Training of Judges

J Wilson made this Freedom of Information request to Judicial College

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was refused by Judicial College.

Dear Judicial Studies Board,

According to your website, The Lord Chief Justice is responsible for judicial training. Yet when I tried to search on it for any reference to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 I found no results, so does he accept the blame for this?

Can you please therefor inform me of what training or advice, if any, has been issued to judges in the UK since 1949 regarding their obligations to respect these rights under the UN Charter?

In addition to that Declaration, which this Member State of the UN pledged to uphold there have been two International Covenants dated 1966, although it took 10 years even to get those ratified.

What additional training and advice has been issued to judges regarding those, which this State has also failed to comply with? Surely the failure of the Courts and Parliament to respect all those rights and freedoms has undermined every judicial decision since 1949 at least?

Does the Judicial Studies Board, for example, require all judges to report the number of decisions which they have reached, or the number of Court Orders issued, without any hearing? In particular I am concerned with the treatment of 'litigants in person'. So what information does any alleged authority involved with the courts hold, which could prove that they are given 'fair and public hearings' to which they have the right?

Do you,or others, have records of how many 'hearings' are heard 'in camera' when the public are excluded, to compare with the number of other hearings?

The 'Fairness guide 2007' gives them advice, which I believe they are ignoring. Another issue on this, is the provision of reasons for their decisions. Again what data is collected to show that these are ever given any significance or observance?

How can the commonly used phrase "having considered all the evidence" be justified as a reason, if the the defendant has had no hearing at all or otherwise has not been allowed a defence against any claim?

If no records of such violations exist, then how can the system claim to be respecting human rights at all?

Yours faithfully,

J Wilson

JSB Publications,

Thank you for your email. The Judicial Studies Board is responsible for
the training of judges. Human rights is not treated as a stand-alone
subject for training, but rather a subject that is embedded in UK law,
and therefore in the other courses that are held for judges. More
details of those courses can be found in the JSB's Annual Reports at:
http://www.jsboard.co.uk/aboutus/annualr....

No statistics or data on the work of the courts is held by the JSB.

I hope that this is of some help.

show quoted sections

Dear JSB Publications,

Thank you for replying, but this does not answer my questions, apart for the confirmation that the JSB does not hold statics about legal decisions by courts. I would like to know who does and why you did not ask them for that information?

As for the Annual Reports which you referred me to, I did a quick search through them for references to the "Universal Declaration" and found none.

There was one mention in the latest one, to a lecture being given by some Lord, on the 'Universality of Human Rights' which is a feature of the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration and the 2 International Covenants, but not part of UK Law and clearly hasn't been since 1949 for the following reasons.

General Comment No.16 (2005) issued by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, on the 11th Aug 2005 said in its introduction:-
"The equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all human rights is one of the fundamental principles recognized under international law and enshrined in the main international human rights instruments. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) protects human rights that are fundamental to the dignity of every person. In particular, article 3 of this Covenant provides for the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of the rights it articulates. This provision is founded on Article 1, paragraph 3, of the United Nations Charter and article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Except for the reference to ICESCR, it is identical to article 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which was drafted at the same time".

However, the same Committee said in 2002, in reply to the UK's 4th periodic report on its implementation of the International Covenant on these rights stated:-
"The Committee deeply regrets that, although the State party has adopted a certain number of laws in the area of economic, social and cultural rights, the Covenant has still not been incorporated in the domestic legal order and that there is no intention by the State party to do so in the near future. The Committee reiterates its concern about the State party’s position that the provisions of the Covenant, with minor exceptions, constitute principles and programmatic objectives rather than legal obligations that are justiciable, and that consequently they cannot be given direct legislative effect (see paragraph 10 of the Committee’s concluding observations of December 1997 (E/C.12/1/Add.19))".

They repeated those concerns on the 12th June 2009 in paragraph 13 of their next report, again stating:-
"the Covenant has still not been incorporated into
the domestic legal order of the State party and cannot be directly invoked before the courts. It also regrets the statement made by the State party’s delegation that economic, social and cultural rights are mere principles and values and that most of the rights contained in the Covenant are not justiciable".

The CCPR Committee has also repeatedly made similar comments on Civil and Political Rights, including stating as recently as 30th July 2008:-
"The Committee notes that the Covenant is not directly applicable in the State party. In this regard, it recalls that several Covenant rights are not included among the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights which has been incorporated into the domestic legal order through the Human Rights Act 1998. The Committee also notes that the State party is the only Member State of the European Union not to be a party to the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. (art.2)". This also justly criticizes the European Convention, only parts of which are included in the Human Rights Act 1998.

This clearly constitutes a universal violation of those rights, as the States position is simply illogical and untenable. In 1949, this State was involved in ensuring that the Universal Declaration rights were incorporated into German Basic Law, so why have we in the UK been denied them and still are?

So, although the United Nations has emphasised the importance of equality of men and women and the universality of all human rights and freedoms, it is a fact that UK law is still not compatible with that, so does the JSB accept any responsibility for this?

The Universal Declaration itself stated only one 'aspiration' which was:-
" to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction".

