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.
North East Lincolnshire Council fraudulently obtained a Council Tax liability order by committing perjury (lying in a witness statement to the court). There was no monies owed but North East Lincolnshire Council criminally engineered a non-payment scenario. The Police, Local Government Ombudsman and judges were complicit because they all looked the other way. Bailiff firms Rossendales and subsequently Jacobs attempted to defraud me with their enforcement fees. Events stem from High Court appeal and claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire that 10 items of post (appeal correspondence) had been sent to the Appellant between 19 December 2013 and 13 December 2016 which the Appellant 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 HM Courts and Tribunal Service.
I wish to report criminal and dishonest conduct regarding the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO), Paul Kernaghan, and a number of officers holding various positions acting on behalf of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). I have evidence accumulated over a several year period relating to these officer’s which proves beyond reasonable doubt that their actions have routinely amounted to a betrayal of trust and violation of the laws which impose a duty on officers in their positions to act impartially, fairly and without discrimination or bias.
The Court of Appeal's application of the locus standi doctrine to find that Ms. Llanos lacked standing was inconsistent with the facts of the case. If Ms. Llanos truly lacked standing, then the Superior Court should have dismissed her entire cross-complaint, rather than just a portion of it. The Superior Court abused its discretion by terminating the case against two bank defendants but allowing it to continue against the third. The Court of Appeal should have found that the entire case should have been dismissed on March 1, 2013 based on its own reasoning regarding Ms. Llanos' lack of standing.
Chief Justice Teresita De Castro's 45-page decision to oust Serenoraissarobles
Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Teresita De Castro devoted 18 pages of her 45-page quo warranto decision on former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Serno's SALNs.
This document summarizes an appeal hearing regarding an employee, Mr. Rookwood, who was dismissed for alleged misconduct. The key details are:
1. Mr. Rookwood claimed he was unfairly dismissed from his job as a silk screen printer. He denied the misconduct allegations against him and said he was not given a fair process.
2. At an initial hearing, Mr. Rookwood said he had experienced racial harassment in the form of racist remarks from his manager. This was a new allegation not previously included.
3. The chairman of the tribunal refused to allow Mr. Rookwood to amend his claim to include racial discrimination, finding it was a substantial new complaint made out of
Humberside Police Appeals Body outcome (4 April, 2019) to appeal against the decision of Humberside Police's Professional Standards department (PSD) in respect of a complaint (ref: CO/498/17). This matter concerns a police conduct complaint submitted 14 July 2017 raising issues about the PSD and an Investigating Officer who had not bothered to open a previous conduct complaint file until 370 days after it had been allocated to him. The present matter required by law to be referred to the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC). However, the force wrongly categorised the complaint effectively downplaying the seriousness of it, thus enabling it to be dealt with by way of Local Resolution (not fully investigated). Further mishandling followed, presumably as a deliberate tactic to delay and obfuscate the process due to the seriousness of the allegations. As a consequence it has been referred back twice to the PSD to be dealt with appropriately and has so far (17 March 2020) been ongoing 977 days
Supporting document (Exhibit A-3) to Appellant’s notice of appeal against a Decision Notice issued by the Information Commissioner, in accordance with rule 22 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. Concerns requests for information made to Humberside police to obtain the number of times the phrase "YOU CANT MAKE ME" appeared in police officers witness statements. Humberside Police relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.
Evidence of Humberside Police's continued and deliberate use of obfuscation tactics to ensure that serious criminal misconduct of senior officers serving with Humberside Police, raised in July 2017, have been successfully covered up and never investigated. (Complaint refs: CO/400/18 – CO/49/18 – CO/498/17 – CO/886/17 – CO/535/17).
North East Lincolnshire Council fraudulently obtained a Council Tax liability order by committing perjury (lying in a witness statement to the court). There was no monies owed but North East Lincolnshire Council criminally engineered a non-payment scenario. The Police, Local Government Ombudsman and judges were complicit because they all looked the other way. Bailiff firms Rossendales and subsequently Jacobs attempted to defraud me with their enforcement fees. Events stem from High Court appeal and claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire that 10 items of post (appeal correspondence) had been sent to the Appellant between 19 December 2013 and 13 December 2016 which the Appellant 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 HM Courts and Tribunal Service.
I wish to report criminal and dishonest conduct regarding the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO), Paul Kernaghan, and a number of officers holding various positions acting on behalf of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). I have evidence accumulated over a several year period relating to these officer’s which proves beyond reasonable doubt that their actions have routinely amounted to a betrayal of trust and violation of the laws which impose a duty on officers in their positions to act impartially, fairly and without discrimination or bias.
The Court of Appeal's application of the locus standi doctrine to find that Ms. Llanos lacked standing was inconsistent with the facts of the case. If Ms. Llanos truly lacked standing, then the Superior Court should have dismissed her entire cross-complaint, rather than just a portion of it. The Superior Court abused its discretion by terminating the case against two bank defendants but allowing it to continue against the third. The Court of Appeal should have found that the entire case should have been dismissed on March 1, 2013 based on its own reasoning regarding Ms. Llanos' lack of standing.
Chief Justice Teresita De Castro's 45-page decision to oust Serenoraissarobles
Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Teresita De Castro devoted 18 pages of her 45-page quo warranto decision on former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Serno's SALNs.
