Suppression of information
Dear Tribunal Procedure Committee, I am still awaiting a reply on this matter. You must surely have written guidance on your procedures to follow when it transpires that someone has suppressed information and committed perjury in one of your hearings? It is not as if you have to formulate an answer is it? Why is it taking so long?
Yours faithfully,
Christopher Barrs
Mr Barrs,
Please see attached letter.
thank you.
Abdul Muhit
Knowledge & Information Liaison officer
SSCS, HMCTS, Ministry of Justice
¨Save Paper - Do you really need to print this e-mail?
I am not authorised to bind my Department contractually, nor to make
representations or other statements which may bind the Department 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 Muhit, Abdul (TSMH),
Apologies, I assumed that it would be the same requirement for all suppression of information cases. This was a hearing before the deputy adjudicator to Her Majesty's land registry. The evidence in the case file makes very clear assertions about the respondent's use of some land.
A (successful) adverse possession claim was made against that piece of land a long time before the hearing. We were never told of that claim and neither was the deputy adjudicator. That claim would have removed most of the respondents evidence. The fact that he suppressed that information allowed him to perjure himself before the deputy adjudicator.
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Barrs
Dear Mr Barrs,
I refer to your request for information and written guidance on the
procedures the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry follows when it transpires
that someone has suppressed information and committed perjury in one of
our hearings.
In response I attach our guidance entitled "Information on Appeals and
Stays". Please note that the Adjudicator is unable to set aside orders
addressed to the Chief Land Registrar. Any challenge to such an order
would have to be by way of an application for permission to appeal the
order. The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry does not have any specific
guidance on when someone has suppressed information and committed perjury
in a hearing.
Sarah Mo
Sarah Mo
PA to Mr Edward Cousins
Adjudicator to HM Land Registry, HM Courts and Tribunal Services,
7th Floor, Victory House, 34 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6EX
Tel: 020 3077 5810 | E-mail: [email address]
Please note that I am in the office on Monday, Wednesday and Friday
[1]www.ahmlr.gov.uk
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.
References
Visible links
1. file:///tmp/www.ahmlr.gov.uk
Dear Mo, Sarah,This is not the information requested. I specifically want to know what actions the tribunals or the adjudicator take on this matter? A crime has been committed during the course of a legal hearing, both suppression of information and perjury, surely the tribunals cannot be happy to accept these crimes and have a procedure to take action against the perpetrator?
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Barrs
Dear Mr Barrs,
I can confirm that the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry has no procedure to take action in such circumstances.
Sarah Mo
Sarah Mo
PA to Mr Edward Cousins
Adjudicator to HM Land Registry, HM Courts and Tribunal Services,
7th Floor, Victory House, 34 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6EX
Tel: 020 3077 5810 | E-mail: [email address]
Please note that I am in the office on Monday, Wednesday and Friday
www.ahmlr.gov.uk
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.
Dear Mo, Sarah,Are you telling me that the adjudicators are perfectly happy to allow perjury and suppression of information in their courts? The directions of the adjudicator, pre hearing, demands that all information be disclosed, even if detrimental to ones own case and yet you say there is no redress if this is proven not to have happened? I would think that entering false evidence and lying to the adjudicator should be viewed as a very serious matter as, indeed, it is in a high court or magistrates court. The land registry act section 123 outlines the punishment for the crime of suppression of information, which can be up to two years imprisonment and yet the adjudicators are just perfectly happy to let this occur in their courts? Surely they must want some redress?
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Barrs
Dear Mo, Sarah,If there is no "procedure" to take action on this matter, does that mean that the adjudicators are perfectly happy to allow suppression of information, contrary to the directions they give? Are they happy to allow someone to perjure themselves in a hearing before the adjudicator? No procedure for dealing with this makes a mockery of the tribunals process. If there is no procedure what is the norm?
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Barrs
Dear Mo, Sarah, If you look at section 55 of practice and procedure rules 2003 you will see that failure to comply with the adjudicators directions will lead to sanctions against the offending party, no time limits are mentioned and no mention is made of whether the offences are discovered pre or post hearing. Are you still telling me that nothing can be done to impose those sanctions?
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