Recorded cases of established fraud and/or corruption by serving judges.

Waiting for an internal review by Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service of their handling of this request.

Dear Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service,

Please can you supply details of the number of public complaints about perceived corruption by serving judges and a summary of the outcome of such complaints, over the last 5 years.

Yours faithfully,

Mr J Brick.

Dear Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service,

Re:FOI request regarding recorded cases of established fraud and/or corruption by serving judges.

It is my understanding that, by law, I was entitled to a prompt response to my enquiry no later than 6 June 2012 which has not happened.

Please can you reply by return to advise when a full response may be forthcoming.

Yours faithfully,

John Brick.

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Brick,

According to our records, a final response was issued to you on 6th June 2012. Please find this attached.

Best Wishes
Kate

Kate Balding|Business Coordinator

Data Access & Compliance Unit
Ministry of Justice|10th Floor|Post Point 10.34
102 Petty France|London|SW1H 9AJ

show quoted sections

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

Attn Ms E Mannon.

Thankyou for your response (8/6/12) to my FOI request.You advise that you wrote to me on 10 May and 6 June. Please advise where you sent these communications as I have no record of having received them.

As regards the subject of my enquiry, you advise that HMCS does not hold any recorded information on the matter.
As OJC you refer me to the Annual Reports. The last available (2010-11) advises some 1638 complaints received about judges plus some 830 enquiries. The report states that some 1050 of the complaints related to judes decisions and so were not considered relevant for investiagtion. If the 830 enquiries were also about judges decisions (which seems likely as they were not pursued with the OJC) this gives some near 1900 complaints and concerns in 2010-11 about judges decisions, which can only be dealt with by other judges.
As the concern is about possible corruption within the judiciary it does not allay fears that the only parties to control this matter are the self-governing judges.It appears that the vast majority of complaints which HMCS clearly dismiss may, in fact, be concerns about corruption.

From the information thus far supplied in response to my request, there appears to be no control or checks by HMCS on corruption in the judiciary (real or perceived) by serving judges but for which there appears to be a very real need.

It appears the OJC only investigates Judicial Misconduct which does not include possibly deliberately wrong or orchastrated judgements by judges. The only judicial avenue for a victim of this is to Appeal to the Appeal court who rely heavily on the writtain judgement of the offending judge in deciding if there is any merit in reviewing the judgement. As this written judgement could contain deliberate misrepresentation of facts, the potential for unabated corruption is obvious.

I would like HMCS to consider the merits of this and advise any safeguards that it has against it.

Please advise if there are any HMCS policy documents, covering the matter of corruption in the judiciary, which are available to the public and which can be obtained by a FOI request.

Yours sincerely,

John Brick.

PS It is accepted that the majority of serving judges are decent, honest and dedicated individuals.

Yours sincerely,

John Brick.

Hiden, Geoff,

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Brick
 
I attach a reply to your FOIA request, ref 77014.
 
 
  
 
Yours sincerely
 
Geoff Hiden | HR Policy & Projects Advisor | Judicial Office | 10D |
Thomas More Building | Royal Courts of Justice |Strand |London |WC2A 2LL|
020 7073 4809 | [1]www.judiciary.gov.uk
 
 

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.

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/www.judiciary.gov.uk

Dear Hiden, Geoff,

Thank-you for your response (16/8/12) to my FOI request of 29/6/12.I will be assessing the information supplied. Initially however I am becoming concerned about the administration of the FOI system by HMCS.
You apologise for the delay in responding, which you say was caused by an 'administrative error'
The response to my initial request was also outside the legal time requirements and HMCS additionally claimed that previous correspondence had been sent to me. I have asked where to as I received nothing. I have not had an answer to that. Is that also an administrative error?

To remind, my FOI enquiry revolves arround perceived corruption and deceipt in the judiciary.

I have asked Bristol County Court if judges are required to keep note books in hearings but not had acknowledgement or response.

Additional to my FOI enquiry I now need to ask if jude's are required to keep such notebooks and also how long tape recording of hearings are held and available.

Yours sincerely,

J.Brick.

Yours sincerely,

J Brick.

Yours sincerely,

John Brick.

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service

Dear Mr Brick,
 
Thank you for your enquiry below - asking for the following:
 
"if judge's are required to keep such notebooks and also how long tape
recording of hearings are held and available"
 
I am writing to advise you that your enquiry does not fall under the
Freedom of Information regime and will be dealt with 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, we receive requests that do not ask for a copy of recorded
information, but ask more general questions about, for example, a policy,
opinion or a decision.
 
Since you are asking for clarification on notebooks and record retention
of hearing recordings, it would be best dealt with by our Ministerial
Correspondence Unit (MCU) who will process your query as Official
Correspondence.
 
