fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Judicial Conduct Investigations Office,

It is reasonable to assert from the paragraph below, quoted from a complaint outcome that the investigating officer has associated the matter with 'case handling' in order to invalidate the complaint (JCIO is unable to investigate 'case handling').

https://www.scribd.com/doc/291332937/Jud...

" Further, although I note you state DJ Curtis was antagonistic and belittling, judges are entitled to respond to the parties’ evidence and I confirm that DJ Curtis’s response to your submissions would not be a matter of misconduct because it relates to his handling of the case in court. "

In theory then, every complaint could be invalidated on this basis as all misconduct can be associated with 'case handling'

Can the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office therefore disclose what records it holds regarding the matter. For example any guidance given investigators to decide when and when not to associate the complaint with 'case handling'.

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

Customer OJC,

Thank you for your complaint.
The JCIO aims to provide that response within 15 working days. Please
note, however, that we are currently experiencing staff shortages which
may mean that we are unable to response within that timeframe. 
In the meantime information about the JCIO, including copies of the rules
and regulations governing our processes, can be found at
[1]http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

References

Visible links
1. http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/

Customer OJC,

Mr Gilliatt,

My previous email refers......

Dave Woods
Senior Caseworker
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office
81-82 Queens Building
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL

DX44450 Strand

0207 073 4731

show quoted sections

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Customer OJC, N Gilliatt AKA fFaudwAtch UK Yours sincerely, fFaudwAtch UK

Customer OJC,

Thank you for your complaint.
The JCIO aims to provide that response within 15 working days. Please
note, however, that we are currently experiencing staff shortages which
may mean that we are unable to response within that timeframe. 
In the meantime information about the JCIO, including copies of the rules
and regulations governing our processes, can be found at
[1]http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

References

Visible links
1. http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Customer OJC,

Response to this request is delayed. By law, Judicial Conduct Investigations Office should have responded by 28 July 2016.

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Customer OJC,

If there is no response by 6 September 2016 I will assume the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office has no intention of replying and prefer that I escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Complaint sent to Information Commissioner's Office about the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office failing to deal with this FoI request.

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

14 September 2016

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: INDEPENDENT REVIEW – JCIO UNIVERSAL 'GET OUT CLAUSE (REF NONE)

I made a freedom of information request to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (‘JCIO’) on 29 June 2016. Details can be found on the “what do they know” website at the following address:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/u...
Universal 'get out clause’

BACKGROUND

North East Lincolnshire Council (‘NELC’) [Redact] misallocated payments intended to reduce the indebtedness of the Council Tax account which was current at the time of payment, to a sum outstanding from the 2012/13 tax year, thus engineering default. NELC subsequently applied to Grimsby Magistrates’ court for a liability order for non-payment of Council Tax. The outstanding sum from the 2012/13 tax year corresponded to disputed court costs which are under appeal to the High Court. NELC had suspended recovery of the sum pending the court's decision and were therefore unjustified in engineering default by allocating payment to that sum as the case has yet to be determined. The appeal has never been withdrawn and consequently the amount still in dispute.

NELC served court papers by electronic transfer on myself and the Magistrates court prior to the 30 October 2015 court hearing. The Witness Statement caused me to suspect a deliberate intent to deceive the court. That concern, which was NELC stating that it ‘had no further reason to believe that the costs were being disputed’ was specifically documented in my representations dated 29 October, in which the claim was also contended.

NELC had supported its decision to allocate payment to the disputed costs based upon its claim that it believed the High Court appeal had been withdrawn therefore the suspension to collect the costs lifted. It is inconceivable that NELC honestly believed this which is backed up by the exhibits supporting its Witness statement.

Documents relating to the application to the court for an appeal to the High Court further support the assertion that NELC could not honestly have believed the appeal had been withdrawn. NELC held key documents which were either delivered in person, posted etc., clearly indicated that the appeal was still being pursued yet the date from which they understood the appeal had been withdrawn was around 5 months prior to the last record I hold of sending correspondence to the council in the matter.

The misallocated payments were supported by NELC on the basis that it believed the appeal had been withdrawn, and on that basis alone, and because no assistance is being offered by the relevant authorities who should be addressing this I am left to fight to expose the truth by whatever means are available.

COMPLAINT TO THE JCIO

Complaint was submitted to JCIO alleging four counts of misconduct corresponding to selectable categories offered on the on-line complaint form, i.e., Professional Misconduct, Criminal Allegations, Inappropriate Comments / Discrimination and Misuse of Judicial Powers. It was emphasised that the complaint did not constitute an appeal of the court’s decision rather a complaint made in accordance with the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014 about the judge’s conduct.

PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT: The judge had obviously decided he would side with NELC and grant the order on the back of a [Redact] statement and so not prepared to listen to, accept or understand any evidence which didn't fit in with the outcome he was to deliver. He appeared to fake incompetence as a strategy for denying evidence that might, if considered, defeat the NELC's argument and make granting the order more difficult to justify.

CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS: The judge was so lacking in objectivity and obviously pro-prosecution that if it was not known he was the judge he would have been mistaken for NELC's legal representation. It can therefore be stated unreservedly that there had been not even a hint of a fair hearing.

It is reasonable to allege intent to [Redact] the course of justice as before the judge was indisputable evidence that a [Redact] statement had been made. Granting an order therefore made him complicit in NELC's [Redact] actions that sought to exploit a complaint to the court for the purposes of [Redact] me with an attached claim of costs.

INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS / DISCRIMINATION: The judge was antagonistic and belittling and could have easily provoked conflict which may have been a technique he was using in an attempt to discredit me by inciting retaliation to distract attention from the case.

He concluded by commenting that he’d listened for half an hour to an outburst of political diatribe for which only 5 minutes made any sense, presumably as a consequence of his inability (or demonstration thereof) to understand the representations which had in any event been submitted as detailed written evidence. His reference was most likely to the issue raised about misconduct of the Justices Clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire which is considered so serious as to warrant answering charges of misconduct in public office and which was in any event material to the proceedings.

Beyond his authority, the judge raised an irrelevant matter concerning the number of payments, in what sum those payments were made and the method chosen for paying Council Tax instalments. He was irked to the point that he enquired if a bank account was held and why payments weren’t made by standing order like everyone else, which was neither any of the court’s nor NELC’s business. The court should not have tried to lay blame elsewhere for NELC exploiting its Council Tax processing system as a means of [Redact] Council Taxpayers.

Bias was evident again when the judge referred to previous maladministration, similarly in respect of misallocated payments, for which 27 days was taken by NELC to respond and resolve the matter, by which time reminders and a summons were wrongly issued. He distorted the facts out of all recognition and portrayed in the courtroom it to be my fault for NELC’s gross error. The judge was again noticeably irked to the point that he was motivated to make an entirely unfounded statement which was that NELC, as a consequence, was entitled to demand subsequent year’s liability up-front thus ignoring the statutory instalment entitlement.

MISUSE OF JUDICIAL POWERS: The judge acted outside his powers by granting the order as the regulations governing Council Tax liability do not give the court authority to make an order when the defendant has proved that there is no outstanding debt. No discretion in such cases is given to impose a penalty which is what the judge did in this case by allowing the application and granting costs, based on his own opinion differing from mine about how, and in what manner bills are paid.

Neither is the court allowed discretion in the amount of costs it orders. The regulations restrict the level so that no more than the expenditure incurred by the applicant in respect of instituting the complaint is rechargeable to the defendant. The breakdown contained indisputable evidence that the vast majority of the costs claimed were not incurred by NELC in respect of instituting the complaint in my case. The judge approved the level from a brief glance of the breakdown. It was then explained to him that the costs itemised referred largely to council resources dealing with enquiries, rescheduling and monitoring payment plans etc. and subsidising bad debt for which none could be attributable to my summons. A detailed analysis in this regard had in any event been submitted in the written evidence.

The order was not made because there was a legal obligation, but for what appeared to be the assistance that imposing a financial penalty might provide in coercing me into conceding and making payments in line with NELC’s preferred method.

There was a substantial amount of evidence before the court. Had due process followed and the representations considered objectively it is inconceivable that the judge would have determined the case in the way he did. He allowed his own personal views and prejudices to influence the outcome of the case when the judicial role demands that he was duty bound to deliver a decision based on the legal arguments that were before him.

JCIO’S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT

JCIO were unable to accept the complaint for consideration because it claimed the complaint did not contain an allegation of misconduct and therefore did not meet the requirements to be considered as valid in accordance with the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other Office Holders) Rules 2014.

The concerns were not deemed to constitute a case of personal misconduct but considered to relate to judicial decision and judicial case management for which JCIO were unable to investigate, challenge or question as they are part of a judge’s function and not personal conduct.

FOI REQUEST – 29 JUNE 2016

The JCIO was asked to disclose what records it holds regarding the following:

It is reasonable to assert from the paragraph below, quoted from a complaint outcome that the investigating officer has associated the matter with 'case handling' in order to invalidate the complaint (JCIO is unable to investigate 'case handling').

https://www.scribd.com/doc/291332937/Jud...

"Further, although I note you state DJ Curtis was antagonistic and belittling, judges are entitled to respond to the parties’ evidence and I confirm that DJ Curtis’s response to your submissions would not be a matter of misconduct because it relates to his handling of the case in court.”

In theory then, every complaint could be invalidated on this basis as all misconduct can be associated with 'case handling’

Can the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office therefore disclose what records it holds regarding the matter. For example any guidance given investigators to decide when and when not to associate the complaint with 'case handling'.

NO RESPONSE

The JCIO had not responded by the 28 July 2016 deadline and on 29 July I notified it about the delay which was not responded to.

FURTHER PROMPTS FOR THE SAME

It was communicated on 29 August to the JCIO that if it had not responded by 6 September I would assume it would have no intention of doing so and prefer that I escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner. Essentially, JCIO has not responded to any of the communications other than one implying that it required my name for the request to be valid and those which were computer generated.

Yours sincerely

Fiona Watts left an annotation ()

One could identify with how desperate and isolated some people feel after failing to understand why they are unable to access any justice in a timely fashion.

Is anyone in the JCIO keeping a record of how many Judges have left victims feeling so ISOLATED that suicide seems to be the only option left to them?

How is someone expected to keep good Mental Health when the whole system, even the Judges seems stacked up against them?

Do the Nolan Principles not have a place in a UK courtroom?

The ICO wrote;

The complainant told the Commissioner that he was motivated by observing blatant bias on the part of judges and
the intransigence of public authorities. FOIA was one avenue which entitled a UK citizen to lawful access to information for whatever purpose, and if use of it might assist so one seeking to overcome the MOJ’s obstruction of justice, it was reasonable for that avenue to be taken advantage of.

Will left an annotation ()

Information Commissioner's 1 February 2017 Decision Notice.

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org