Clearly the JSB is an organ of society so had an obligation to play its part in complying with this pledge. What records are held of the part the JSB played in the decision to ignore it in 1949 or since?

Your reply to my enquiries seems to imply that even the JSB (whom I assume was around in 1948) ignored this part of the pledge by this State to educate its citizens of all their rights and to 'secure' them through progressive 'national and international' measures including laws and educating judges.

Will you please therefore ask the Lord Chief Justice himself, to confirm that there are no records held whatsoever, since 1949 or later, of any discussions with Government, including internal memos, or any guidance or advice issued to judges concerning the Universal Declaration or the 2 International Covenants which the State signed with the UN over the last 61 years?

Or else, if there is anything at all, please let me have copies of them and publish them for everyone else to see too, as it is in the national interest for all citizens to know who has denied us our rights and why?

Yours sincerely,

J Wilson

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Judicial College

Freedom of Information Request FOI/63828/10

Data Access & Compliance Unit
Information Directorate
Zone 6 B
Post point 6.25
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

T 020 3334 3251
F 020 3334 2245
E [email address]

www.justice.gov.uk

02-MAR-10 Our Ref:FOI/63828/10

Dear J Wilson,

SUBJECT: Freedom of Information Request

We have been passed your correspondence of February 26, 2010, in which
you asked for information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).

Your request is being considered under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA) and you will receive a response from us by March 26, 2010.
Your request has been passed to the appropriate business unit within the
MoJ, and they will write to you with their decision by this date.

The FOIA does provide a number of exemptions. A qualified exemption
requires that before relying on it we must consider the public interest
test. If the information you have requested is covered by a qualified
exemption(s) under FOIA, the Department is allowed to take longer than
20 working days to respond. This is because in such circumstances we are
required to consider the public interest issues when deciding whether or
not to disclose the information requested.

If more time is needed to consider the public interest issues under a
qualified exemption(s), we will write to you and inform you of the
revised date you can expect to receive a response to your request.

If you have any queries regarding this request please do not hesitate to
contact us. Please quote ref: FOI/63828/10 in all future correspondence.

Yours sincerely,

Hannah Law
(Sent on behalf of Caroline Banjo)
Data Access and Compliance Unit

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.

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,
Hannah Law,
Ref: FOI/63828/10

Thank you for the acknowledgement but I did not ask for this information from the Ministry of Justice, but the Judicial Studies Board. I assume they asked you to reply in their stead as they do not have the information I requested. Is that correct?

I trust that you will answer it fully, within the time promised and will not try to evade the issue for any reason. Otherwise I will have to assume that the failure to answer is an admission of guilt on behalf of the State, which has clearly failed to comply with its International obligations.

If the Judicial Studies Board is/was responsible for the education of Judges, presumably they are/were also aware if the UN Resolution 53/144 of the 9th Dec 1998. This placed further obligations on the State to educate its citizens, not just judges, about how all human rights have been implemented in UK Law.

So if neither Judges, nor the Judicial Studies Board knows about these rights and obligations how are we expected to know them? Surely such 'acts' as failing to educate everyone, including judges, is a violation of Article 30 of the Declaration itself? This was also included in Article 17 of the European Convention.

Regards,

J Wilson

Yours sincerely,

J Wilson

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Judicial College

This is an Auto Reply from the Data Access & Compliance Unit.

Thank you for your e-mail.

If your message was a request for information please be advised that your
request is being dealt with and you will receive a written acknowledgement
shortly.

Data Access & Compliance Unit

Information Directorate

Ministry of Justice
6th Floor, Zone B, Postal Point 6.23
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

Fax: 0203 334 2245

E-mail: [email address]

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.

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,
Freedom of Information Request FOI/63828/10

I was told on the 2 March by a Hannah Law, that this request was being dealt with, and if any delays were likely I'd be told when a reply could be expected.

I expected a reply by law, by the 23 March 2010 which has now passed by. Please therefore reply immediately, as I'm sure everyone would like to know why the Judicial Studies Board has not played it's part in securing human rights in this country, despite the legal obligations of Judges to uphold International Law when making their own decisions, which appears to be the facts of the matter in the UK since 1949.

Yours sincerely,

J Wilson

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Judicial College

This is an Auto Reply from the Data Access & Compliance Unit.

Thank you for your e-mail.

If your message was a request for information please be advised that your
request is being dealt with and you will receive a written acknowledgement
shortly.

Data Access & Compliance Unit

Information Directorate

Ministry of Justice
6th Floor, Zone B, Postal Point 6.23
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

Fax: 0203 334 2245

E-mail: [email address]

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.

J Wilson left an annotation ()

Is it just me being paranoid, or who else thinks that they'll try to dodge this one, on the grounds that it will cost over £600 or is not in the 'national interest'?

I think the State seems to have a strange interpretation of 'national interest' which to them, means that its not in the interest of the 'State' or 'Nation' for people who are considered as 'subjects' to know the truth.