I have copied them into this e-mail but they can be contacted via the
contact details in the following link:
[1]http://www.justice.gov.uk/contacts/moj#gen should you wish to follow up
this e-mail.
 
Finally I would also be grateful if you would specify what aspect of your
original request you are seeking an Internal Review of.
 
Best Wishes
Kate
 
Kate Balding|Business Coordinator
 
Data Access & Compliance Unit
Ministry of Justice|10th Floor|Post Point 10.34
102 Petty France|London|SW1H 9AJ
 

show quoted sections

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,
Attn.Kate Balding, Business co-ordinator

Thank-you for your e-mail.

Whilst I am disappoined that there apparently remains some 2000 complaints per year from the public about possible fraudulent conduct by judges, yet with no obvious satisfactory means of remedy (or indeed retribution) I appreciate that the Data Compliance Unit is not the department to advance this matter. However, I'm grateful for the input of recorded information supplied and which I think highlights the problem very clearly and I remain concerned that these glaring facts are not being acted upon.Again this is not the realm of Data Compliance but there appears little point information gathering and then not acting on it as logic dictates.The real emerging problem appears that there is no-one judgeing the judges.It is with much regret, and benifit of recent experience, that I feel obliged to say that in regards to some judges this may appear to indeed be necessary.I will need to pursue this matter elsewhere.

Whilst not specifically related to the original substance of the enquiry as such, I am still concerned that resonses from yourselves were not received within the required time frame (forgivable) but more so that claims were made that they had been addressed within that time(less forgivable if untrue).I have asked for explanation and clarification (e-mail 29/6/12) but none received to date. Hence this was the subject request for review in absence of any proper explanation being given.(The response "administrative error" is not considered a proper response.)I think it is a matter that should be cleared up because there may be some failing in the system in which the Data Unit genuinely beleives that it has responded to enquiries when in fact none has been received.This matter could be affecting other parties making enquiries and so should be looked into. If the fault lies with myself I sincerely apologise but I cannot, as, yet find this to be so. If it is that someone from Data Compliance merely thought they had sent responses but later found they had not, then this can rest the matter if it be the case.

Yours sincerely,

John Brick.

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service

Dear Mr Brick,

Thank you for your email below.

Firstly may I just apologise if you have been unsatisfied with our service.

With regard to an explanation and clarification to the delay in responding to you, unfortunately sometimes it does take us longer to gather all the evidence to support our replies to the requester which can cause a delay, and sometimes there are administrative errors which also cause delays.

I can assure you that we have put in processes to ensure that we do answer requests on time.

Again I apologise for the delay in responding to you.

Laura Benson
Data Access & Compliance Unit
Ministry of Justice|10th Floor|Post Point 10.34
102 Petty France|London|SW1H 9AJ

show quoted sections

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,
FAO Ms L Benson,

Thank you for your response.

Unfortunately it did not address the issue raised. I was not complaining that the response to my enquiry was merely out of time but rather that HMCTS had alleged that it had not been. I asked for clarification/explanation of this point which I still do not have.

Thus far it appears that HMCTS is making false statements in order to look like it is responding within the prescribed time-limits. The fact that it fails to meet the deadlines troubles me less than an apparent attempt to 'cover-up' the failing.

A further apparent evasiveness only adds concern to the integrety of the system. I did not set out to challenge the administration role of HMCTS - my concern was to try and establish if there was a lack of integrety and honesty in the judiciary.(With what appears to be in excess of 2000 cases of possible fraud by judges, I think the case is clearly found). However, am I also to beleive that HMCTS operates on a less than honest basis also?.

Some open frankness would be nice and maybe this will filter back through the judicial system and there may be some desire to improve what appears to be a very questionable system.

Just an explanation of why apparent misleading statements were made, or correct my error of understanding, is all that is required.

Yours sincerely,

John Brick.

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service

Dear Mr Brick,

Thank you for your email and I apologise that I did not address the issues raised before.

I have looked at the response sent out to you on 16th August 2012 under reference 77014 and I can see that HMCTS have apologised for the delay to you are aware that the request is late.

If you wish to make a complaint about the timelessness of your response then you can contact the Information Commission Office who can look into this further for you. There website is http://www.ico.gov.uk/.

Unfortunately I cannot see that any misleading statements were made, if I am incorrect then please accept my apologies on their behalf, therefore I am unable to give an explanation to this.

I am sorry I can not be of more assistance to you at present.

Many Thanks

Laura Benson
Data Access & Compliance Unit
Ministry of Justice|10th Floor|Post Point 10.34
102 Petty France|London|SW1H 9AJ

show quoted sections

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

Attn Laura Benson.

Dear Ms Benson,

Thank you for your e-mail. Unfortunately it does not address the issue raised.

