Provisional Investigation Report of the Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) in relation to the mishandling of a complaint by the Humber Advisory Committee. The papers are littered with factual errors even before considering the criminal handling of the cover-up. Even before refusing to accept the complaint for a full investigation the Ombudsman knew that there was at least one other letter additional to the 3 letters referred to in the refusal letter that the MoJ produced after the event to cover their tracks (on further investigation by HMCTS it was eventually discovered that there were 10 in total). Note that the Secretary to the Humber Advisory Committee – to whom the complaint was addressed, was also the Justices’ Clerk for Humber & South Yorkshire against whom the complaint was made and who the Conduct Ombudsman dealt with in his investigations. In summary, the matter ultimately concerned malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) that 10 items of post had been sent to the complainant between 19 December 2013 and 13 December 2016 which the complainant claims never to have received, and believes they were dishonestly constructed later (to cover their tracks) to satisfy enquiries made by the judicial ombudsman (JACO) and an investigation carried out by HMCTS complaints team.

1. Dear Mr
Your complaint
Judicial Appointments & Conduct
Ombudsman
Postal Area 953
9th Floor, The Tower
102 Petty France
London SW 1H 9 AJ
OX 152380 Westminster 8
T 020 3334 2900
E headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk
wWf.J.judiciafombudsman.gov.uk
23 May 2016
Thank you for your correspondence with my officers setting out your concerns about your
complaint.
I asked Mr Rose to consider this matter; as you are aware his letter indicated that I would
conduct a full investigation, including referring my report to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord
Chief Justice. However I have since discussed the matter with him and concluded that your
complaint does not raise issues which could enable me to make a finding of
maladministration.
I am therefore afraid that I must refuse to accept your complaint for a full investigation. You
will see from the accompanying reports that I was content that the Humber Advisory
Committee properly considered and dismissed your complaint on 2 September 2014, in
accordance with the relevant legislation and guidance.
The fact that three letters did not reach you is surprising as they were properly addressed
except for a minor error in the postcode which should not have prevented delivery. I do not
consider that a finding of maladministration is possible for this error.
Concerns that you raise about the Court's response to your application for Judicial Review do
not fall within the scope of the disciplinary process and were properly dismissed by the
Humber Advisory Committee in accordance with legislation and guidance. The Court's
response to your application for Judicial Review is outside my remit and I cannot comment
further on that issue ..
I appreciate that you will be disappointed that I have not been able to accept your complaint
for a full investigatioJ':}, but I can assure you that I did consider the matter most carefully before
reaching my d~io9ft.
. // ~
Yours sin<;e'reJy;'
,t/ //J j
l?/'
t" r-". . -·'''i .•...-
,-1 ~ ~=
f ., .~~~~-
r/, ~.~7
lPaufKernaghan CBE

2. Complaint by Mr - Ombudsman’s Preliminary Investigation Report
1
JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND CONDUCT OMBUDSMAN’S PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION REPORT
COMPLAINT BY MR
Introduction
1. Mr asked me to review the investigation by the Humber Advisory
Committee (HAC) of his complaint against Mr J A O’Nions JP and Mr T A
Shepherdson JP.
The complaint
2. Mr complained to me on 8 August 2015. I have carried out a preliminary
investigation into his concerns that the HAC did not respond to his complaint: I
could not consider his complaint about the Court’s failure to provide a “case
stated” response to his application for Judicial Review as this could not be dealt
with under the regulated disciplinary procedures and is therefore outside my
remit.
The background
3. Mr faced a summons to appear at Grimsby Magistrates Court on 2
November 2012 for non-payment of Council Tax. He paid the outstanding tax
plus part of the costs demanded in the summons prior to the hearing. He was
concerned that on the date of the hearing the court made him liable for the
outstanding costs. He subsequently applied to Judicially Review this decision
and the matter appears to have been settled with the Council at that point. On 2
September 2014 Mr complained to the HAC about the magistrates
hearing his case. His complaint was dismissed on 16 September 2014 on the
grounds that he was complaining about a judicial decision which did not raise a
question of misconduct. Mr did not receive the letter and subsequently
complained about this to the Judicial Office and the JCIO.
My decision
4. I have not identified any issue arising in my preliminary investigation which could
lead to a finding of maladministration. I consider that the error in the post code
of the dismissal letter of 2 September 2015 should not have prevented it from
being delivered, as the whole of the postal address was correctly set out, and if it
was undelivered it should have been returned to the HAC for further action and
re-issue. This minor error could not in itself amount to maladministration. I note
that the HAC re-issued the dismissal letter on two further occasions but that

