'Resolver"

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Ministry of Justice should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Ministry of Justice,

Please could you respond to this legitimate FOI enquiry with the Nolan Principles at the core of your style of response.

A) If a UK citizen encounters open and blatant perjury in every one of their visits to a County Court or a Magistrates Court in East Anglia; what strategies and protocols does the Ministry Of Justice have in place for its staff and employees in order to ensure the public's confidence in the rule of UK law?

RE: The on-line complaints service title "Resolver".
The link; https://www.resolver.co.uk/freeadvice/se...

B i) How long has "Resolver" been in operation?
Bii) Who developed Resolver and under who's direction?

C) Where can one view the audit and statistics for "Resolver" in order to ascertain whether it is a trustworthy and genuine route for aggrieved victims of perjury to pursue?

Di) Which column provides the best route for complaining about perjury in Court?
Dii) Is there a legal reason for not making the word "perjury" clearer to those who log in to "Resolve"?
Diii) When was "Resolve" last tested and reviewed for ease of use and accessibility?

E) Do HMCTS staff have a duty to inform Person In Litigation or complainants and service users about "Resolver"?

F) Since 2016, how has the service called "Resolver" been promoted at Norwich County County and Ipswich Magistrates Courts? The root of my query is, for those members of the public who live in an area of poor Internet connectivity or have no Internet skills, how were they to know about "Resolver"?

G) How often is the service "Resolver" reviewed in order to confirm whether it is Fit For Purpose?

Yours faithfully,

Fiona Watts

#lawcomMIPO

HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence),

Dear Ms Watts

Thank you for your email of 12 April,  which has been passed to this team
of HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) to respond as the agency
responsible for the administration of the courts in England and Wales.

Your enquiry did not fall under the Freedom of Information regime and was
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.

A)   Perjury is a criminal offence and should be reported to the police.
The offence of perjury is defined by the Perjury Act 1911 and involves
someone wilfully giving false information whilst under oath in judicial
proceedings. The Act also dictates that it is an offence that is triable
on indictment only. This means that there has to be a formal statement of
the charges that are being brought against the person in order to initiate
the criminal proceedings. Any such allegation would need to be considered
by the police at some stage and referred to the Crown Prosecution Service
for a decision to be made about whether the matter should be taken to
court.  This does not, however, determine that the police must make a
decision to investigate all allegations of perjury that are put to them. 
Part of the function of the judge is to decide between conflicting
evidence that which he/she finds most credible.  
 
In relation to your questions about Resolver, this is an additional method
by which a customer can complain, but customers can still contact the
appropriate court or tribunal directly (if preferred) if they wish to
complain about our service.  The ability for customers to make
administrative complaints through Resolver was introduced between November
2016 and March 2017.  Resolver is an independent company and their website
helps consumers raise and resolve issues with a range of
organisations.  Resolver is not owned or run by HMCTS.  Further
information about Resolver can be found at their website: resolver.co.uk.
 
If a customer attempts to raise a complaint about the outcome of a case
through Resolver (and we would consider perjury within that categorisation
as affecting the outcome of a case), then it does provide the following
information:

 

It is an important feature of the UK constitution that the judiciary are
independent.  The decision of a case is independent of HM Courts &
Tribunals Service (HMCTS), which is responsible for the administration of
courts and tribunals only. HMCTS is not responsible for judgments in your
case.

 

Further information about potential actions is then provided (i.e. how to
complain about a judicial decision or judicial conduct etc).  This
information replicates information provided on our existing complaint form
EX343 - 'Unhappy with our service - what can you do?

 

Resolver has recently been introduced nationally and HMCTS will continue
to consider ways to promote it with our customers and monitor its
effectiveness.

 

Kind regards

Karen Hamilton
Customer Investigations Officer | HMCTS Customer Directorate

show quoted sections

Dear HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence),

I am very distressed and upset by Karen Hamilton's response on here and have no idea as to why she would ignore my bullet points in her answers?

But this much I do know;

1) An advocate's and a victim's complaints about perjury at Norwich County Court by SERCO and the NHS have never been progressed since 23rd December 2015.

2) The Justice Clerk for East Anglia confirmed in writing that complaints on E.on's repeated perjury between June 2007 and 2017 were never progressed by anyone in his team since 20th January 2017.

