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

[Denning]

I am not interested in the merits of the Claimant seeking permission to apply for judicial review. I am interested as to how such alleged abuse of judicial powers can be cured through an independent disciplinary body.

[atticus]

As you have learned, there is no such body with such powers. There is, however, the Court of Appeal, whose remit is (within certain constraints) the consideration of judicial decisions.

The Court of Appeal can and does consider the conduct of judges. There was a recent case concerning a coleric family judge in the North West, for example. Peter Smith J regularly provides other examples.

[Denning]

Its a complete shame that we accused nations of poor judiciary whereas (from what I have seen) a good number of our judges are as bad perhaps even worse yet from what you wrote we have no independent body to be able to call any deviant judge to order.

The Court of Appeal used to be a Court of Justice but with the alleged judicial corruption ongoing at that place, there is the urgent need for the processes to be transparent. Can you point me to any case law where a litigant-in-person was able to do the things you mentioned within the last few years?

[dls]

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.

If I may say that is a perfect example of what may be wrong with your argument.
It is not the JCIO or Ombudsman's task to investigate all sorts of matters. If it is not within their jurisdiction, they simply say 'It is not within our jurisdiction' They must not of course consider the truth or otherwise of a complaint outside their jurisdiction. It may easily indeed be inappropriate to read the papers supporting to their complaint. Above all else, that they do not dispute such evidence says nothing _at_all_ about its truth or otherwise.

You might for example complain about a neighbour's dog barking. Clearly not their jurisdiction. You may have all sorts of voluminous evidence to accompany your complaint. You would not expect them to read it. The issue is dealt with by simply identifying the nature of the complaint and nothing more. That would be a clear example of a decision being properly made without reading the papers.

[Denning]

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.

If I may say that is a perfect example of what may be wrong with your argument.
It is not the JCIO or Ombudsman's task to investigate all sorts of matters. If it is not within their jurisdiction, they simply say 'It is not within our jurisdiction' They must not of course consider the truth or otherwise of a complaint outside their jurisdiction. It may easily indeed be inappropriate to read the papers supporting to their complaint. Above all else, that they do not dispute such evidence says nothing _at_all_ about its truth or otherwise.

You might for example complain about a neighbour's dog barking. Clearly not their jurisdiction. You may have all sorts of voluminous evidence to accompany your complaint. You would not expect them to read it. The issue is dealt with by simply identifying the nature of the complaint and nothing more. That would be a clear example of a decision being properly made without reading the papers.

I disagree with you that a judge's role in a permission application is for the judge not to consider the permission application itself.

[dls]

I say again that I can have no idea of the particulars of your claim. What I am making is a much more general point, that an application can be so obviously outside the jurisdiction of the body to whom the application is submitted, or otherwise wildly wrong headed, and the papers so voluminous, that a reasonable decision may properly be not to read it in full.
Where the application is so badly written that its intention is unclear, then a reading of the defence may be preferable way of confirming the impression gained.

This says nothing as to the justice of your complaint. It speaks as to the logic of your complaint about the manner of rejection of your complaints to the ombudsman. Only you can know whether or not the same logic can apply to the underlying complaint.

[Denning]

Good to read that you were making generic comments. I expected you to make comments on the specifics as presented without having to guess what are probably my intentions or not my intentions.

[Denning]

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4501&start=30#p63586

It is that judge who is assessing the propriety of an action going ahead. His job is to come to an honest conclusion - doing justice between the parties.

You appear to be suggesting that a judge who sees a clear fault in the application should do injustice to the other side, breaching his duty to decide fairly according to the arguments and facts presented, from some possible (unadmitted) error.

Moreover you suggest that this goes as to jurisdiction?

[dls]

Well I am pleased to see that you have felt some amusement, but sadly, it appears to follow some misunderstanding on your part.

[Denning]

Well I am pleased to see that you have felt some amusement, but sadly, it appears to follow some misunderstanding on your part.

Is it misunderstanding that you no longer believe that it is part of fairness that a judge must read the arguments advanced by all the parties?