This document summarizes an appeal hearing regarding an employee, Mr. Rookwood, who was dismissed for alleged misconduct. The key details are:
1. Mr. Rookwood claimed he was unfairly dismissed from his job as a silk screen printer. He denied the misconduct allegations against him and said he was not given a fair process.
2. At an initial hearing, Mr. Rookwood said he had experienced racial harassment in the form of racist remarks from his manager. This was a new allegation not previously included.
3. The chairman of the tribunal refused to allow Mr. Rookwood to amend his claim to include racial discrimination, finding it was a substantial new complaint made out of
Humberside Police Appeals Body outcome (4 April, 2019) to appeal against the decision of Humberside Police's Professional Standards department (PSD) in respect of a complaint (ref: CO/498/17). This matter concerns a police conduct complaint submitted 14 July 2017 raising issues about the PSD and an Investigating Officer who had not bothered to open a previous conduct complaint file until 370 days after it had been allocated to him. The present matter required by law to be referred to the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC). However, the force wrongly categorised the complaint effectively downplaying the seriousness of it, thus enabling it to be dealt with by way of Local Resolution (not fully investigated). Further mishandling followed, presumably as a deliberate tactic to delay and obfuscate the process due to the seriousness of the allegations. As a consequence it has been referred back twice to the PSD to be dealt with appropriately and has so far (17 March 2020) been ongoing 977 days
Supporting document (Exhibit A-3) to Appellant’s notice of appeal against a Decision Notice issued by the Information Commissioner, in accordance with rule 22 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. Concerns requests for information made to Humberside police to obtain the number of times the phrase "YOU CANT MAKE ME" appeared in police officers witness statements. Humberside Police relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.
Evidence of Humberside Police's continued and deliberate use of obfuscation tactics to ensure that serious criminal misconduct of senior officers serving with Humberside Police, raised in July 2017, have been successfully covered up and never investigated. (Complaint refs: CO/400/18 – CO/49/18 – CO/498/17 – CO/886/17 – CO/535/17).
This letter before claim concerns a proposed application for judicial review of a decision by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) not to review findings of a police investigation. The letter provides background on the claimant's criminal case where he believes false witness statements and police misconduct occurred. It details the claimant's police complaints process regarding the witness statements and arresting officer. The letter argues the IOPC should intervene as the police complaints process was mishandled and statutory obligations were breached. The claimant seeks to challenge the IOPC's decision not to review the police investigation findings.
Discontinuance request submitted by the Professional Standards Department to the Humberside Police Appeals Body (HPAB). Evidence of Humberside Police's continued and deliberate use of obfuscation tactics to ensure that serious criminal misconduct of senior officers serving with Humberside Police, raised in July 2017, have been successfully covered up and never investigated. (Complaint refs: CO/400/18 – CO/49/18 – CO/498/17 – CO/886/17 – CO/535/17).
Outcome of Local Resolution to a complaint (CO 535/17) into Humberside police failing to investigate criminal allegations of malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire 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). The complainant considers these matters should be investigated by Humberside Police as a Crime....//..... Appeal against the Outcome of Local Resolution to a complaint (CO 49/18) into Humberside police failing to investigate criminal allegations of malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire that 10 items of post had been sent to the complainant between the 19/12/2013 to 22/07/2016 which the complainant claims never to have received, and believes they were dishonestly constructed later to satisfy enquiries made by the judicial ombudsman. The complainant considers these matters should be investigated by Humberside Police as a Crime
Iopc response letter before action 24 oct 19John Smith
IOPC’s 24 October response to Letter Before Action (26 September 2019) in the matter of a proposed application for judicial review of the Independent Office for Police Conduct decisions (refs: 2017/082079 and 2019/115969) in relation to appeals against Humberside Police complaint investigation outcome letters of 12 September 2018 and 7 March 2019 (refs: CO/432/15 and CO/632/18) which were dealt with unlawfully in just about every way imaginable. The initial matter (CO/432/15) concerns a police conduct complaint submitted 8 November 2015 which was initially dealt with by way of Local Resolution. The outcome (which was appealed and referred to the IOPC) was provided on 3 April 2017. On completing the review, the IOPC deemed the statutory conditions were not met for the matter to be suitable for local resolution and directed the force to fully investigate the complaint, taking into consideration further information such as evidence in support of alleged collusion between the police, CPS and Courts. Humberside Police ignored the IOPC and dealt with the complaint omitting to consider the further information and evidence and the IOPC was satisfied with how the complaint was investigated. The following matter (CO/632/18) concerns a police conduct complaint submitted inadvertently on 10 October 2018 which was deemed appropriate to be proportionately investigated. The force had – so it claimed – sent the complaint investigation outcome letter concerning CO/432/15 to the wrong address thereby failing to provide sufficient safeguard against unauthorised access, loss or damage to someone’s personal data. The letter contained details of the criminal record of the person whose data protection rights were infringed upon and the reason for his arrest. The data breach (if the letter had in fact been sent) was more severe/unfair due to the disclosed details of the criminal record relating to a wrongful conviction contributed by witnesses committing perjury (the arresting officer is suspected to have incited them). The correspondence to the police on 10 October was not intended as a formal complaint but was handled as one by the force in accordance with the complaint’s procedure under the police reform Act. The communication was predominantly to alert the force of its obligations to refer the personal data breach to the Information Commissioner and to obtain some preliminary information in anticipation of submitting a complaint (to the force) in case it was a prerequisite to raising the issue with the Commissioner. The queries were never answered and the Investigating Officer just ploughed on with the process regardless ignoring the complainant. Consequently the complainant was unable to feed into the process in respect of the information he was denied throughout the course of the investigation because it was not until it was too late when the investigation had completed that the questions he had asked were answered. The Investigation outcome revealed that....