3) Against that backdrop of blatant Misconduct In Public Office; the answer I get on here patronises me with advice to go to the police. Well, if the police and the Manchester Coroners Office had best done their job between March and September 2004, I wouldnt have been forced to flee Manchester and move to a region where I encountered a fresh cycle of Child Welfare issues.

4) What the FOI answers on here have confirmed to me is that UK citizens seem to have no basic Human Rights? A woman seems to have been punished just for being a Good Samaritan since 2004? The style of response to most FOI's on here is that the Public & Private sector Services will never be held to account by "the Law" in the UK, certainly not at the courts in Norwich or Ipswich.

Yours sincerely,

Fiona Watts
@magnacarta300
 #lawcomMIPO

Dear HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence),

My apologies; correction

Since December 2014 not 2015.

Yours sincerely,

Fiona Watts

Dear HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence),

Yes, I soon realised that RESOLVER was not part of HMCTS, but the graphics, links and style of introduction on your website last month, implies that it has been implimented and was embedded as a strategy to improve the service at HMCTS. I was mistaken and I apologise and I retract Questions; B & C.

Please adhere to The Nolan Principles when reviewing the following;

- However, I had checked the UK's data laws and there is no justifiable reason for not complying with the questions; A, D, E, F and G.

- Question G is very relevant; the Justice Clerk admitted that no complaints about repeated perjury against a citizen at Ipswich County Court on 20 January 2017 and 17 February 2017 had been progressed by May 2017. But even on RESOLVER, the complaint has stalled again.

Yours sincerely,

Fiona Watts

HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence),

2 Attachments

Dear Ms Watts

Thank you for your further emails. I am sorry that you were distressed by my previous response but I can assure you that I was not ignoring your bullet points but trying to provide a full and more helpful response.

As previously explained, perjury is a criminal offence and should be reported to the police. You cannot make a complaint about perjury through the administrative complaints process.

There is nothing further that I can usefully add on the subjects you continue to raise. In line with HMCTS' procedures, I will not be replying again unless you raise new issues. This will also apply to any letters or emails sent to named government officials, which are passed to this department for response. Any letters or emails which raise new issues will of course be answered in the normal way.

Kind regards

Karen Hamilton
Customer Investigations Officer | HMCTS Customer Directorate

show quoted sections

Wladimir Klitschko left an annotation ()

Ministry of Justice said:

"A) Perjury is a criminal offence and should be reported to the police. The offence of perjury is defined by the Perjury Act 1911 and involves someone wilfully giving false information whilst under oath in judicial proceedings. The Act also dictates that it is an offence that is triable on indictment only. This means that there has to be a formal statement of the charges that are being brought against the person in order to initiate the criminal proceedings. Any such allegation would need to be considered by the police at some stage and referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision to be made about whether the matter should be taken to court. This does not, however, determine that the police must make a decision to investigate all allegations of perjury that are put to them. Part of the function of the judge is to decide between conflicting evidence that which he/she finds most credible."

See paragraph 46 of the link....

https://www.scribd.com/document/34196201...

"Where a judge or magistrate believes that some evidence adduced at trial is perjured s/he can recommend that there should be a police investigation.

The absence of such recommendation does not mean that there is no justification for an investigation."

Dear HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence),

I refer you to the life-line provided by a UK Citizen & Good Samaritan on 5th June 2017 whereby the factually correct data is confirmed.

"Where a judge or magistrate believes that some evidence adduced at trial is perjured s/he can recommend that there should be a police investigation. ".

I asked some FOI questions on here and this one still requires an answer!

A) If a UK citizen encounters open and blatant perjury in every one of their visits to a County Court or a Magistrates Court in East Anglia; what strategies and protocols does the Ministry Of Justice have in place for its staff and employees in order to ensure the public's confidence in the rule of UK law?

Now, I am still clueless as to what the protocols are strategies are for HMCTS staff to follow when they are witness to repeated perjury against a vulnerable citizen who has no access to any GP, NHS service or unbiased Council Tax and/or public service due to being blocked from resolving a decade of perjury that has been progressed against them in court?

Yours sincerely,

Fiona Watts

@magnacarta300
#MisconductInPublicOffice

Wladimir Klitschko left an annotation ()

They're taking their time with this one

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org