I will try and recap as succinctly as I can:

In an e-mail dated 8 June HMCTS stated (in an attached letter)that it had written to me on 10 May and 6 June. I said I had no record of this and asked where these communications were sent. I am still awaiting an answer to this.

Yours sincerely,

John Brick.

PS Please note: I do not need any more apologies for the delay in sending replies, as this is not the issue.

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service

Dear Mr Brick,

Unfortunately, I have been unable to locate your request on the What Do They Know website and as such, I have been unable to look into the history of your case and respond to your query below.

I would be grateful if you would provide me with a direct link to your case.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best Wishes
Kate

Kate Balding|Business Manager

Data Access & Compliance Unit
Ministry of Justice|10th Floor|Post Point 10.34
102 Petty France|London|SW1H 9AJ

show quoted sections

J. Goldman left an annotation ()

The memorandum clearly states it is for general information purposes. It does not require a signature and is thus not a binding a contract. Therefore what if any influence can it have?

The following at (83): ''For security reasons, judicial office holders are advised to obtain ex-directory telephone numbers and never to disclose their private addresses and telephone numbers for publication in any form of circulated publication, for example in ‘Who's Who’. Judicial office holders should note that information in the Electoral Register is accessible electronically and they may wish to elect to appear on the full register (access to which is controlled) rather than the edited register (which is accessible to all who wish to purchase a copy). Office holders should also note that a requirement of the Companies Act 1985 is that company directors declare a range of personal details, including their home address and occupation. While it is not possible to avoid declaring one's home address, it is sufficient to declare one's occupation as Company Director or Company Secretary, since it is not a requirement that the primary occupation (i.e. Judge) is declared.''

This could arguably aid a Judge, if so inclined, to hide any unsavoury conduct could it not?

What, if any, procedures are in place to ensure adherence to these guidelines I wonder?

Judges take two oaths, is blind expectation they will adhere to them sensibel? Aren't they after all human?

Getting married entails taking an oath, yet a 50% divorce rate would suggest oaths are frequently broken.

Widespread resistance to better controls could be indicative of something to hide. After all if they were so good surely they would welcome greater scrutiny and genuine accountability?

Steven Oldfield left an annotation ()

I am one of the appoximately 2000 people who have encountered a Judge of deplorable conduct. The Judge in my case was seemingly very corrupt and also very stupid which would normally leave him open to prosecution. therein lies the problem as my case involved likely corruption of Police Officers and CPS members of staff. Now I have sought redress over these matters but it appears that I can only effectively complain to my wife. However she is more inclined to get on with the dinner! goodness! Life at the cutting edge aye! Steve O'

Farzana Haque left an annotation ()

All my cases in the last 15 years have suffered corruption, judicial fraud and bullying dictatorship behaviour even inside the courtroom. These are happening because of corrupt legislation preventing us from taking in cameras and tape recorders and seeking help from other authorities, restricting our speech eg use of words like 'corruption, judicial fraud' and making 'subjectivity' basis of deciding acceptable, also restricting appeals by making them discretionary and subjective etc. The courts have been made even more expensive, and most importantly accountability of judges have been removed, ie they get to do whatever they like, eg falsify evidence, obstruct hearings, allow untested and unchecked false defence statements, discriminate and conspire, are just a few things. I have frequently come across the evidence of Defendant to Judge relationships as well.

Colin Peters left an annotation ()

I have added an annotation quoting my website at
http://colinpetersbd40jh.tripod.com/truth
as being a prime and provable instance of glaring judicial corruption.

John Bradshaw left an annotation ()

So many people facing the same issue.The Royal Courts of Justice HMCTS Geoff Denman, was fully aware of my allegations of judicial perverting of justice, deceit and public official misconduct (Stoke on Trent judge by Ros Duggan) and signposted me to OJC. It quickly became clear that OJC ignores the rights, welfare and dignity of children and parents and overtly favours the cover up of judicial corruption and criminality. Lord Justice Munby is fully aware of the corruption and cover up of child abuse in Staffordshire. At last , after already being sentenced to prison , I have found evidence to prove my innocence9 police declined to investigate although I knew there must be a computer record to help prove my innocence) but the same high court is unsure whether I can even present this info . Lorraine Cavanagh continues to wish me to put in prison, but her criminal conduct like that of Staffs county council and the Judge Duggan has been raised to the police and neither case number provided nor investigation has yet happened. Ms. Cavanagh is an ambitious, and very intelligent barrister who I believe knows full well how to manipulate rules and procedures to promote her financial and reputional well- being and cover up her criminal perjury and perverting of justice and the child abuse by foster carers. I have protested repeatedly to MP, select judicial committee, Ofsted , IPCC and court (google my name) and outside the Home office. Theresa May has yet to respond let alone investigate the issues which I believe are similar to Stafford hospital ie widespread cover up and collusion.