Especially when Governments are aided and abetted in perverting the aims of the UN, by Judges who've ignored International Human Rights instruments, on the basis that they've never been incorporated into UK law. The UN has repeatedly reminded the Governments of their failures, but the Judicial Studies Board and all judges are still partly to blame, as they are part of the 'State' too.

Dear Judicial Studies Board,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Judicial Studies Board's handling of my FOI request 'Training of Judges'.

My initial request to the JSB appears to have been passed to the Ministry of Justice who has since then ignored it, as they seem to do with every request made by anyone, through this website.

Since a General Election is now upon us next month, then I assume that all voters would like to know what part every State body, including the JSB, has played in securing all the rights and freedoms promised since 1948, or has otherwise failed to do so.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tr...

Yours faithfully,

J Wilson

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Judicial College

Internal Review IR/64639/10

Data Access & Compliance Unit
Information Directorate
Zone 6 B
Post point 6.25
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

T 020 3334 3237
F 020 3334 2245
E [email address]

www.justice.gov.uk

14-APR-10 Our Ref:IR/64639/10

Dear Mr/Ms Wilson,

Thank you for your correspondence of April 6, 2010, in which you asked
for an Internal Review into handling of your request for information
with reference number FOI/63828/10.

Your request for an Internal Review is being handled in accordance with
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and will be passed to the Unit that
will carry out this process.

You will be contacted separately by the person conducting the review but
in the meantime please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
queries. Please quote Ref: IR/64639/10 in all future correspondence.

Yours sincerely,

James Noble
(Sent on behalf of Michael Evans)
Data Access and Compliance Unit

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.

Woollard, Lucy, Judicial College

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Wilson

Please see our attached response.

Yours sincerely,

Lucy Woollard

Lucy Woollard <<FOI - 63828 - J Wilson.doc>>
Human Rights Division

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.

J Wilson left an annotation ()

This reply comes too late and is the usual nonsense about cost limits being used to deny the information again, when they should already have this info to hand in case anyone asks for it. Or else it should be available in one place rather than suggesting I need to trawl the Internet for it.

I've already requested the Internal Review and been told it's going ahead so will they just support this reply and do nothing constructive either? I've also already found UN Documents which prove the Government has lied about complying with International Human Rights Covenants too, so will at least have to ask them what are they talking about?

Dear Woollard, Lucy,

Your response is allegedly in answer to my email of 26 Feb, which was itself a reply to a response from the Judicial Studies Board on my original questions of the 22 Feb 2010. Since I'd been told to expect a reply by the 26 March I have already requested an Internal Review and have been told this will be done, so trust they will consider the delay which has occurred in sending me this reply, when dealing with their review, rather than just the content of it.

However as to that, I had asked for the information from the JSB who passed it on to you instead of replying themselves, rather than the Ministry of Justice which has also failed to answer other requests I've made on human rights information. Therefore neither of you seem to be eager to comply with the FOI Act any more than you comply with International Human Rights Instruments.

You in fact initially confirm that you do hold the information I seek, but then suggest that supplying it to me under the FOI Act would exceed £600, which is 3.5 days work. Given that I have been waiting on this reply since the 26 March at the latest, haven't you already spent more than 3.5 days and £600 compiling this completely unsatisfactory response to my request? Perhaps the Internal Review will be able to confirm this for me?

You then suggest that I could find this information on the National Archives website and others on the UN website too, which I have already searched and have made several references to these in my comments on the 26 Feb, which you have simply ignored. So please do not patronise me with comments about how I may wish to "narrow the scope of my request" in the faint hope that this might succeed in extracting some of what I seek. All the information which you already say you hold should be freely available to the public, without the limitations of the FOI Act being invoked.

Insofar as my request related to judicial training in the first instance and my follow up on the 26 Feb, which was supporting my opinion of the States failures to comply with 2 International Covenants, then perhaps you can at least confirm why the JSB website doesn't already contain information about these or the Universal Declaration of 1948 and what training judges have been given on any of them?

This link to the UN website http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ details all relevant International Laws however, I am simply concerned with the first three listed, because I know for a fact that they have not been complied with and Judges have not had training in them at all, based on what the JSB and now yourself have said. Otherwise the UN would not have made the following comments in their "concluding observations" in their ICCPR or ICESCR reports.

From the Economic Committee report E/C.12/GBR/CO/5 of 12 June 2009 para. 13 "The Committee urges the State party to ensure that the Covenant is given full legal effect in its domestic law, that the Covenant rights are made justiciable, and that effective remedies are available for victims of all violations of economic, social and cultural rights. The Committee reiterates its recommendation that, irrespective of the system through which international law is incorporated in the domestic legal order (monism or dualism), following ratification of an international instrument, the State
party is under a legal obligation to comply with such an instrument and to give it full effect in its domestic legal order. In this respect, the Committee again draws the attention of the State party to its general comment no. 9(1998) on the domestic application of the Covenant".

[General Comment no.9 begins thus "In its general comment No. 3 (1990) on the nature of States parties’ obligations (article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant) the Committee addressed issues relating to the nature and scope of States parties’ obligations" and simply states later that "The central obligation in relation to the Covenant is for States parties to give effect to the rights recognized therein"].