Letter Before Action (4 Sept 2017) in the matter of a proposed application for judicial review of the Local Government Ombudsman's decision No 17 003 081. Concerns a complaint about North East Lincs Council regarding the authority's unlawful application to Grimsby Magistrates' Court for a Council Tax liability order.
This document summarizes an appeal hearing regarding a request for review of an earlier employment tribunal decision. It discusses:
1) The background of the case involving an appeal by Mr. Ece of a decision by the London Borough of Newham employment tribunal.
2) The chairman initially indicated the review request would be heard by the tribunal, but later refused the request, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success.
3) The appellant argued there was procedural error in the chairman changing his decision, but the tribunal found no error, as the rules allow the chairman to refuse a request without a hearing if it has no reasonable prospect of success.
LGO final decision 18 011 180. North East Lincolnshire Council claims to have video footage which it has relied on to support what it claims has been captured relating to an allegation that its contractor left a demand for money that is not owed somewhere accessible to persons other than the intended recipient (a personal data breach). The taxpayer affected asked to see the video evidence but the Council refused and stated that it would not be taking any further action or entering into any further correspondence regarding the matter. The Local Government Ombudsman took the Council's side and refused to investigate but proceeded to the final decision before the complainant had chance to actually comment on the draft. The Ombudsman states in paragraph 3 of the 21 November 2018 final decision that the complainant's comments on the draft had been considered even though complainant's comments had not been submitted until 26 November 2018. This all follows North East Lincolnshire Council fraudulently obtaining a Council Tax liability order by committing perjury (lying in a witness statement to the court). There was no monies owed but the Council criminally engineered a non-payment scenario. The Police, Local Government Ombudsman and Court were all complicit because they looked the other way. Bailiff firms Rossendales and subsequently Jacobs have been instructed in the Councils attempts to defraud the complainant with their enforcement fees. Events stem from High Court appeal and claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire that 10 items of post (appeal correspondence) had been sent to the Appellant between 19 December 2013 and 13 December 2016 which the Appellant 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 HM Courts and Tribunal Service.
1. The document outlines a report made to the Solicitors Regulation Authority regarding concerns with Sally Laycock, a solicitor at Humberside Police.
2. The report alleges that Laycock improperly dealt with appeals of complaints made to Humberside Police regarding criminal allegations against a court. Laycock allegedly distorted facts and did not properly address the concerns raised.
3. The handling of the complaints by Humberside Police and appeals by Laycock involved obstruction tactics that prevented the concerns from being properly investigated according to the report. This caused significant hardship for the complainant.
Humberside Police outcome letter of 7 March 2019 (ref: CO/632/18) which was dealt with unlawfully in just about every way imaginable. This matter concerns a police conduct complaint submitted inadvertently on 10 October 2018 which was deemed appropriate to be proportionately investigated. The force had – so it claimed – sent a letter to the wrong address thereby failing to provide sufficient safeguard against unauthorised access, loss or damage to someone’s personal data. The letter contained details of the criminal record of the person whose data protection rights were infringed upon and the reason for his arrest. The data breach (if the letter had in fact been sent) was more severe/unfair due to the disclosed details of the criminal record relating to a wrongful conviction contributed by witnesses committing perjury (the arresting officer is suspected to have incited them). The correspondence to the police on 10 October was not intended as a formal complaint but was handled as one by the force in accordance with the complaint’s procedure under the police reform Act. The communication was predominantly to alert the force of its obligations to refer the personal data breach to the Information Commissioner and to obtain some preliminary information in anticipation of submitting a complaint (to the force) in case it was a prerequisite to raising the issue with the Commissioner. The queries were never answered and the Investigating Officer just ploughed on with the process regardless ignoring the complainant. Consequently the complainant was unable to feed into the process in respect of the information he was denied throughout the course of the investigation because it was not until it was too late when the investigation had completed that the questions he had asked were answered. The Investigation outcome revealed that ‘the matter was referred to the Information Commissioners Office as a data security breach’ and the believed recipient of the letter stated that she did not receive it. The complainant's case was severely prejudiced in respect of both the police conduct complaint and that of the Information Commissioner. The force's unlawful and deliberate mishandling of the complaint ensured that the Commissioner’s conclusions were based on hopelessly inadequate information as well as its own investigation failing to reach a conclusive outcome. The Investigating Officer clearly failed to carry out her investigation in line with the vast majority of the rules and standards for how the police should investigate complaints. All the anomalies were identified in the appeal to the IOPC and appropriately cited (the rules and standards) for every occurrence, yet the Casework Manager deliberately handled the appeal unlawfully knowing that if the complainant was misguided enough to take the matter to the high court he would simply be asking to be fleeced in the casino justice system which always falls on the side of the crooked public body.
Freedom of Information request revealing the Ministry of Justice's involvement in criminally falsifying documents with Humberside Police as an accomplice deleted by WhatDoTheyKnow
1) The assessor investigated a complaint against Ombudsman Services regarding delay in handling a case. There was a year-long delay, and the complainant argued other cases were prioritized ahead of theirs.