John Bradshaw left an annotation ()

I have started a Change.org petition to Secretary for justice to stop courts using hearsay as fact.(on facebook)
I have stood outside Royal and Supreme courts, Police HQ, Cabinet offices all in London- outside Staffs County council and police HQ in Stafford and outside St. John's barristers chambers in Manchester. I believe there are many partners in crime in the collusion and cover up of the manipulation and abuse of the law. At last I have evidence to prove my innocence but Judge Perry is unsure whether I can submit it!!I thought HMCTS is meant to be unbiased but I also have received court documents reflecting court decisions- that were not discussed in court!It is as if HMCTS can also just make up the records- and my requests to get the transcripts( dependant on the Judge Perry's permission) have failed to get a response yet. Anybody got any ideas?

I was surprised to hear Michael Gove talk about the two tier system- it more than two tiered but he shows some insight- but how does accountability come to court when Staffs police fail to investigate or even record the allegations about the perverting of justice?

Victor Foglia left an annotation ()

There is a ongoing petition reporting Fraud on the Court which seems to be spreading out of control - People can support the petition to ask the government support to investigate and stop the Fraud in the Court epidemic here:
https://www.change.org/p/david-cameron-b...

Farzana Haque left an annotation ()

I would like to add further message for the petition : it is this :
This state of affairs is not the result of simply a bunch of crooks taking control arbitrarily, it is the result of long term planning because the laws that facilitate corruption have been implemented stage by stage, over the decades, so one has to ask the question is there a specific agenda by a certain group of people ? And if so, what is that agenda ? How does it benefit them to aggravate the public with injustices at every opportunity ?
Judges have well paid jobs, so what is their satisfaction, or why do they get satisfaction to hurt genuine victims ?

I have written an article called the, 'The Pro-fraud Laws of Britain' and I managed to post it to the Respect Party's website about a year and a half ago. The only way to solve this 'organized crime' by the Judiciary is to produce a list of judges who need to be sacked from every layer of hierarchy and demand that the British legislative body restores accountability of judges back to the public.

Transparency needs to be restored. Public should be allowed to capture evidence of the judge's conduct via tape recorders, videos and photographs where necessary. Court reception desks need to be returned to their original tasks of giving proper receipts for documents submitted. Judges' role needs to be defined as 'an agent of law only' ie they should have no other power other than to strictly apply the law based on evidence. Any deviation from the law should be answerable to open public scrutiny. Appeals should be restored to an, 'immediate right of review' removing the step 'Permission to Appeal', If it can be shown that a judge lied on his judgement or got the facts wrong or disobeyed the law and the case management rules. Previously ie probably at least up to 15 years ago, one could ask for a judge to explain his decision or ask to retrieve court tapes free of charge, but today court evidence has been levied with a very high price and this is a measure to obstruct and make difficult access to justice. No one should have to pay for evidence, evidence is central to justice. It is what distinguishes truth from a lie, and no decision of a judge can be made without the evidence. It is hard to understand why access to CCTV or other evidence has been made difficult when it is supposed to assist a court for its decisions. So whoever decided it is highly corrupt.

Many structural changes were made during the Tony Blair's government and one of the key changes they made was to bring more and more courts and legal jurisdiction under fewer and fewer channels of control. This enabled fewer and fewer power rulers to control the appeals from wider and wider sectors. So it means that appeals hardly got a breath of fresh air review as the same characteristics of corrupt personalities are able to pervade/seep through all sectors of law.

The public don't go to court to be subject to a human being's personal whim or emotion based, political based or racial based opinion, the public go to court to have their injustices addressed through objective law application. Any behaviour that steps outside of strictly objective application of law needs to be held accountable. Judges should be put through online ratings scrutiny just like hotels and businesses have to earn their place so too should judges.

Victor Foglia left an annotation ()

STOP FRAUD ON THE COURT IN THE UK - PETITION - Here:

Fraud upon the court is devastating for the victims waiting and hoping to receive relief from the courts. The victims lose their homes, their assets, their jobs, their companies and ultimately their liberty and health in breach of their fundamental human and statutory rights.

The nature, extent and sophistication of this fraud, is far beyond the comprehension and reach of the average litigant in person and law enforcement officers by the police force.

This scam is often used by banks, legal professionals, private companies, and dishonest landlords and council officers aided by court’s officers. Meanwhile criminal convictions and assets stripping founded on complex illegalities and irregularities send every day honest hardworking families and people left penniless and homeless in the streets begging for help.

Please support the petition here:
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/s...

The petition includes a brief explanation to understand the basic of this subtle and complex type of fraud and some useful links with a contact details to send opinions and get some help if possible. Any person who believes to be a victim of Fraud on the Court can send their opinions contacting UK PEOPLE at: publicinquiryfraudonthecourt2016@gmail.com

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org