And in para. 15 of the aforementioned report - "The Committee recommends that the State party take effective measures to increase awareness of economic, social and cultural rights among the public at large as well as among judges, public officials, police and law enforcement officials, medical practitioners, and other health care-related professionals, including by lending adequate support to civil society and national human rights institutions in their efforts in relation to awareness raising. It also recommends that the State party take steps to improve awareness of the Covenant rights as justiciable human rights and not merely rights as part of the “Welfare State”.

Or in 16 "The Committee recommends that the State party take remedial steps to enforce existing legal prohibitions of discrimination and to enact, without delay, a comprehensive anti-discrimination law, guaranteeing protection against discrimination in the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, as stipulated in article 2, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. It also recommends that the State party consider making such comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation applicable to Northern Ireland". Their list of 'concerns' continues to paragraph 37.

They had also expressed some of these concerns in their 2002 report E/C.12/1/Add.79 of the 5 June 2002, when they stated for example, "The Committee is concerned that human rights education provided in the State party to schoolchildren, the judiciary, prosecutors, government officials, civil servants and other actors responsible for the implementation of the Covenant does not give adequate attention to economic, social and cultural rights". That report listed 3 pages of recommendations which had obviously not been complied with by the time the 2009 report above was compiled.

One of those recommendations in 2002 also referred to an earlier report on the failure to implement the ICESCR when it said "Affirming the principle of the interdependence and indivisibility of all human rights, and that all economic, social and cultural rights are justiciable, the Committee reiterates its previous recommendation (see paragraph 21 of its 1997 concluding observations) and strongly recommends that the State party re-examine the matter of incorporation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in domestic law".

Similar recommendations relating to judges were made in the ICCPR report CCPR/C/GBR/CO/6 of the 30 July 2008 para.6 "The State party should ensure that all rights protected under the Covenant are given effect in domestic law and should make efforts to ensure that judges are familiar with the provisions of the Covenant. It should consider, as a priority, accession to the Optional Protocol to the Covenant".

So why have none of these recommendations been complied with and Judges instructed to apply the Covenants when deciding any UK cases, regardless of the Governments' failures, because they ought to follow International Laws when deciding cases, not just UK or EU law? Surely these efforts should have been made to educate everyone, including the judiciary, since 1949. Is that the fault of the JSB or the Ministry of Justice?

How can you reasonable argue that this information, which you allegedly already hold, is going to cost over £600 and how significant is that in the grand scheme of deliberate non-compliance by the State to its International Human Rights obligations, including educating judiciary and the people of all their rights?

How can any judgements issued since 1949, which have ignored these rights be legally binding on the victims of the State's perversion of justice?

Yours sincerely,

J Wilson

Evans, Michael, Judicial College

1 Attachment

Mr J. Wilson

E-mail address

Our Ref: 64639

Dear Mr Wilson,

Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Time Complaint

Thank you for your e-mail dated 6 April in which requested that we review
the way in which you r request for information was handled by the Judicial
Studies Board, in particular the length of time it was taking to respond
to you.

Your request for a review has been passed to me to carry out in my role as
an internal review advisor for the Ministry of Justice.

I would like to begin by apologising for the length of time it has taken
to respond to your request for information and the inconvenience this will
have caused you. Unfortunately, this delay was necessary to consider where
the information requested was held and whether it would have exceeded the
cost limit to process it. I can confirm that this process has been
completed and a response was sent to you on 15 April, which I have
attached to this e-mail.

I trust that this answers your request but if you are not satisfied with
this response you can apply to the Information Commissioner to review it,
who can be contacted at the following address:

 
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
 
E-mail: [1]www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk
 
If you have any queries concerning this review please do not hesitate to
contact me.
 
Yours Sincerely,
 

Michael Evans| Internal Review Case Adviser | Data Access & Compliance
Unit | 102 Petty France | Ministry of Justice | 020 3334 3237.

show quoted sections

J Wilson left an annotation ()

Yet again another refusal to provide information which ought to have been collected as a matter of course, so should be to hand for anyone seeking it. I have had to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner, including this paragraph.

"As my evidence submitted to the JSB & Ministry of Justice has shown, the United Nations has repeatedly told the Governments of this State, that Judges should have received training in Human Rights based on the International Bill of Rights, which includes the Universal Declaration of 1948, and the two International Covenants which became legally binding on this State after they both became ratified and "entered into force" in 1976. So if the State has failed to educate Judges about our Human Rights, as well as ignoring our right to know them too, then they are just allowing incompetent judges to make decisions which violated human rights".

I have also sent them copies of the relevant documents so, hopefully they will have to accept that this as irrefutable evidence. I await their review with baited breath.

Over, Darren \(ARU\), Judicial College

Internal Review IR/64862/10

Data Access & Compliance Unit
Information Directorate
Zone 6 B
Post point 6.25
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

T 020 3334 5058
F 020 3334 2245
E [email address]

www.justice.gov.uk

27-APR-10 Our Ref:IR/64862/10

Dear J Wilson (whatdotheyknow),

Thank you for your correspondence of April 16, 2010, in which you asked
for an Internal Review into handling of your request for information
with reference number FOI/ 63828 (Old reference).

