Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Claimant's application not read by judge is not a misconduct

Judicial review, activities of government, local and national etc.

Claimant's application not read by judge is not a misconduct

Postby Denning » Sat Jan 23, 2016 1:23 am

A Claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review at the Administrative Court. His application and pleadings were not read by the judge who appeared to have determined the application on the papers solely on the basis of the Acknowledgement of Service provided by the advocate representing the Public Authority.

The Claimant complaint about the behaviour of the judge to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office ("JCIO") on grounds of bias, abuse of judicial powers and judicial misconduct for failure to give consideration to his applications and pleadings. The JCIO rejected the complaints as outside its remit and commented that a judge is entitled not to read the Claimant's pleadings and application in accordance with the judge's case management powers.

On escalation of the complaint, the Judicial Ombudsman affirmed the decision of the JCIO.

I would welcome your viewpoints especially on the aspect of the judge not reading the Claimant's application and pleadings?
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Claimant's application not read by judge is not a miscon

Postby Hairyloon » Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:16 am

Denning wrote:I would welcome your viewpoints especially on the aspect of the judge not reading the Claimant's application and pleadings?

Upon what basis do you assert that he had not read the papers?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9308
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Claimant's application not read by judge is not a miscon

Postby dls » Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:14 am

There will be occasions when a judge is being asked to deal with a particular and precise issue. A party may submit papers which are not relevant to that issue. It can easily be appropriate not to read such.

Such cases must be particular and individual, and no doubt great care has to be taken.

There are recent high profile examples where the rules place limits on the extent of paperwork to be submitted, and parties have been penalised for breaking them. I seem to remember one where there was an explicit and proper 'robust' refusal to read them.

We are moving more and more to the need for robust (brutal) case management.

We cannot, of course, say whether the judge was right in this exact case, but the question being asked in principle, the answer in principle is that the balance has shifted. Parties are not free to argue every last possible point where the points being made may be hopeless or irrelevant, and judges are told to act accordingly. SOmetimes judges will get it wrong, and sometimes parties will bring it upon themselves.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11782
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Claimant's application not read by judge is not a miscon

Postby atticus » Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:23 am

How does ding know that the Judge did not read the application etc?

and what dls says in his final paragraph is of course correct.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18633
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Claimant's application not read by judge is not a miscon

Postby Denning » Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:47 pm

Hairyloon wrote:
Denning wrote:I would welcome your viewpoints especially on the aspect of the judge not reading the Claimant's application and pleadings?

Upon what basis do you assert that he had not read the papers?

Upon the evidence (including affidavid/witness statement of truth) that I have seen. The JCIO and the Ombudsman never disputed the evidence presented by the Claimant but rather stated that it was not a misconduct in accordance with the JCIO guidelines for a judge not to read a Claimant's application and pleadings. That if the Claimant was not happy then his recourse was to appeal. That only an appellate court can order the JCIO to investigate the judge in such circumstance so as to come within the rule.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Claimant's application not read by judge is not a miscon

Postby atticus » Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:53 pm

Ding, the JCIO/Ombudsman did not have to consider or accept or dispute your evidence, given that your complaint so clearly fell outside their powers to investigate, so that is no validation of your evidence.

That leaves us with the evidence that you have seen, for what that may be worth.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18633
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Claimant's application not read by judge is not a miscon

Postby Denning » Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:57 pm

dls wrote:There will be occasions when a judge is being asked to deal with a particular and precise issue. A party may submit papers which are not relevant to that issue. It can easily be appropriate not to read such.

Such cases must be particular and individual, and no doubt great care has to be taken.

There are recent high profile examples where the rules place limits on the extent of paperwork to be submitted, and parties have been penalised for breaking them. I seem to remember one where there was an explicit and proper 'robust' refusal to read them.

We are moving more and more to the need for robust (brutal) case management.

We cannot, of course, say whether the judge was right in this exact case, but the question being asked in principle, the answer in principle is that the balance has shifted. Parties are not free to argue every last possible point where the points being made may be hopeless or irrelevant, and judges are told to act accordingly. SOmetimes judges will get it wrong, and sometimes parties will bring it upon themselves.

If true I find it extremely disturbing for a judge not to give consideration to a Claimant's applications and pleadings for seeking permission to apply for judicial review.

The JCIO should have written to the judge for comments as in my opinion if it can be proven that the judge did not truly read the Claimant's application and pleadings then that ought to go down as abuse of judicial office which is a misconduct.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Claimant's application not read by judge is not a miscon

Postby atticus » Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:59 pm

did you appeal? If not, why not?

It is possible that the judge did not need to see much to decide that the case was hopeless and that he should dismiss it and move on to the next job. Perhaps his failing was more in the nature of "bedside manner", but as dls says, these things can be brutal.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18633
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Claimant's application not read by judge is not a miscon

Postby Denning » Sat Jan 23, 2016 4:38 pm

It was just one of the various classified cases brought to my attention and decided to share this particular case with members here.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Claimant's application not read by judge is not a miscon

Postby atticus » Sat Jan 23, 2016 4:50 pm

Appeal (within the rules, time limits etc) is the only way forward if the decision of a judge is to be challenged.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18633
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Next

Return to Administrative Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron