unaddressed complaints west london coroners office and coroner Chinyere Inyama

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

Dear Judicial Conduct Investigations Office,

Since 2014
Please can you tell me how many comlaints you have rcvd each year re the west london coroners court? and coroner Chinyere Inyama?

Yours faithfully,

Sylvia Rushbrooke

Customer OJC, Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

 Thank you for your email. The JCIO aims to provide a response to all
correspondence within 15 working days, where appropriate. Please note,
however, that we are currently experiencing staff shortages, which may
mean that we are unable to reply within that timeframe. Information about
the JCIO, including copies of the rules and regulations governing our
processes, can be found at: http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Customer OJC, Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

Thank you for your email. The JCIO aims to provide a response to all
correspondence within 15 working days, where appropriate. In the meantime,
information about the JCIO, including copies of the rules and regulations
governing our processes, can be found at:
http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Sylvia Rushbrooke

Dear Judicial Conduct Investigations Office,
Staff shortages seems to be the reason West Londons Coroners court cannot supply any customers service as is clear from the dozens of complaints all over the internet - complaints not acted on and matters/relatives just ignored.
I am happy to wait for the respnse as our mother has been dead over 18 months with no resolution to any complaints relating to the coroners office or the coroner at the time ....who was suspended on full pay for at least a year it seems on tax payers money

Yours faithfully,

Sylvia Rushbrooke

Customer OJC, Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

Thank you for your email. The JCIO aims to provide a response to all
correspondence within 15 working days, where appropriate. In the meantime,
information about the JCIO, including copies of the rules and regulations
governing our processes, can be found at:
http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Honey, Laura, Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

1 Attachment

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Please see attached response to your recent FOI to the JCIO.

 

Yours Sincerely,

Laura Honey

Laura Honey | Senior Caseworker | Judicial Conduct Investigations Office |
81 - 82 Queens Building | Royal Courts of Justice | Strand | London WC2A
2LL | Phone: 020 7073 0308 | [1]http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/

 

show quoted sections

Sylvia Rushbrooke

Dear Honey, Laura,
I have been sent the following response from you

WhatDoTheyKnow
Download original attachment
(PDF file)

This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'unaddressed complaints west london coroners office and coroner Chinyere Inyama'.

Data Access & Compliance Unit
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London

SW1H 9AJ

Sylvia Rushbrooke
[email address]
[email address]

21 March 2018

Dear Ms Rushbrooke,

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request – 180223004

Thank you for your request in which you asked for the following information from the Ministry
of Justice (MoJ):

Since 2014 Please can you tell me how many comlaints you have rcvd each year re
the west london coroners court? and coroner Chinyere Inyama?

You request has been handled under the FOIA.

I can neither confirm nor deny if the MoJ holds the information you have requested.

We are not obliged to confirm or deny whether we hold the information you have requested
under section 44(2) of the FOIA, because such disclosure is prohibited under another
enactment.

In this instance, section 139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA) establishes a duty
of confidentiality on those who have responsibilities in relation to matters of conduct and
discipline involving judicial office holders, where information is provided under, or for the
purposes of, a relevant provision of the Act. Information which is obtained for the purposes
of a function under Part 4 of the CRA is confidential by virtue of section 139 of that Act.

The confirmation or denial of whether the MoJ holds the information you have requested
would release information that would be in contravention of the CRA and, as such, section
44(2) of the FOIA is engaged.

The fact that section 44(2) of the FOIA has been cited should not be taken as an indication
that the information you have requested is or is not held by the department. This is an
absolute exemption and does not require a public interest test.

If held, this information would also have been exempt by virtue of section 40(5) of the FOIA
as the MoJ is not obliged to confirm or deny whether it holds information if to do so would
contravene any of the data protection principles as outlined in the Data Protection Act 1998
(DPA). The first data protection principle states:

Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed
unless—
(a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and
(b) in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also
met.

FOI is a public disclosure regime, not a private regime. This means that any information
disclosed under the FOIA by definition becomes available to the wider public. If any
information were held, confirming this would reveal the personal information of the individual,
to the world at large. To disclose this fact would breach the Data Protection Principles;
individuals have a clear and strong expectation that their personal data will be held in
accordance with the DPA and not disclosed to the public under the FOIA.