Your request for an Internal Review is being handled in accordance with
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and will be passed to the Unit that
will carry out this process.

You will be contacted separately by the person conducting the review but
in the meantime please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
queries. Please quote Ref: IR/64862/10 in all future correspondence.

Yours sincerely,

Darren Over
(Sent on behalf of Kevin Stroud)
Data Access and Compliance Unit

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.

Pencil, Carl, Judicial College

1 Attachment

Mr J Wilson
[FOI #29555 email]

5 May 2010

Dear Mr Wilson,

Please find attached the outcome of your internal review request.


Kind Regards,

Carl Pencil

FOI/DP Appeals Adviser

The Ministry of Justice
Information Directorate
Data Access and Compliance Unit [DACU]
6 Floor,
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

E-mail:[email address]
Telephone 0203 334 3256
Fax number: 0203 334 2245

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

Dear Pencil, Carl,

In regard to this reply, I do not accept that the principle of section 12 should apply to this request because of the fact that it must have been swept aside in order to provide all the information about MPs expenses, although even that took a legal battle by a newspaper journalist to obtain it.

However, as I have said before, this information is mine as a right under Article 6 of UN General Assembly Resolution 53/144 of 1998. The authorities have had 12 years to assemble it in a form which would be easily accessible by the public. I would have thought that the Judicial Studies Board would have held it because of their remit to 'train judges' however it seems that they don't train by 'instruction' as others do. Nor do they teach Judges about Universal Human Rights, but instead restrict their 'training' to UK instruments such as the Human Rights Act, which is not compatible with the UK's International UN Human Rights obligations.

So if the truth is that all of the UK's Judges neither know nor care about all Human Rights and freedoms as Declared in 1948, then why does the State not say so, rather than pretend that it doesn't have to give an honest answer to a simple question?

The JSB has clearly had an obligation to train judges in all human rights and freedoms, as expressed in the Universal Declaration of 1948 and other International Instruments since then, however the responses to my questions prove beyond the shadow of any doubt that no part of this States bodies, has done anything to give effect to those obligations.

Consequently I accuse and find the JSB and every other 'organ of society' which also had such responsibility, guilty of perverting the course of justice in the UK and of perverting the aims of the UN of which it was a founding Member State.

Since Mrs Woollard has made the connection, I would also draw attention to my response to this request at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/uk... which contains many relevant references which also apply to this request.

Yours sincerely,

J Wilson

Evans, Michael, Judicial College

1 Attachment

<<65463-J Wilson- IR-reply.doc>>

Dear Mr Wilson,

Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Outcome of Internal Review

Please see the attached response to your request for an internal review.

I have also copied in the Information Commissioner's Office as they have
an interest in this case.

Kind Regards,

M Evans

Michael Evans | Internal Review Case Adviser
Data Access & Compliance Unit | Ministry of Justice 6th Floor, point 6.23
| 102 Petty France | London | SW1H 9AJ
Tel: 020 3334 3237
E-mail: [email address]

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.

Dear Evans, Michael,

Regarding your reply, I do not find this acceptable because you not only fail to answer a simple question with an honest answer, which in any dictionary is dishonest and therefore corrupt, but you are making excuses for not doing so which are irrelevant.

Firstly, you claim that you would need to review over 60 years of documents, implying that you would start with the current year and work backwards. However, if there are any records in 1949 of any attempt by the State to educate everyone, including judges, about Universal Human Rights Declared by the UN in Dec 1948, then surely that would be the best place to start and answer the question quickly. It should also be something which is readily available to all, especially since Article 6 of UN Resolution 53/144 of 1998 was agreed to by the State.

Having reviewed the National Archives records available to me, I myself have found evidence which proves that the State did nothing to comply with it's obligations in this respect. Indeed the evidence shows that they have repeatedly conspired to deny the relevance and significance of this Universal Declaration entirely, which again is corrupt.

Under Article 2.2 of the UN Charter it stated(s) that "All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter". In the preamble of that Charter the aims of the UN were stated to be :-
" * to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
* to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
* to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
* to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,".

The second one above being directly linked to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that 'aim' or 'pledge' was repeated in the two International Covenants of 1966, ratified by 1976. The one on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for example put it thus "Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" and that "that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person".

So given the alleged significance of the UN's Resolutions for invading Afghanistan and Iraq in recent years, I would have thought that the UK should have complied with its own obligations first in 1949 as a founding Member State of the UN.

So I suggest that the most truthful answer to my questions are that the United Kingdom has never complied with its obligations to educate judges or anyone about Universal Human Rights and you know this, however seek to use any excuse, such as Section 12 of the FOI Act 2000, to cover up the facts of the matter.

Had there been anything at all of significance actually recorded to prove otherwise then it would have become common knowledge by now, so I would not have felt the need to ask the questions, would I?

As for an interpretation of 'Organ of Society' which you confirm is not recorded by the State, I would suggest it should include the following if not more.

