What comes around...and covering for opportunist colleagues who blag their way into the judiciary
Dear Ministry of Justice,
For context please see link:
You might consider opportunist Deputy District Judge Andrew Pascoe (see below) fined £52,000 has had his comeuppance for choosing negligently to turn a blind eye to justice.
It seems it was easier to make a person innocent of the charges take the wrap and be convicted because of his disgustingly corrupt obscenely remunerated opportunist colleague, District Judge Daniel Curtis who spuriously made a decision on an apparently revengeful or/and a Humberside police and CPS stitch-up that proceeded to a prosecution without any evidence.
Q. How does the Government ensure that the taxpayer isn't being fleeced, and innocent people being wrongly convicted because greedy opportunist/crooked solicitors take the opportunity to profit unscrupulously by hoodwinking HMCTS and offering them a cheaper alternative to appointing properly trained judges to carry out the judicial roles?
hank you for your e-mail, I am writing to advise you that your enquiry does not fall under the Freedom of Information regime and will be treated by the department as Official Correspondence.
It may be helpful if I explain that the Freedom of Information Act (2000) gives individuals and organisations the right of access to all types of recorded information held, at the time the request is received, by public authorities such as the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Section 84 of the Act states that in order for a request for information to be handled as a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, it must be for recorded information. For example, a Freedom of Information request would be for a copy of a policy, rather than an explanation as to why we have that policy in place. On occasion, the Ministry of Justice receives requests that do not ask for recorded information, but ask more general questions about, for example, a policy, opinion or a decision.
This this will be dealt with as Official Correspondence and you can expect a response from the appropriate area of the department.
If you do have any questions relating specifically to the Freedom of Information or Data Protection Act, please contact the Data Access and Compliance Unit at the following e-mail address: [email address].
Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,
Response to this request is delayed. By law, Ministry of Justice should have responded by 1 July 2016.
Thank you for your e-mail of 5 June which was passed to me for response.
It may be helpful if I explain that decisions regarding the recruitment of
judges are a matter for the Lord Chancellor in consultation with the
Judiciary. Individual selection exercises are run by the independent
Judicial Appointments Commission which recommends candidates to the
Appropriate Authority (Lord Chancellor, Lord Chief Justice or Senior
President of Tribunals) for appointment.
I hope this is of assistance to you.
Chukwuma Uju | Judicial Office for England & Wales| Royal Courts of
Justice | Strand | WC2A 2LL |
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
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
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.