2) The assessor reviewed records and found periods of inactivity but noted flags on the case requesting action. They found the explanations of delay due to high volume were reasonable.
3) While the delay was long, the assessor found the £35 compensation offered was appropriate and recommended keeping that offer open to the complainant.
Supporting document (Exhibit A-5) to Appellant’s notice of appeal against a Decision Notice issued by the Information Commissioner, in accordance with rule 22 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. Concerns requests for information made to Humberside police to obtain the number of times the phrase "YOU CANT MAKE ME" appeared in police officers witness statements. Humberside Police relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.
Humberside Police's refusal to investigate allegations of perverting the course of justice on the grounds that the complaint is vexatious, tending to or intended to vex/worry/annoy officers. Allegations are that the officer has pursued a deliberate course of action to affect the course of justice; by intentionally frustrating a police investigation into serious crime to enable potential defendants to evade arrest or commit further offences. The 17 April 2019 investigation outcome along with correspondence entered into in the matter between 2 February and 30 March 2019 supports incontrovertibly that the investigation was staged to effect a cover up of serious criminal wrongdoing to vindicate the accused. An account briefly summarising each aspect of the alleged conduct relating only to allegation (1) as referred to in the investigation outcome letter of 17 April 2019 is provided in the annex to this form. Further details relating to allegations (2) an (3) may be provided as and when required. A complaint is suitable for local resolution if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct being complained about, even if proven, would not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about. The conduct being complained about in this complaint would without any question if proven justify criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about so this complaint is clearly not suitable for local resolution. It is not a repetitive complaint because I have never made a complaint about the named officer perverting the course of justice or a complaint of any sort for that matter.
Humberside Police's refusal to investigate allegations of perverting the course of justice on the grounds that the complaint is vexatious, tending to or intended to vex/worry/annoy officers. Allegations are that the officer has pursued a deliberate course of action to affect the course of justice; by intentionally frustrating a police investigation into serious crime to enable potential defendants to evade arrest or commit further offences. The 17 April 2019 investigation outcome along with correspondence entered into in the matter between 2 February and 30 March 2019 supports incontrovertibly that the investigation was staged to effect a cover up of serious criminal wrongdoing to vindicate the accused. An account briefly summarising each aspect of the alleged conduct relating only to allegation (1) as referred to in the investigation outcome letter of 17 April 2019 is provided in the annex to this form. Further details relating to allegations (2) an (3) may be provided as and when required. A complaint is suitable for local resolution if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct being complained about, even if proven, would not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about. The conduct being complained about in this complaint would without any question if proven justify criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about so this complaint is clearly not suitable for local resolution. It is not a repetitive complaint because I have never made a complaint about the named officer perverting the course of justice or a complaint of any sort for that matter.
Judicial complaint dismissal and further info agreedDouglas GARDINER
This letter from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office acknowledges a complaint filed by Mr. Gardiner about the conduct of District Judge Asplin during a hearing on October 21, 2014. The letter dismisses part of the complaint, relating to the judge's decision, as the office cannot investigate judicial decisions. For the remaining part of the complaint alleging the judge insulted the complainant's intelligence, more information is requested by January 21st to further investigate, or else that part of the complaint may also be dismissed.
Appellant’s Reply to Commissioner's Response to the Appellant’s grounds of appeal in accordance with rule 24 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. Concerns requests for information made to Humberside police to obtain the number of times the phrase "YOU CANT MAKE ME" appeared in police officers witness statements. Humberside Police relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.
Bogus investigation outcome of 17 April 2019 littered with what are effectively red herrings for the benefit of the uninformed observer who would be ignorant of how compelling the evidence really was (which has been omitted from the outcome). The reality however, is that to anyone informed it would be so overwhelmingly obvious that the content is not worth the paper it is written on – a shameful example of the establishment covering for their own.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the employer's cross-appeal that the employee was not automatically unfairly dismissed for failure to comply with statutory dismissal procedures. While the Tribunal found some additional documentation was provided to the employee at meetings, this did not mean the basic requirements of the procedures were unmet. The employee was given sufficient notice of the fundamental complaints against her of failing to disclose theft and concealing it. As there was no automatic unfair dismissal, the issue of compensation reductions was irrelevant. However, the Tribunal took the wrong approach in its calculation of the basic award, though not the compensatory award. Ultimately, the employee's appeal was dismissed.
This matter concerns a police conduct complaint submitted 8 November 2015 which was initially dealt with by way of Local Resolution. The outcome (which was appealed and referred to the IOPC) was provided on 3 April 2017. On completing the review, the IOPC deemed the statutory conditions were not met for the matter to be suitable for local resolution and directed the force to fully investigate the complaint, taking into consideration further information such as evidence in support of alleged collusion between the police, CPS and Courts.
The letter responds to a complaint by noting that the matter has been exhaustively dealt with through the internal complaints procedure and council policy. It states that further investigations will not be conducted since an ombudsman investigation is underway, and that allegations of criminal conduct by a deputy lack evidence and credibility. The complainant is advised to take independent legal advice or refer unsubstantiated allegations to the police. The council asserts it has acted appropriately regarding a liability order.