Any individual or group of individuals acting together as a corporate body, or private business or a registered charity, or educating adults and children whether privately or under State control and any other body engaged in delivering services to the State should be included within it. Indeed every person, company or other bodies which pay tax or are even exempted from it, such as Charities are directly or indirectly 'organs of society'. To even qualify as a Charity a body has to prove itself of some use to society, so that's a given in their case, but where would we be without trades, professions, or shops and offices providing employment and goods or services which keep society alive? I also believe that the poet John Milton once wrote that "they also serve who only stand and wait", which might be relevant to the sick and unemployed, who receive benefits from being members of a humane society.

If the State wishes to dispute my definition then please offer an alternative answer. All of the above should have been educated about human rights in 1949 to enable them to keep "this Declaration constantly in mind" as was promised in 1948 by the State. So why weren't they?

Yours sincerely,

J Wilson

Evans, Michael, Judicial College

Thanks for your message. I am now out of the office until next week Monday
28 June. I will not be monitoring my e-mails.

Kind Regards,

Michael Evans

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.

Dear Evans, Michael,

I note that it has been nearly 2 months since you acknowledged my last reply to your internal enquiry, so can you please explain the reasons for the failure to respond?

Perhaps in doing so now, you can answer this simplified forms of my questions which have largely gone unanswered.

If the State has, and has had since 1949, legally binding obligations to comply with UN Resolutions, such as those which compose the International Bill of Human Rights, then why has it failed to educate everyone, and judges, about their rights?

Given the particular references to the training of judges by the UN, why does it seem that neither the JSB nor the Ministry of Justice are prepared to provide evidence that the required training has been delivered to those persons since 1949 or later?

How can any excuses be made, under the FOI Act which is much later than the International Bill of Rights, for failing to make these facts public knowledge?

Given also the references by the UN Committees on the implementation of Human Rights, to the fact that they should all be justiciable and that the public should have been made aware of this decades ago, then why has this education of the public not taken place, nor human rights based laws passed to protect their rights from untrained judges violating them?

Bearing in mind that the UN also stated in 1998 under Resolution 53/144, that everyone is entitled to know how their rights have been protected by laws, what possible justification can there be for denying them this knowledge under the FOI Act?

Part of that knowledge should be to know how Judges in every court in the UK have been trained to comply with these resolutions, and to give the public confidence in the system of Government and fairness of the judiciary. So what, if anything, has been done in the last 12 years at least to bring this about?

Has the State told Judges that private individuals and Companies are exempt from any provisions of the International Bill of Human Rights, because of the Human Rights Act 1998?

If so, then that is corrupt as Article 30 of the Declaration (or Article 17 of the European Convention) and Articles 1 & 8 also of the Declaration, make is clear that all human rights violations by anyone must be backed up by the right to an 'effective remedy' against the perpetrators whoever they may be.

On that basis please explain why this was not included in the HRA 1998 and how judges were trained to protect that right or specifically trained in how not to violate it because the "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world"?

Yours sincerely,

J Wilson

Evans, Michael, Judicial College

Thanks for your message. I am now out of the office until Monday 6
September 2010. I will not be monitoring my e-mails.

If your query is urgent please send it to the
[email address] and a colleague will take it forward in my
absence.

Kind Regards,

Michael Evans
Internal Review Case Adviser
Data Access and Compliance Unit.

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.

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

I received an automated response to an email I sent to Michael Evans yesterday which can be accessed here at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tr.... Since he is again out of the office till Sept, please ensure that I get an early reply.

Yours sincerely,

J Wilson

Woollard, Lucy, Judicial College

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Wilson,

Please find attached our response to your email of 24th of August.

Yours sincerely,

Lucy Woollard

Lucy Woollard | Human Rights Division | Human Rights and International
Directorate | Ministry of Justice 5th Floor | 102 Petty France | London

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.

Dear Woollard, Lucy,

I regret that owing to Internet access problems and bugs on my computer, I was unable to reply sooner, to your letter of 30 Sept on behalf of Michael Evans regarding the response to an internal review of my FOI request.

You refer to previous correspondence with me concerning the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and claim it is not binding on the UK, or any State which has agreed to it, or enforceable under domestic or international law. This is a complete lie as most, if not all, of those fundamental human rights have been incorporated into ‘International Law’ under several International UN Covenants as you should well know.

To name only 2 of those there is the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both of which became ‘enforceable’ from 1976, yet the UK has and apparently still does entirely ignore these. I believe I have already pointed out various problems between them and this States position, but I will do so again, as it seems to be necessary to make this public knowledge.

You should also be aware the Article 1(3) of the UN Charter states that one of the purposes of the United Nations is “To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion”.

Since it also states in Article 2(2) of that Charter that “All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter,” then what is the basis for the UK denying us our rights?

On the UN’s own website, they produce several Compilation documents, including one headed “Human Rights - A Compilation of International Instruments (contents and a foreword by Kofi A Annan the then UN Secretary General)”, which contains this reference number ST/HR/1/Rev. 6 (Vol. I/Part 1), so that you and others seeking truly ‘free information’ may seek it, and other related documents, out at www.ohchr.org.