3. Complaint by Mr - Ombudsman’s Preliminary Investigation Report
2
there is no proof of postage as the letter was sent by standard post. It is
unfortunate that the HAC did not email a copy to Mr when it posted a
copy of the letter, but again this omission could not amount to maladministration.
I am content that Mr ’s complaint of 2 September 2014 was properly
dismissed in accordance with disciplinary legislation and guidance. For these
reasons I cannot accept this complaint for a full investigation
Paul Kernaghan CBE
23 May 2016

4. Annex A
JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND CONDUCT OMBUDSMAN’S OFFICE
COMPLAINT BY MR
INVESTIGATING OFFICER’S REPORT
INTRODUCTION
1. This report is prepared following a request by Mr , that the Judicial
Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman review the conduct of an
investigation by the Humber Advisory Committee (HAC) of his complaint
against Mr JA O’Nions JP and Mr T A Shepherdson JP. This report will form
part of the evidence considered by the Ombudsman in assessing the
complaint.
BACKGROUND
2. The papers I have seen indicate that Mr faced a summons to appear at
Grimsby Magistrates Court on 2 November 2012 for non-payment of Council
Tax. He paid the outstanding tax plus part of the costs demanded in the
summons prior to the hearing. He was concerned that on the date of the
hearing the court made him liable for the outstanding costs. He subsequently
applied to Judicially Review this decision and the matter appears to have been
settled with the Council at that point. On 2 September 2014 Mr
complained to the HAC about the magistrates hearing his case. His complaint
was dismissed on 16 September 2014 on the grounds that he was
complaining about a judicial decision which did not raise a question of
misconduct. Mr did not receive the letter and subsequently complained
about this to Judicial Office, the JCIO and to you.
THE COMPLAINT
3. Mr contacted the Ombudsman’s Office on 8 August 2015 and made
final comments on 3 March 2016. The Ombudsman has agreed to investigate
the concerns that: the HAC failed to properly respond to his complaint or his
correspondence and dismissed the complaint erroneously.
4. Mr asked the Ombudsman to investigate his concern that the court had
not properly responded to his application for Judicial Review and had not
provided a “case stated” document. The complaint about the Court’s handling
of the Judicial Review application would be outside the Ombudsman’s remit as
it does not concern a matter which could be considered under the disciplinary
legislation as it does not concern the actions of a judicial office-holder. The
Ombudsman cannot therefore consider it within the powers granted to him
under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
MY OBSERVATIONS
The complaint to the Advisory Committee
5. On 2 September 2014 Mr complained to the Central Secretarial Office
in Doncaster that

5. Investigating Officer’s Report - Complaint from Mr
2
two Magistrates, Mr O’Nions and Mr Shepherdson had adjudicated on his
case and allowed the local authority to enforce payment of an unpaid
element of his court summons costs; and that
his application was subsequently submitted to the Magistrates’ Court to
state a case in his appeal to the High Court, he believed the failure to
respond to this request was a failing in the Magistrates’ behaviour which
he described as “conduct [which] has been such to pervert the course of
justice”.
6. Mr attached an affidavit to his complaint which he had produced for his
application for Judicial Review, this document set out a chronology of the
events surrounding the hearing of his case; it also set out his attempts to
obtain a response to his application from the court. The papers show that the
application was not proceeded with as the local authority responded with an
offer acceptable to Mr .
The Advisory Committee’s handling of the complaint
7. On 16 September 2014 the HAC responded, stating that the Chairman had
dismissed both aspects of his complaint because:
first, the complaint related to a judicial decision which did not raise a
question of misconduct and
second, the complaint about correspondence in his legal proceedings
concerned actions which were not done or caused to be done by the
Magistrates.
8. I observe that the disciplinary rules state that:
The Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the Advisory Committee
must dismiss a complaint, or part of a complaint, if it falls into any of
the following categories: 32(b) it is about a judicial decision or judicial
case management, and raises no question of misconduct; and 32(c)
the action complained of was not done or caused to be done by a
magistrate.
9. I also observe that first tier complaints bodies such as the HAC do not have
the power to investigate complaints about criminal behaviour such as
‘perverting the course of justice’ this is a matter for police action if appropriate.
10. The response was sent to Mr but did not reach him. I observe that the
postal address was correctly stated on the letter but that the postcode was
written as DN32 0Q3 rather than DN32 0QJ.
11. Having not received the response, Mr emailed the Judicial Office HR
Team at the Royal Courts of Justice on 14 May 2015 to complain. His
complaint was forwarded to the HAC which sent another copy of the dismissal
letter to him on 29 May 2015; unfortunately this letter did not reach him (it had
the same error in the postcode but was otherwise correctly addressed). I
observe that the HAC did not email a copy of the letter to Mr .
12. On 25 June 2015 Mr emailed the Judicial Complaints Investigations
Office (JCIO) to complain that his complaint had been ignored by the