A host of allegations of misconduct, implicating senior officers at North East Lincolnshire Council, Humberside police, Local Government Ombudsman, Information Commissioner etc. Primarily concerning the council's legal department refusing to acknowledge or respond to any correspondence regarding proven allegation and evidence of criminal wrongdoing. As a consequence of the criminal negligence, the person affected has been engaged continuously with either the police, various Ombudsmen and other regulatory bodies but without justice as they have all been proven to be complicit in related matters.
This letter before claim concerns a proposed application for judicial review of a decision by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) not to review findings of a police investigation. The letter provides background on the claimant's criminal case where he believes false witness statements and police misconduct occurred. It details the claimant's police complaints process regarding the witness statements and arresting officer. The letter argues the IOPC should intervene as the police complaints process was mishandled and statutory obligations were breached. The claimant seeks to challenge the IOPC's decision not to review the police investigation findings.
Discontinuance request submitted by the Professional Standards Department to the Humberside Police Appeals Body (HPAB). Evidence of Humberside Police's continued and deliberate use of obfuscation tactics to ensure that serious criminal misconduct of senior officers serving with Humberside Police, raised in July 2017, have been successfully covered up and never investigated. (Complaint refs: CO/400/18 – CO/49/18 – CO/498/17 – CO/886/17 – CO/535/17).
Outcome of Local Resolution to a complaint (CO 535/17) into Humberside police failing to investigate criminal allegations of malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire 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). The complainant considers these matters should be investigated by Humberside Police as a Crime....//..... Appeal against the Outcome of Local Resolution to a complaint (CO 49/18) into Humberside police failing to investigate criminal allegations of malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire that 10 items of post had been sent to the complainant between the 19/12/2013 to 22/07/2016 which the complainant claims never to have received, and believes they were dishonestly constructed later to satisfy enquiries made by the judicial ombudsman. The complainant considers these matters should be investigated by Humberside Police as a Crime
Iopc response letter before action 24 oct 19John Smith
IOPC’s 24 October response to Letter Before Action (26 September 2019) in the matter of a proposed application for judicial review of the Independent Office for Police Conduct decisions (refs: 2017/082079 and 2019/115969) in relation to appeals against Humberside Police complaint investigation outcome letters of 12 September 2018 and 7 March 2019 (refs: CO/432/15 and CO/632/18) which were dealt with unlawfully in just about every way imaginable. The initial matter (CO/432/15) concerns a police conduct complaint submitted 8 November 2015 which was initially dealt with by way of Local Resolution. The outcome (which was appealed and referred to the IOPC) was provided on 3 April 2017. On completing the review, the IOPC deemed the statutory conditions were not met for the matter to be suitable for local resolution and directed the force to fully investigate the complaint, taking into consideration further information such as evidence in support of alleged collusion between the police, CPS and Courts. Humberside Police ignored the IOPC and dealt with the complaint omitting to consider the further information and evidence and the IOPC was satisfied with how the complaint was investigated. The following matter (CO/632/18) concerns a police conduct complaint submitted inadvertently on 10 October 2018 which was deemed appropriate to be proportionately investigated. The force had – so it claimed – sent the complaint investigation outcome letter concerning CO/432/15 to the wrong address thereby failing to provide sufficient safeguard against unauthorised access, loss or damage to someone’s personal data. The letter contained details of the criminal record of the person whose data protection rights were infringed upon and the reason for his arrest. The data breach (if the letter had in fact been sent) was more severe/unfair due to the disclosed details of the criminal record relating to a wrongful conviction contributed by witnesses committing perjury (the arresting officer is suspected to have incited them). The correspondence to the police on 10 October was not intended as a formal complaint but was handled as one by the force in accordance with the complaint’s procedure under the police reform Act. The communication was predominantly to alert the force of its obligations to refer the personal data breach to the Information Commissioner and to obtain some preliminary information in anticipation of submitting a complaint (to the force) in case it was a prerequisite to raising the issue with the Commissioner. The queries were never answered and the Investigating Officer just ploughed on with the process regardless ignoring the complainant. Consequently the complainant was unable to feed into the process in respect of the information he was denied throughout the course of the investigation because it was not until it was too late when the investigation had completed that the questions he had asked were answered. The Investigation outcome revealed that....
Letter Before Action (4 Sept 2017) in the matter of a proposed application for judicial review of the Local Government Ombudsman's decision No 17 003 081. Concerns a complaint about North East Lincs Council regarding the authority's unlawful application to Grimsby Magistrates' Court for a Council Tax liability order.
This document summarizes an appeal hearing regarding a request for review of an earlier employment tribunal decision. It discusses:
1) The background of the case involving an appeal by Mr. Ece of a decision by the London Borough of Newham employment tribunal.
2) The chairman initially indicated the review request would be heard by the tribunal, but later refused the request, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success.
3) The appellant argued there was procedural error in the chairman changing his decision, but the tribunal found no error, as the rules allow the chairman to refuse a request without a hearing if it has no reasonable prospect of success.
