a County Court District Judge-
The Persons Appeal to the Circuit Judge, the Appeal is heard and a decision is made.
Than there is an Appeal made to the Court of Appeal,
A Decision is made in the Court of Appeal.

The Appeal is made to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom,

The Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom does not take into consideration of the Changes which have been made by Statutory Instruments which does override and superseded the decision made by the High Court Judge or the Circuit Judge,
This does cause unnecessary expenses and volume of work whilst some of the Barristers are benefiting from the proceeds of unlawful Conduct.

6. There is Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Statutory Instrument 1995 No 297.
There is a decision made in the House of Lords where in one of the Paragraphs it does mention of Section 73A
This has caused injustice to me and other Citizens.

7. The Legal Advisors and Clerks in the Magistrates Court, They are required to provide a Statement of Case for the Opinion of the High Court when they give their decisions, but they normally refuse and a Person can't appeal to the High Court of Justice,
This is part of Mal-administration causing injustice and The Legal Advisors or Clerks should given their reasons as soon as possible.

8. When a request is made before any Court or Tribunal for a copy of the Court Order or Claim Form.
Some Court Officers does refuse to provide the Copies of the Claim Form and Court Order and Inform the Price to pay over the Phone.

Since Credit Card Payments are accepted outside London, but there are not accepted in London, whilst the Card Details and Security Number can't be provided in an Email.

Yours sincerely,

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

headofoffice, Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman

Thank you for your email. Please note if you have sent your email to a
large number of recipients we will not send you a response unless your
email specifically refers to a matter which is within the Ombudsman's
remit for consideration.

show quoted sections

headofoffice, Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman

Dear Mr Bhamjee

Thank you for your e-mail.

I had asked for clarification in respect of your request for information about the number of complaints for maladministration causing injustice that had been reported to the Lord Chancellor and the Ministry of Justice. I have assumed from your e-mail that you are asking about the number of cases in which maladministration has led to a Court ruling that is (in neutral terms) incorrect and unjust.

My previous e-mail explained the Ombudsman's judicial conduct remit, as well as the roles of the bodies that he oversees. These arrangements do not include reviewing judicial decisions. Therefore, this Office would not have determined whether maladministration led to an injustice, in the terms to which you refer. It would not have reported any such cases to the Lord Chancellor and the Ministry of Justice.

I hope that this information is helpful. I previously advised that if you are dissatisfied with the outcome of your request, you have the right to apply for an Internal Review. Please address any request to the Office Manager, Ms Joan Wilson, at the JACO Office (eg by replying to this e-mail). Thereafter if you remain dissatisfied you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner’s Office for a decision. The Information Commissioner’s Office is at Wycliff House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely

John Critchfield

Judicial Appointment and Conduct Ombudsman’s Office 1st Floor (1-55), The Tower 102, Petty France London SW1H 9AJ

0203 334 2902

show quoted sections