The first part of this is also headed “Universal Instruments” (a total of 21); however the contents list also refers to Volume 2 as containing ‘Regional Instruments’, one of which is related to the Council of Europe, which I myself will now need to find.

The first words by Mr Annan are:-
“Human rights are the foundation of human existence and coexistence. They are universal, indivisible and interdependent. And they lie at the heart of everything the United Nations aspires to achieve in its global mission of peace and development.”

So how can this State claim that any UN instruments are not binding on the UK as a ‘ founding Member State’ of the organization and that the Human Rights Act or the European Convention fully upholds those rights when you don‘t even answer simple questions about how judges have been trained about any of these rights?

All you say is that the Judicial Studies Board is responsible for this, but then contradict that by saying that they do not have “to teach substantive law to judges or to ensure they remain updated on all new legislation.” as it is left to them themselves. How can any judge claim to be competent if they are not fully trained but are allowed to ‘teach themselves’, which could be very limited?

If judges can simply ignore human rights then how does that guarantee the right to an effective remedy for any and all violations of human rights, regardless of who the offender is, including any judge?

He then went on to say that:-
“Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the General Assembly in 1948, Governments have discussed, negotiated and agreed upon many hundreds of fundamental principles and legal provisions designed to protect and promote an array of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.

This publication brings together, in one place, some of the most important of those conventions, treaties, declarations and agreements.

It seeks to inform the world about human rights. The more people know their own rights, and the more they respect those of others, the better the chance that they will live together in peace.

It aims to show the commitments that Governments have made, and to encourage States to sign and ratify these important universal standards if they have not done so already.

It is also intended as a tool for Governments, non-governmental organizations, civil society groups, human rights defenders, individual citizens and international organizations such as the United Nations. Indeed, though Governments have the primary responsibility to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms, everyone has a role to play in this endeavour.”

What is about the meaning of words like ‘commitments’ of Governments, or of their ‘responsibilities towards citizens’ and the simple word ‘rights’ (entitlements or freedoms) that the UK doesn’t understand and can’t ‘teach’ to judges?

So why does this State also deny that Resolution 53/144 of the 9th Dec 1998, which gave everyone in any UN State the right to know what their rights are, and how they have been given effect in their domestic legislation, is a valid right? Why do you seem to be claiming that the State has no obligations to fulfil their agreements, Covenants or Treaties signed as part of the UN whatsoever?

He ended his foreword with these words:-
“But our work is far from done. We must improve upon the record of the last century, and make respect for human rights a reality for every man, woman and child. This compilation of major human rights
instruments is meant as a contribution to that effort, and I recommend it to the widest possible global audience.”

So what has the UK done to publish any of these documents at all, let alone train judges on how they should be given effect by them when making their decisions?

Given that the first in the list of Universal Instruments is the “International Bill of Rights”, a copy of which compilation I have found and have already made available to several State parties, and it opens with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the 10th Dec 1948, then follows on with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (which entered into force on the 3rd Jan 1976 under Article 27) then continues with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which entered into force on 23 March 1976 under Article 49) and 2 optional protocols, how can you argue on behalf of the State that the Universal Declaration itself is no longer legally binding on States when it is the foundation stone of all International Human Rights instruments since 1948?

The next documents listed as ‘Universal’ are the World Conference and Millennium Assembly.

The World Conference took place in Vienna in 1993 on the 25th June and it resulted in a “Declaration and Programme of Action” which this State has apparently ignored. It began with these words in its preamble:-

“Considering that the promotion and protection of human rights is a matter of priority for the international community, and that the Conference affords a unique opportunity to carry out a comprehensive analysis of the international human rights system and of the machinery for the protection of human rights, in order to enhance
and thus promote a fuller observance of those rights, in a just and balanced manner”, but went on with these,

“Recognizing and affirming that all human rights derive from the dignity and worth inherent in the human person, and that the human person is the central subject of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and consequently should be the principal beneficiary and should participate actively in the realization of these rights and freedoms,
Reaffirming their commitment to the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”.

The first paragraph however of the adopted Declaration and Programme of Action includes these words: - “Human rights and fundamental freedoms are the birthright of all human beings; their protection and promotion is the first responsibility of Governments”.

So why has the UK done nothing to comply with that in the last 17 years either, even though it was reminded of this obligation in 2002, at the latest, in a report by the UN‘s Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee (ref E/C.12/1/Add.79)? They stated in paragraph 12 of it that,
“The Committee regrets that the State party has not yet prepared a national human rights plan of action as recommended in paragraph 71 of the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, and is deeply concerned about the delegation’s statement that there is no intention of doing so.”

So if its simply a case of the State choosing to ignore their international obligations to respect and guarantee all human rights and fundamental freedoms, please say so and not pretend that they are safe in the hands of incompetent or lazy and corrupt judges who ‘may or may not respect them’, in their courts where they are treated like gods because they seem to think they judge in his name, so are thus always right, even when they haven‘t ‘taught themselves’ which human rights people are actually entitled to.

