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

1. Made unsearchable by WhatDoTheyKnow
Ministry of Justice (MoJ) criticised over forging
documents
P Kernman (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to
Humberside Police: 21 June 2019
Dear Humberside Police,
The Guardian refers, 19 June 2019
“Perhaps most seriously, given the identity of the respondent [the MoJ], is the forgery
by late production and backdating of documents designed to ‘plug gaps’,” the tribunal
ruling states.
It also refers to “corruption of documents by conflation, amendment or post-dated creation”
and said the MoJ’s failings go “beyond error”.
Was Humberside police aware about the tribunal discovering that the Ministry of Justice
had forged documents and if so did it take this into account when investigating similar
allegations (see outcomes below):
https://www.scribd.com/document/380677291/Outcome-LR-CO-535-17-25-May-2018-R
http://s000.tinyupload.com/download.php?file_id=27295684637895143729&t=2729568463
789514372964873
Yours faithfully,
P Kernman
Humberside Police
To: P Kernman (Account suspended) Date: 30 July 2019
Your Ref:
Our Ref:F-2019-01626
30 July, 2019
Dear Mr Kernman,
Thank you for your request for information dated 21 June, 2019 regarding Ministry of
Justice (MoJ) criticised over forging documents. Section 8(1)(b) of the FOIA requires that a

2. request for information must include the real name of the requester. If the requester; fails
to provide a name; can't be identified from the name provided (for example because they
have only used their first name or initials); or, is using an obvious pseudonym, then the
request won't meet the requirements of section 8(1)(b) and will technically be invalid.
Whilst it is not routine that we would seek identification, we have determined that that on
this occasion owing to similarities to previous requests we require your identification to
proceed with this request.
Yours sincerely,
Sian Boynton
Information Compliance Officer
Humberside Police
P Kernman 3 August 2019
Dear Boynton, Sian 8066,
The Information Commissioner considers it good practice to respond to a request from an
applicant whom the public body suspects has submitted it under a pseudonym (unless there is
a valid reasons not to do so). A requester would only wish to hide their identity if he wanted his
own personal data to circumvent paying the fee that public bodies sometimes charge for
complying with a Subject Access Request (SAR). This information does not fall in a category of
personal information and would be considered by the Commissioner in this case to be good
practice to respond to the request.
Yours sincerely,
P Kernman
Humberside Police
To: P Kernman (Account suspended) Date: 1 September 2019
Good Afternoon
As stated previously this will be dealt with when suitable ID is provided.
Yours sincerely
Sian Boynton
Information Compliance Officer
Data Protection/Freedom of Information
Humberside Police

3. Annotations
J E Garner left an annotation (14 March 2020)
In the letter to you from Humberside Police dated 25 May 2018 reference CO535/17 DI
Foster quotes a case law from 1982 R v Ghosh stating that the definition of dishonesty is
laid out in this case law. He should have been aware that in October 2017 The Supreme
Court overruled the Ghosh test -which has implications for Professional Disciplinary
Proceedings, and that the question of dishonesty should be determined in accordance with
the Barlow Clowes line of reasoning. The test for dishonesty is as set out by Lord Nicholls
in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn v Tan and by Lord Hoffman in Barlow Clowes. Basically there
should be no difference in the standards of proof of dishonesty whether it arises in a civil
action or a criminal prosecution. "Dishonesty is simple, it would be an affront to the law if
its meaning differed according to the kind of proceedings in which it arose" the Supreme
Court rules Para 63. Good Luck
P Kernman (Account suspended) left an annotation (14 March 2020)
Thanks. I remember there being some controversy about the Ghosh case law in this
matter. The force determined the complaint to be one about an organisational issue and
dealt with by the Local Resolution process, hence there was no right of appeal against the
outcome. However, the Ghosh anomaly was raised in a separate complaint about the
officers mishandling of the investigation which did have an appeal right (Representations in
respect of appeal Ref: CO/49/18) https://tinyurl.com/tw8w7ku 20 June 2018
"The report’s findings yell out at you that the force’s handling of the complaint was no
more than a token gesture with obvious signs that generic content had been used from
templates which had not even been updated to reflect the Supreme Court’s overruling
of the Ghosh test..."
J Roberts left an annotation (14 March 2020)
'62. The test now clearly established was explained thus in Barlow Clowes by Lord
Hoffmann, at pp 1479-1480, who had been a party also to Twinsectra:
“Although a dishonest state of mind is a subjective mental state, the standard by which the
law determines whether it is dishonest is objective. If by ordinary standards a defendant’s
mental state would be characterised as dishonest, it is irrelevant that the defendant judges
by different standards. The Court of Appeal held this to be a correct state of the law and
their Lordships agree.”'
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/67.html