The fact that section 40(5) has been cited should not be taken as an indication that the
information you have requested is or is not held by the MoJ. This is an absolute exemption
and does not require a public interest test as if held it would relate to the personal
information of the individual concerned.

Appeal Rights

If you are not satisfied with this response you have the right to request an internal review by
responding in writing to one of the addresses below within two months of the date of this
response.

[email address]

Data Access and Compliance Unit, Ministry of Justice, 10.38, 102 Petty France, London,
SW1H 9AJ

You do have the right to ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to investigate any
aspect of your complaint. However, please note that the ICO is likely to expect internal
complaints procedures to have been exhausted before beginning their investigation.

Yours sincerely,

Laura Honey
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

I do not see how the following question ignored breaches any data protection issues
Since 2014 Please can you tell me how many comlaints you have rcvd each year re
the west london coroners court?
I also beieve it is in the pubkic interest as this office is dealing with our dead loved ones and as such the service/complaint is very relevant to the public who are forced to use this service it is also not possible to gauge if it has learnt from or improved year on year unless the number of complaints re this court are released as many of them are in the press and hansard such matters are already in the public domain all except the number of complaints each year

I cannto see the email address you refer to but would like a review re the specific question as reinterated above thank you

Yours sincerely,

Sylvia Rushbrooke

Sylvia Rushbrooke

Dear Honey, Laura,
My request re how many complaints were rcvd by the JCIO re the coroner in question is still outstanding please send me an answer ?
as the paper below in 2016 stated a number of families have made complaints it would seem that the information is available and in the publics interest to know as per the multiple press articles about this matter

16:25 26 October 2016 | UPDATED: 16:48 26 October 2016
http://www.ilfordrecorder.co.uk/news/for...
A number of families from west London had made complaints to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) about the long delays.
A spokesman for the JCIO said: “The Lord Chief Justice, with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor, has suspended senior coroner Chinyere Inyama on an interim basis pending the conclusion of a continuing investigation into his conduct.
“The suspension will commence on Friday, October 28.”

Yours sincerely,

Sylvia Rushbrooke

Honey, Laura, Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

I am out of the office until Monday 30 April 2018 with no access to my
emails.

 

If your query can not wait until my return and is of a routine nature,
please email [email address]

 

If your query is of an urgent nature - please email:

 

[email address]

[email address]

[email address]

 

Otherwise, I will respond to you on my return.

 

show quoted sections

Langworth, Sam, Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Rushbrooke

 

Please see attached.

 

Yours sincerely

Sam Langworth

 

Senior Caseworker | Judicial Conduct Investigations Office | 81 -
82 Queens Building | Royal Courts of Justice | Strand | London WC2A 2LL |
http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/

 

show quoted sections

Sylvia Rushbrooke

Dear Langworth, Sam,

Thank you for the following reply

Data Access & Compliance Unit
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London

SW1H 9AJ

Sylvia Rushbrooke
[email address]
[email address]

16 April 2018

Dear Ms Rushbrooke

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Outcome of Internal Review – 180223004

Thank you for your Internal Review request, received 21 March, regarding FOIA request
180223004, in which you asked for the following information from the Ministry of Justice
(MoJ):

Since 2014 Please can you tell me how many comlaints you have rcvd each year re
the west london coroners court? and coroner Chinyere Inyama?

The purpose of an Internal Review is to assess how your FOI request was handled in the
first instance and to determine whether the original decision given to you was correct. This is
an independent review. I was not involved in the original decision.

In her response dated 21 March, Ms Honey informed you that she could neither confirm nor
deny whether the MoJ holds the information requested under sections 44(2) and 40(5) of the
FOIA because, if held, such disclosure is prohibited under another enactment and would
breach the data protection principles outlined in the Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998.

In respect of section 44(2), Ms Honey informed you that section 139 of the Constitutional
Reform Act 2005 (CRA) establishes a duty of confidentiality on those who have
responsibilities in relation to matters of conduct and discipline involving judicial office
holders, where information is provided under, or for the purposes of, a relevant provision of
the Act. Information that is obtained for the purposes of a function under Part 4 of the CRA is
confidential by virtue of section 139 of that Act.

Ms Honey informed you that sections 44(2) and 40(5) are absolute exemptions, which do not
require a public interest test, and the fact that these exemptions were cited should not be
taken as an indication that the information requested is or is not held by the MoJ.