Especially when it stated in the next paragraph of the same report that “The Committee is concerned that human rights education provided in the State party to schoolchildren, the judiciary, prosecutors, government officials, civil servants and other actors responsible for the implementation of the Covenant does not give adequate attention to economic, social and cultural rights”, which clearly would apply to all Civil Servants such as you are and I was, as well as the judiciary.

Education is and always has been the key to respect for all human rights, but not just of the limited number of rights included in the Human Rights Act of 1998. That is fundamentally flawed and violates Article 30 of the Universal Declaration as did the European Convention on which UK law is based, rather than all Universal Rights and International Law.

The same committee also had this to say about the UK’s National Minimum Wage

“The Committee is concerned that the national minimum wage is not set at a level that provides all workers with an adequate standard of living in accordance with articles 7 (a) (ii) and 11 of the Covenant. The Committee is also concerned that the minimum wage protection does not extend to workers under 18 years of age. The Committee considers that the minimum wage scheme is discriminatory on the basis of age, as it affords a smaller proportion of the minimum wage to persons between 18 and 22 years of age”.

So what steps have been taken to overcome this problem, or will untrained judges ignore it too if anyone asks for compensation for this violation of one of their human rights?

The ‘Millennium Assembly’ took place on the 8th Sept 2000 and resulted in another General Assembly Resolution 55/2 named the “United Nations Millennium Declaration”, which included this statement on Human Rights “We resolve therefore: • To respect fully and uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. So do you confirm on behalf of Government that these are all meaningless statements made by our State to the UN, as it has no intention of fully respecting human rights at all? Will the new Government do anything to change this?

You also state that “It follows that the JSB cannot train judges to arrive at some form of ‘correct’ answer for any given case, because each is individual and the judge can only make a judgment based on the facts presented and tested in court.”, but that is illogical and also flies in the face of my own experience, where the facts were ignored or the fact that the Universal Declaration, and all the other documents I’ve found, compels States to teach everyone about what their rights are, as well as their obligations to respect other people’s rights.

If my generation and later had been educated properly, then there would be a better standard of living for all by now, not a collapse in the economy brought about by a ‘group’ who have violated many peoples human rights. Yet even judges were not taught this from 1949 so it ’follows’ that they will have violated many people’s human rights since then too.

Nor can I accept that it “would impinge on judicial independence if it were to seek to steer judges to always arrive at certain conclusions” when the only conclusion which they need to make is whether or not ‘any act’ by ‘any State, group or person’ against another has violated their inviolable and inalienable human rights, so they have the right to ‘just satisfaction‘ against them. All you need to do is teach them how to think, not what decisions they need to arrive at.

As it stated in the Universal Declaration, the sole ‘aim’ of it was “to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.”, which from the evidence you have provided has clearly never truly been the aim of any UK Government or the judiciary since 1949.

The exemptions which you state are provided in the Freedom of Information Act are just another example of the corporate corruption of the State, which if it kept its words to the UN would instead comply with Article 6 of Resolution 53/144 of the 9th Dec 1998 at least, since all previous Governments have failed to uphold their promises to its people, rather than engage in perverting those Universal aims.

I trust that you will give this matter, or any others like it being held up on such spurious grounds, further consideration and provide proposals as to solutions, if not outright answers now, as to how requests which are based on the right to know about human rights will be met, if not through the FOI Act itself.

Yours sincerely,

J Wilson

Woollard, Lucy, Judicial College

Dear Mr Wilson,

Thank you for your email of 5 October.

There has now been considerable correspondence on this matter and we
have sought to answer the questions you have posed and give you relevant
information. We are unable to add anything further to these responses.

Yours sincerely

Lucy Woollard

show quoted sections

Dear Woollard, Lucy,

I regret that this is not a satisfactory way to conclude this matter. So I assume that you will be happy for me to refer it to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, as no doubt it is not within the remit of the Information Commissioner to comment on the failure of Governments and the Judiciary to uphold Universal Human Rights commitments to the United Nations over the last 62 years.

Your replies to the information I requested simply confirm 2 things, which prove that the State is and has been corrupt all this time, namely.

1. That Judges in the UK have never been 'trained' at all, let alone trained about their obligations to respect all human rights agreed as part of International Covenants and Treaties with the UN.

2. That leaving it up to them, individually, to 'make their own mind up' as they go along is ineffective and incompetent. No part of the State has any right to do this, nor can they hide behind corrupt and incompetent laws to deny everyone their right to know how their human rights have been 'given effect' in national laws.

It is clear that you have no desire to answer the questions in a way which is compatible with human rights, perhaps that is a foregone conclusion, as you won't worry about human rights violations until yours are violated.

I would still like to know how any 'judicial decision' made by untrained judges can be considered 'lawful' (within the meaning of section6 of the Human Rights Act), let alone competent or fair, if they are not given full training to respect those rights?

I did also ask for some idea of what the State proposed to do to rectify this situation? If one has not already been carried out please conduct an internal review of these matters.

Yours sincerely,

J Wilson

Helen Bright left an annotation ()

I asked a specific question about training of judges with respect to whitleblowing but never got an answer.