6. Investigating Officer’s Report - Complaint from Mr
3
Secretary of the HAC. The JCIO forwarded the email to the HAC on 29 June
2015.
13. On 16 July 2015 the HAC sent another copy of the dismissal letter to him,
unfortunately this letter did not reach him (it had the same error in the
postcode but was otherwise correctly addressed). I observe that the HAC did
not email a copy of the letter to Mr .
14. Mr then complained to the Ombudsman.
15. I asked the HAC to ask if it had a record of postage of the letters; it responded:
“A log is not maintained of post that is sent out by the Advisory
Committee. Correspondence that for any reason is despatched by
recorded delivery will of course have proof of posting.
Correspondence of the description sent to Mr is issued by
ordinary post and will be despatched on the date of the
correspondence or exceptionally the next working day if for some
reason the mail does not reach the collection by Royal Mail from the
court office in time.”
16. The Ombudsman will consider whether there is any maladministration in the
handling of Mr ’s complaint and his correspondence.
17. The Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2014 state that:
Making a complaint about judicial misconduct
9. A complaint must be made to the local Advisory Committee or its
Secretary.
10. A complaint must contain an allegation of misconduct
Consideration of complaint
24. The Chairman of the Advisory Committee must initially consider whether
an allegation of misconduct has been made by a complainant.
25. If not, they may refer the matter to the Bench Chairman to deal with as a
pastoral or training matter.
26. Otherwise, the Chairman of the Advisory Committee must—
(a) decide what action to take under rule 31; or
(b) refer the complaint to the Advisory Committee to decide what action to
take under rule
Dismissal of complaint
32. The Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the Advisory Committee
must dismiss a complaint, or part of a complaint, if it falls into any of the
following categories—
(a) it does not adequately particularise the matter complained of;
(b) it is about a judicial decision or judicial case management, and raises no
question of misconduct;
(c) the action complained of was not done or caused to be done by a
magistrate;
(d) it is vexatious;
(e) it is without substance;
(f) even if true, it would not require any disciplinary action to be taken;
(g) it is untrue, mistaken or misconceived;

7. Investigating Officer’s Report - Complaint from Mr
4
(h) it raises a matter which has already been dealt with, whether under these
Rules or
otherwise, and does not present any material new evidence;
(i) it is about a person who is no longer a magistrate;
(j) it is about the private life of a magistrate and could not reasonably be
considered to affect
their suitability to hold their judicial office;
(k) it is about the professional conduct in a non-judicial capacity of a
magistrate and could
not reasonably be considered to affect their suitability to hold judicial office;
(l) for any other reason it does not relate to misconduct by a magistrate.
Guidance
Rule 9: An Advisory Committee may only consider a complaint that contains
an allegation of personal misconduct by a magistrate. Misconduct is not
defined in the rules. The OED definition is ‘Instances of unacceptable or
improper conduct or behaviour’. In the context of the rules personal
misconduct relates to the magistrate’s behaviour for example: a magistrate
shouting or speaking in a sarcastic manner in court; or misuse of judicial
status outside of court. Personal misconduct does not relate to how the judge
has managed a case or hearing or, to any decisions or judgments made in
the course of court proceedings. The only way to challenge such matters is
through the appellate process. The Directions for Bench Chairmen, the
declaration and undertaking signed by magistrates and the Guide to Judicial
Conduct are a useful point of reference on determining whether a matter may
be one of potential misconduct. Where a complaint does not contain an
allegation of misconduct the Advisory Committee will advise the complainant
that it cannot investigate the complaint under these rules and will inform the
complainant of the reasons for rejection. Where a rejected complaint raises
issues that may need to be addressed through training or informal guidance,
the Advisory Committee Chairman may refer the complaint to the Bench
Training and Development Committee or to the Bench Chairman to deal with
as part of his pastoral responsibilities.
Rule 32 (a) A complaint must set out all the details required under rule 12 and
provide specific details about the alleged misconduct. For example a
complaint which simply states that a magistrate was rude is not adequately
particularised. In this
example the complainant should say what the magistrate said or did to cause
the complainant to believe that the magistrate was behaving inappropriately
and at which part of the hearing this occurred.
Rule 32 (b) The constitutional independence of the judiciary means that
decisions made by a judicial office holder during the course of proceedings
are made without the interference of ministers, officials or other judicial office
holders (unless they are considering the matter whilst sitting in their judicial
capacity, for example, in an appeal hearing). Judicial decisions include, but
are not limited to, the way in which proceedings are managed, disclosure of
documents, which evidence should be heard and the judgment or sentence
given. However, the manner in which the justice conducted themselves can
amount to misconduct, for example if the justice was rude or abusive or failed
to exercise a fundamental responsibility such as a failure to accept the
decision of the majority of the bench or falling asleep on the bench.

8. Investigating Officer’s Report - Complaint from Mr
5
Nick Rose
Investigating Officer
2016