After careful consideration, I have concluded that the response to your request was
compliant with the FOIA.

Statutory deadline

The statutory deadline for your request was 23 March and the response was provided on 21
March. The response was therefore compliant with the requirements of the FOIA.

Outcome

I am satisfied that Ms Honey was correct to neither confirm nor deny whether the MoJ holds
the information requested under sections 44(2) and 40(5) of the FOIA.

Appeal Rights

If you are not satisfied with this response, you have the right to apply to the Information
Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The Commissioner is an independent regulator who has the
power to direct us to respond to your request differently, if she considers that we have
handled it incorrectly.

You can contact the ICO at the following address:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

https://ico.org.uk/Global/contact-us

Yours sincerely

Sam Langworth
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

However I believe as the matter is in the public interest as it is the public who have suffered at the hands of this court - I believe they have the right to know how common this problem is at this court in order to make wider representation re its failings over several years that has not improved as evidenced by the number of complaints raised that your office wishes to keep secret.
How many complaints regarding the coroner in question - he performs a legal/public duty to a degree and therefore it is in the public interest to know such matters .

As the JCIO receives conduct complaints about coroners - your department would hold the answer to the request made to the number of complaints made re the coroner named - as we already knkow his name and that he was suspended for a year - all in the public domain
I do not understand the excuse given to withhold except to hide the appalling record of this coroner
As this court and its disasters have been discussed openly nearly 2 years ago as below - the public of whom I am one who suffered in this court would like to know the information requested and would like to know why you do not believe it is ?
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/20...
West London Coroner’s Court
16 December 2015
Volume 603

Yours sincerely,

Sylvia Rushbrooke

Sylvia Rushbrooke

Dear Langworth, Sam,
Thank you
I rcvd the following that I do not understand
In respect of section 44(2), Ms Honey informed you that section 139 of the Constitutional
Reform Act 2005 (CRA) establishes a duty of confidentiality on those who have
responsibilities in relation to matters of conduct and discipline involving judicial office
holders, where information is provided under, or for the purposes of, a relevant provision of
the Act. Information that is obtained for the purposes of a function under Part 4 of the CRA is
confidential by virtue of section 139 of that Act.

As this coroners had numerous complaints raised by numerous MPs openly in Hanzard that s published how can your organisation be more secret about a known coroner with multiple known complaint - it seems if the public and others make multiple complaints to your office they are entitled to know if its an epidemic or not re one perosn - how can you monitor and be accountble re your complaints process if you wish to hide information about a person performing a public duty - this person is not working in a criminal court - he is dealing with deceased persons so families do have a right to know thisinformation so they may try to select another coroner orcourt for such purpose - please explain regarding the jargon filled response quoting regualatins we cannot see?
where can I find such regulations and who is the regulatory body of those regs?

Yours sincerely,

Sylvia Rushbrooke

Langworth, Sam, Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

Dear Ms Rushbrooke

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Section 139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA) may be accessed
here: [1]https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200...

 

The regulations and rules for the purposes of judicial discipline, made
under Part 4 of the CRA, may be accessed here:
[2]https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk...

 

The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman may review the Judicial
Conduct Investigations Office's compliance with the relevant regulations
and rules when handling complaints about judicial misconduct. Further
information about the Ombudsman's office may be found here:
[3]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

 

If you are dissatisfied with the internal review response to your FOIA
request, you may apply to the Information Commissioner's Office, details
of which are included in the response.

 

I am unable to assist you further regarding this request.

 

Yours sincerely

Sam Langworth

 

Your personal data

 

You can find information about how the JCIO collects and processes
personal data in our [4]Privacy Notice.

 

Judicial Conduct Investigations Office | 81 - 82 Queens Building | Royal
Courts of Justice | Strand | London WC2A 2LL |
http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sylvia Rushbrooke

Dear Langworth, Sam,
As previously highlighted...re complaints re this coroner in the press and public domain ...I just wish to know how many complaints were rcvd re this coroner /west London coroners court between 2015 to date 2018 to your office ....?
I am unsure why you wish me to ask elsewhere when complaints re a coroner are with your office ...

Yours sincerely,

Sylvia Rushbrooke

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org