LGO final decision 18 011 180. North East Lincolnshire Council claims to have video footage which it has relied on to support what it claims has been captured relating to an allegation that its contractor left a demand for money that is not owed somewhere accessible to persons other than the intended recipient (a personal data breach). The taxpayer affected asked to see the video evidence but the Council refused and stated that it would not be taking any further action or entering into any further correspondence regarding the matter. The Local Government Ombudsman took the Council's side and refused to investigate but proceeded to the final decision before the complainant had chance to actually comment on the draft. The Ombudsman states in paragraph 3 of the 21 November 2018 final decision that the complainant's comments on the draft had been considered even though complainant's comments had not been submitted until 26 November 2018. This all follows North East Lincolnshire Council fraudulently obtaining a Council Tax liability order by committing perjury (lying in a witness statement to the court). There was no monies owed but the Council criminally engineered a non-payment scenario. The Police, Local Government Ombudsman and Court were all complicit because they looked the other way. Bailiff firms Rossendales and subsequently Jacobs have been instructed in the Councils attempts to defraud the complainant with their enforcement fees. Events stem from High Court appeal and claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire that 10 items of post (appeal correspondence) had been sent to the Appellant between 19 December 2013 and 13 December 2016 which the Appellant 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 HM Courts and Tribunal Service.
1. The document outlines a report made to the Solicitors Regulation Authority regarding concerns with Sally Laycock, a solicitor at Humberside Police.
2. The report alleges that Laycock improperly dealt with appeals of complaints made to Humberside Police regarding criminal allegations against a court. Laycock allegedly distorted facts and did not properly address the concerns raised.
3. The handling of the complaints by Humberside Police and appeals by Laycock involved obstruction tactics that prevented the concerns from being properly investigated according to the report. This caused significant hardship for the complainant.
Humberside Police outcome letter of 7 March 2019 (ref: CO/632/18) which was dealt with unlawfully in just about every way imaginable. This matter concerns a police conduct complaint submitted inadvertently on 10 October 2018 which was deemed appropriate to be proportionately investigated. The force had – so it claimed – sent a letter to the wrong address thereby failing to provide sufficient safeguard against unauthorised access, loss or damage to someone’s personal data. The letter contained details of the criminal record of the person whose data protection rights were infringed upon and the reason for his arrest. The data breach (if the letter had in fact been sent) was more severe/unfair due to the disclosed details of the criminal record relating to a wrongful conviction contributed by witnesses committing perjury (the arresting officer is suspected to have incited them). The correspondence to the police on 10 October was not intended as a formal complaint but was handled as one by the force in accordance with the complaint’s procedure under the police reform Act. The communication was predominantly to alert the force of its obligations to refer the personal data breach to the Information Commissioner and to obtain some preliminary information in anticipation of submitting a complaint (to the force) in case it was a prerequisite to raising the issue with the Commissioner. The queries were never answered and the Investigating Officer just ploughed on with the process regardless ignoring the complainant. Consequently the complainant was unable to feed into the process in respect of the information he was denied throughout the course of the investigation because it was not until it was too late when the investigation had completed that the questions he had asked were answered. The Investigation outcome revealed that ‘the matter was referred to the Information Commissioners Office as a data security breach’ and the believed recipient of the letter stated that she did not receive it. The complainant's case was severely prejudiced in respect of both the police conduct complaint and that of the Information Commissioner. The force's unlawful and deliberate mishandling of the complaint ensured that the Commissioner’s conclusions were based on hopelessly inadequate information as well as its own investigation failing to reach a conclusive outcome. The Investigating Officer clearly failed to carry out her investigation in line with the vast majority of the rules and standards for how the police should investigate complaints. All the anomalies were identified in the appeal to the IOPC and appropriately cited (the rules and standards) for every occurrence, yet the Casework Manager deliberately handled the appeal unlawfully knowing that if the complainant was misguided enough to take the matter to the high court he would simply be asking to be fleeced in the casino justice system which always falls on the side of the crooked public body.
Freedom of Information request revealing the Ministry of Justice's involvement in criminally falsifying documents with Humberside Police as an accomplice deleted by WhatDoTheyKnow
1) The assessor investigated a complaint against Ombudsman Services regarding delay in handling a case. There was a year-long delay, and the complainant argued other cases were prioritized ahead of theirs.
2) The assessor reviewed records and found periods of inactivity but noted flags on the case requesting action. They found the explanations of delay due to high volume were reasonable.
3) While the delay was long, the assessor found the £35 compensation offered was appropriate and recommended keeping that offer open to the complainant.
Supporting document (Exhibit A-5) to Appellant’s notice of appeal against a Decision Notice issued by the Information Commissioner, in accordance with rule 22 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. Concerns requests for information made to Humberside police to obtain the number of times the phrase "YOU CANT MAKE ME" appeared in police officers witness statements. Humberside Police relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.
Humberside Police's refusal to investigate allegations of perverting the course of justice on the grounds that the complaint is vexatious, tending to or intended to vex/worry/annoy officers. Allegations are that the officer has pursued a deliberate course of action to affect the course of justice; by intentionally frustrating a police investigation into serious crime to enable potential defendants to evade arrest or commit further offences. The 17 April 2019 investigation outcome along with correspondence entered into in the matter between 2 February and 30 March 2019 supports incontrovertibly that the investigation was staged to effect a cover up of serious criminal wrongdoing to vindicate the accused. An account briefly summarising each aspect of the alleged conduct relating only to allegation (1) as referred to in the investigation outcome letter of 17 April 2019 is provided in the annex to this form. Further details relating to allegations (2) an (3) may be provided as and when required. A complaint is suitable for local resolution if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct being complained about, even if proven, would not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about. The conduct being complained about in this complaint would without any question if proven justify criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about so this complaint is clearly not suitable for local resolution. It is not a repetitive complaint because I have never made a complaint about the named officer perverting the course of justice or a complaint of any sort for that matter.
Humberside Police's refusal to investigate allegations of perverting the course of justice on the grounds that the complaint is vexatious, tending to or intended to vex/worry/annoy officers. Allegations are that the officer has pursued a deliberate course of action to affect the course of justice; by intentionally frustrating a police investigation into serious crime to enable potential defendants to evade arrest or commit further offences. The 17 April 2019 investigation outcome along with correspondence entered into in the matter between 2 February and 30 March 2019 supports incontrovertibly that the investigation was staged to effect a cover up of serious criminal wrongdoing to vindicate the accused. An account briefly summarising each aspect of the alleged conduct relating only to allegation (1) as referred to in the investigation outcome letter of 17 April 2019 is provided in the annex to this form. Further details relating to allegations (2) an (3) may be provided as and when required. A complaint is suitable for local resolution if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct being complained about, even if proven, would not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about. The conduct being complained about in this complaint would without any question if proven justify criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about so this complaint is clearly not suitable for local resolution. It is not a repetitive complaint because I have never made a complaint about the named officer perverting the course of justice or a complaint of any sort for that matter.
Judicial complaint dismissal and further info agreedDouglas GARDINER
This letter from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office acknowledges a complaint filed by Mr. Gardiner about the conduct of District Judge Asplin during a hearing on October 21, 2014. The letter dismisses part of the complaint, relating to the judge's decision, as the office cannot investigate judicial decisions. For the remaining part of the complaint alleging the judge insulted the complainant's intelligence, more information is requested by January 21st to further investigate, or else that part of the complaint may also be dismissed.
Appellant’s Reply to Commissioner's Response to the Appellant’s grounds of appeal in accordance with rule 24 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. Concerns requests for information made to Humberside police to obtain the number of times the phrase "YOU CANT MAKE ME" appeared in police officers witness statements. Humberside Police relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.
Bogus investigation outcome of 17 April 2019 littered with what are effectively red herrings for the benefit of the uninformed observer who would be ignorant of how compelling the evidence really was (which has been omitted from the outcome). The reality however, is that to anyone informed it would be so overwhelmingly obvious that the content is not worth the paper it is written on – a shameful example of the establishment covering for their own.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the employer's cross-appeal that the employee was not automatically unfairly dismissed for failure to comply with statutory dismissal procedures. While the Tribunal found some additional documentation was provided to the employee at meetings, this did not mean the basic requirements of the procedures were unmet. The employee was given sufficient notice of the fundamental complaints against her of failing to disclose theft and concealing it. As there was no automatic unfair dismissal, the issue of compensation reductions was irrelevant. However, the Tribunal took the wrong approach in its calculation of the basic award, though not the compensatory award. Ultimately, the employee's appeal was dismissed.
This matter concerns a police conduct complaint submitted 8 November 2015 which was initially dealt with by way of Local Resolution. The outcome (which was appealed and referred to the IOPC) was provided on 3 April 2017. On completing the review, the IOPC deemed the statutory conditions were not met for the matter to be suitable for local resolution and directed the force to fully investigate the complaint, taking into consideration further information such as evidence in support of alleged collusion between the police, CPS and Courts.
Similar to Jaco 23 may 2016 provisional report (20)
The letter responds to a complaint by noting that the matter has been exhaustively dealt with through the internal complaints procedure and council policy. It states that further investigations will not be conducted since an ombudsman investigation is underway, and that allegations of criminal conduct by a deputy lack evidence and credibility. The complainant is advised to take independent legal advice or refer unsubstantiated allegations to the police. The council asserts it has acted appropriately regarding a liability order.
A host of allegations of misconduct, implicating senior officers at North East Lincolnshire Council, Humberside police, Local Government Ombudsman, Information Commissioner etc. Primarily concerning the council's legal department refusing to acknowledge or respond to any correspondence regarding proven allegation and evidence of criminal wrongdoing. As a consequence of the criminal negligence, the person affected has been engaged continuously with either the police, various Ombudsmen and other regulatory bodies but without justice as they have all been proven to be complicit in related matters.
IOPC’s criminally handled appeal outcome letter dated 26 August 2020. Concerns Humberside Police's refusal to investigate allegations of perverting the course of justice on the grounds that the complaint is vexatious, tending to or intended to vex/worry/annoy officers. Allegations are that the officer has pursued a deliberate course of action to affect the course of justice; by intentionally frustrating a police investigation into serious crime to enable potential defendants to evade arrest or commit further offences. The 17 April 2019 investigation outcome along with correspondence entered into in the matter between 2 February and 30 March 2019 supports incontrovertibly that the investigation was staged to effect a cover up of serious criminal wrongdoing to vindicate the accused. An account briefly summarising each aspect of the alleged conduct relating only to allegation (1) as referred to in the investigation outcome letter of 17 April 2019 is provided in the annex to this form. Further details relating to allegations (2) an (3) may be provided as and when required. A complaint is suitable for local resolution if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct being complained about, even if proven, would not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about. The conduct being complained about in this complaint would without any question if proven justify criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about so this complaint is clearly not suitable for local resolution. It is not a repetitive complaint because I have never made a complaint about the named officer perverting the course of justice or a complaint of any sort for that matter
Freedom of Information request revealing the Ministry of Justice's involvement in criminally falsifying documents with Humberside Police as an accomplice made unsearchable by WhatDoTheyKnow
This document is a prosecution application from Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates' Court against Humberside Police. It is dated April 26, 2016 and relates to starting a prosecution under section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. The court document is labeled as Exhibit 7 in the case.
