Judicial corruption equated to scurrilous defamation

[Denning]

Removed text attempting to spread material identifying person subject of scurrilous defamation.

Most of the times atticus always ask for real evidence. I received evidence suggesting of judicial corruption at the Court of Appeal where the Court Officer(s) colluded with a second Lord Justice to alter a first Lord Justice decision as to the constitution of the Court of Appeal to hear the Applicant's case.

dls suggested the JCIO route without his knowledge that the JCIO claims to have no power to investigate misconduct whenever a Lord Justice influences the decision of another Lord Justice as the JCIO would always construe it to be judicial decision or case management decision which only an appeal court would be able to resolve. That appeal route, which ought to be to the Supreme Court, in that reported case was frustrated so that the alleged judicial corruption is covered.

I was later provided the link to the Ombudsman's decision which atticus suggested should be the next route to follow after JCIO. I provided the link to the Ombudsman's decision and report having satisfied myself that it does not breach the DPA and if it does breach the DPA that the processing is allowed since it relates to Lord Justices and those occupying high public offices.

atticus has now equated knowledge of only registered forumers here to such evidence (which he had seen and made no comments of such at the time) to scurrilous defamation.

I would welcome understanding on this issue.

[dls]

Atticus was not involved at all with this decision.

You had two pages of correspondence, getting nowhere, and then you chose to break the no names rule. The conversation was removed.

[Slartibartfast]

I have read some brief papers. I am not a lawyer, I claim no expertise or authority.

It is alleged by an applicant that he obtained the consent of a single judge to put his case to a full three-judge court. Before this could happen, another judge of the same rank decided to divert the case to a single-judge hearing which he would personally preside over, and then promptly tossed it out. It is said that there is no judicial appeal process available to challenge this.

The applicant feels aggrieved, and believes that the intervening judge acted improperly. He believes that that bias, corruption or malice may be involved. He writes to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, but they refuse to investigate his complaint "because it did not contain an allegation of misconduct" (really, that's what they said). The applicant asks The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman to consider the matter, and he also refuses. There is said to be no other body to which a complaint may be made.

This does not sit right with me. Our justice system should not be as it is described here. Perhaps the applicant is mistaken when he says there in no right of appeal, or perhaps the diversion to a single judge hearing is an everyday matter in that court. Or perhaps there is a peculiar anomaly where a single judge can be exempt from ordinary review or appeal.

Surely this is a matter of law and due process, which can be discussed in the abstract without the need for names.

[Hairyloon]

I have read some brief papers. I am not a lawyer, I claim no expertise or authority.

It is alleged by an applicant that he obtained the consent of a single judge to put his case to a full three-judge court.
Before this could happen, another judge of the same rank decided to divert the case to a single-judge hearing which he would personally preside over, and then promptly tossed it out.
It is said that there is no judicial appeal process available to challenge this.

Who is this said by?
Did they say it in writing? What did they actually say?

The applicant feels aggrieved, and believes that the intervening judge acted improperly.
He believes that that bias, corruption or malice may be involved.
He writes to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, but they refuse to investigate his complaint "because it did not contain an allegation of misconduct" (really, that's what they said). The applicant asks The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman to consider the matter, and he also refuses.
There is said to be no other body to which a complaint may be made.

If the personal details were removed, would it be inappropriate to see the text of the complaints and the refusals?

[Denning]

I asked the individual yesterday if it was possible to redact the names of the judges and to provide me with a new link. He initially told me that the redaction would render the information incomprehensible to follow since it involved the Ombudsman reporting on two lord Justices. I suggested to him to use labels to indicate First and Second Lord Justice after the names have been redacted. He said he would try it and resend me a new link for that.

The whole alleged judicial corruption thing was for another Lord Justice to scuttle the three judges court to a single judge court so as to make it almost impossible for the Applicant to be able to appeal to the Supreme Court without the Applicant having an experienced and well respected leading counsel to argue section 58(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 be read down in this particular case or that the section is not engaged.

[Slartibartfast]

If the personal details were removed, would it be inappropriate to see the text of the complaints and the refusals?

I think it would be preferable to remain in the abstract. The question is one of law and procedure, not personalities.

[Denning]

I have now received the link to the Ombudsman report with the names of the Lord Justices replaced with 1st (correspond to reference to the first Lord Justice) and 2nd (the second Lord Justice who scuttle the decision of the first Lord Justice). Click the hyperlink - the Ombudsman decision and report.

[dls]

The ombudsman's report appears to be correct.

The complaints office decision appears to be correct.

The decision to take a case is a case management decision. Case management is there to allow a judge to make decisions disallowing cases without merit taking up excess resources.
I have no idea whether the decision to allocate the case was right or wrong, I see no virtue for the 'victim' to translate his frustration at losing a lost case into any kind of misconduct.

[Denning]

This does not sit right with me. Our justice system should not be as it is described here. Perhaps the applicant is mistaken when he says there in no right of appeal, or perhaps the diversion to a single judge hearing is an everyday matter in that court. Or perhaps there is a peculiar anomaly where a single judge can be exempt from ordinary review or appeal.

The redacted Court Order sent to me in pdf format (I was not able to upload it here) indicated the following declaration:
"No appeal may be made against this decision to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: see section 58(2)of the Senior Court[s] Act 1981."

The ombudsman's report appears to be correct.

The complaints office decision appears to be correct.

The decision to take a case is a case management decision. Case management is there to allow a judge to make decisions disallowing cases without merit taking up excess resources.
I have no idea whether the decision to allocate the case was right or wrong, I see no virtue for the 'victim' to translate his frustration at losing a lost case into any kind of misconduct.

My reading of the case showed that the JCIO and the Ombudsman cannot be correct because it is a clear misconduct for a judge to influence the decision of another judge when he was not sitting as a full Court of Appeal. What the judge did if it was a Government Minister people would be asking for him to resign. May I ask you what led to your initial suggestion for the Applicant to go to the JCIO if you were satisfied that it was not a misconduct?

[atticus]

The distinction made is that the decision in question was on taken by the judge acting in a judicial capacity. The JCIO does not investigate judicial decisions.

And to allege corruption, judicial murder etc is barking.