4. J E Garner left an annotation (14 March 2020)
Have you tried a Subject Access Request for any personal information linked to this case
under the GDPR? It is FREE and they have 30 days to respond.
or Try the following: Hayley Allen Head of MoJ Disclosure
Chris Stores Head of Counter Fraud and Corporate Reporting | HMCTS Governance and
Assurance Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Services
Richard Redgrave Head of Customer Investigations/Services HMCTS
P Kernman (Account suspended) left an annotation (15 March 2020)
The SAR might be worth considering but with it always in mind that the authorities have
limitless funds with which to defend the non release of anything incriminating. There are
also a few good suggestions of people to contact who may potentially have answers.
However, the Head of Customer Investigations (one of whom you suggest) did uphold a
complaint to HMCTS and offered a sum of compensation but that was only in recognition
of the poor handling of the high court application and inconvenience experienced.
https://tinyurl.com/vltuc7s This was as you would expect only after previous complaint
handlers had deflected the issues for as long as possible by reason of being out of
jurisdiction. Of course, there was no consideration of the possibility that the letters had
been produced afterwards and backdated for the purposes of covering their tracks (despite
evidence suggesting the contrary). HMCTS' answer to this was that it had not seen any
reason to believe that the letters were not posted.
There is something that does seem likely when comparing the Employment Tribunal
Judgment (3400502/2016) with the excerpt (paras 11 to 25) of the 19 March 2017 HMCTS
Complaint (above link). That is that a similar line of enquiry had been taken by the Tribunal
to how the complainant approached his analysis referred to in the email of 11 July 2017 to
the Information Commissioner to identify inconsistencies.
The complainant refers in consecutive paragraphs (para 23 and 24) to time limits within
which the court had an obligation to comply. For example in paragraph 23 it states the
following:
"....On this basis, the latest date by which the court had to state and sign the case
would have been 21 October 2013 (42 days from 9 September)."
The Employment Tribunal Judgment refers in paragraph 167 to a similar concept and
follows the identical format in respect of when an action should have been completed:
".....The investigation should have been completed by 8 February 2016 (28 days from
11 January). It was in fact completed on 26 April 2016.
Additionally the Employment Tribunal refers several times in the Judgment to the date and
time properties embedded in electronic documents which reveal when they were created
to cross reference when they were purported to have been produced (paras 168, 170 and

5. 372). This concept was also raised as a line of enquiry to be pursued especially to the
police and clearly relevant.
It looks like members of the public who have the misfortune to be affected by these
matters and provoked into the statutory complaint procedures etc. are taken advantage of
by the government and used as an unofficial free research service (they merely function to
find things out from members of the public).
J E Garner left an annotation (15 March 2020)
The metadata of the letters purported to have been sent to you would show the actual date
and time they were produced, it cannot be altered, if any attempt is made to alter the
metadata it will show. This should have ben a simple task to carry out in any investigation,
to prove one way or the other when the letters were constructed. You could request this
under a SAR. It will be interesting to find out the outcome of the MOJ's internal Review
after Judge Ord's comments in the ET case of Mr Plaistow!
P Kernman (Account suspended) left an annotation (16 March 2020)
The letters were purportedly posted, the majority some years before it was ever found out
they existed. The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) emphasised in
his report that none of them were backed up by email to imply that nothing could be proven
and to justify his decision against investigating. The letters discovered by the complaint
procedures (3 initially by JACO and 7 more later by HMCTS) were conveniently for the
MoJ not electronic documents of the purported originals, they were purposely created
approximately around the time of sending to the complainant. It is on this basis that the
authorities will claim that the metadata does not prove anything.
The police have exploited this in this matter https://tinyurl.com/yxfc7h9p and another in
which a letter containing sensitive personal data (discovered sometime later) was
purportedly sent to the wrong address and never retrieved. The examination of the file
properties was futile as a way of verifying when the file had been produced because when
the original electronic copy was requested by the complainant, the one sent was claimed
by the police to be a recently created copy (changed to pdf format for security). The
circumstances led the complainant to suspect the whole idea of sending the letter to an
incorrect address was a [red herring] because the letter was the sham outcome of an
Investigation into serious police misconduct which had gone on for years. There was an
appeal right to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) for which a time limit
applied and the appeal was time barred due to the delay in obtaining the letter.
A person affected by official wrongdoing cannot rely on the various public bodies who are
in place to oversee fairness because the reality is that there is a contest going on between
them and the complainant. If the organisation succeeds in covering up the official
wrongdoing it wins. That has been proved to apply in this matter to at least the Police,
LGO, JACO, IOPC and ICO

6. The Local Government Ombudsman for example has assisted as is evident from a service
complaint which it refused to consider. The matadata anomaly you refer to was raised in
that complaint in paragraph 71:
https://tinyurl.com/tw9qchy
".....It was within his jurisdiction to have required it and if a copy was forthcoming,
insisted that an original electronic file as it was saved on the MoJ’s system was made
available to back up when it was produced. It was the [Judicial Appointments and
Conduct] Ombudsman’s duty to make proper checks in respect of the copies of the
three alleged letters but he evidently did not."
The authorities have been handed the evidence on a plate but they are putting all their
energies into justifying turning a blind eye.
J E Garner left an annotation (16 March 2020)
All of the so called "Independent Regulatory" bodies suffer from Regulatory Capture, all
putting their own interests first, by denying, covering up, and the investigations carried out
are purely superficial. There are no checks and balances, accountability or transparency,
despite what it says on the packet. Litigants in Person are particularly penalised, and no
longer have access to justice in the UK. We cannot be alone, as this behaviour towards
the public who have genuine complaints is systemic.
P Kernman (Account suspended) left an annotation (17 March 2020)
A very well summed up account of how these regulatory bodies function. However, I would
add that although it might be arguably regarded fair game by the judiciary to exploit the
disadvantaged litigant in person, there is a line crossed when the measures resorted to in
achieving their objective stray into the criminal...that's where the debate ends.