More evidence of criminal misconduct within the Humberside Police Professional Standards Department. Concerns the Police's refusal to investigate allegations of perverting the course of justice on the grounds that the complaint is vexatious, tending to or intended to vex/worry/annoy officers. Allegations are that the officer has pursued a deliberate course of action to affect the course of justice; by intentionally frustrating a police investigation into serious crime to enable potential defendants to evade arrest or commit further offences. The 17 April 2019 investigation outcome along with correspondence entered into in the matter between 2 February and 30 March 2019 supports incontrovertibly that the investigation was staged to effect a cover up of serious criminal wrongdoing to vindicate the accused. An account briefly summarising each aspect of the alleged conduct relating only to allegation (1) as referred to in the investigation outcome letter of 17 April 2019 is provided in the annex to this form. Further details relating to allegations (2) an (3) may be provided as and when required. A complaint is suitable for local resolution if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct being complained about, even if proven, would not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about. The conduct being complained about in this complaint would without any question if proven justify criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about so this complaint is clearly not suitable for local resolution. It is not a repetitive complaint because I have never made a complaint about the named officer perverting the course of justice or a complaint of any sort for that matter.
Allegations that the officer has pursued a deliberate course of action to affect the course of justice; by intentionally frustrating a police investigation into serious crime to enable potential defendants to evade arrest or commit further offences. The 17 April 2019 investigation outcome along with correspondence entered into in the matter between 2 February and 30 March 2019 supports incontrovertibly that the investigation was staged to effect a cover up of serious criminal wrongdoing to vindicate the accused. An account briefly summarising each aspect of the alleged conduct relating only to allegation (1) as referred to in the investigation outcome letter of 17 April 2019 is provided in the annex to this form. Further details relating to allegations (2) an (3) may be provided as and when required. A complaint is suitable for local resolution if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct being complained about, even if proven, would not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about. The conduct being complained about in this complaint would without any question if proven justify criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about so this complaint is clearly not suitable for local resolution. It is not a repetitive complaint because I have never made a complaint about the named officer perverting the course of justice or a complaint of any sort for that matter.
Freedom of Information request revealing Evidence of Humberside Police's continued and deliberate use of obfuscation tactics to ensure that serious criminal misconduct of senior officers serving with Humberside Police, raised in July 2017, have been successfully covered up and never investigated. (Complaint refs: CO/400/18 – CO/49/18 – CO/498/17 – CO/886/17 – CO/535/17). Deleted by WhatDoTheyKnow
Humberside Chief Constable turning blind eye to police failing to investigate criminal allegations of malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire 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). The complainant considers these matters should be investigated by Humberside Police as a Crime (Local Resolution complaint CO 535/17)
Extract from an appeal to the Independent Office for police Conduct (IOPC) against the decision of Humberside Police in respect of a complaint (ref: CO/432/15). This matter concerns a police conduct complaint submitted 8 November 2015 which was initially dealt with by way of Local Resolution. The outcome (which was appealed and referred to the IOPC) was provided on 3 April 2017. On completing the review, the IOPC deemed the statutory conditions were not met for the matter to be suitable for local resolution and directed the force to fully investigate the complaint, taking into consideration further information such as evidence in support of alleged collusion between the police, CPS and Courts. Humberside Police ignored the IOPC and dealt with the complaint omitting to consider the further information and evidence and the IOPC was satisfied with how the complaint was investigated
Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) directing Humberside Police to re-investigate complaint. This matter concerns a police conduct complaint submitted 8 November 2015 which was initially dealt with by way of Local Resolution. The outcome (which was appealed and referred to the IOPC) was provided on 3 April 2017. On completing the review, the IOPC deemed the statutory conditions were not met for the matter to be suitable for local resolution and directed the force to fully investigate the complaint, taking into consideration further information such as evidence in support of alleged collusion between the police, CPS and Courts.
Local Government Ombudsman's (LGO) letter of response pursuant to the requirements of the Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol (Letter Before Action, 4 Sept 2017) in the matter of a proposed application for judicial review of the Local Government Ombudsman's decision No 17 003 081. Concerns a complaint about North East Lincs Council regarding the authority's unlawful application to Grimsby Magistrates' Court for a Council Tax liability order.
Ministry of Justice's 14 January 2020 response to Freedom of Information request originally submitted 7 September 2019, though due to obstruction by whatdotheyknow and obfuscation tack-ticks by MoJ (changing reference numbers etc) the effective submission date deemed by the MoJ was 15 December 2019. Eventual reference number: 191215005, original 190907001 and other previously quoted numbers 191020004 and 191125041. Concerns late production and backdating of documents designed to ‘plug gaps’ and corruption of documents by conflation, amendment or post-dated creation.
Allegations against various public bodies for complicity in covering up misconduct in public office including Humberside Police, Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), Judicial office holders, North East Lincolnshire Council (NELC), Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO), Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
The Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in Italy
Jaco 23 may 2016 provisional report
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.