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.

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

Postby dls » Sat Jan 30, 2016 9:56 pm

You have brought to mind a situation where it is unnecessary.

If you are a statutory body, and have a defined remit, and somebody submits a complaint which is clearly outside your remit, I can now see (thank you) that it would be wrong to do more once it is quite clear that the application is addressed to the wrong person.

If a complaint had been made to the RSPCA about, say, a grant of planning permission, would you think it unfair that the RSPCA inspector says 'I am not reading all of this. It has nothing to do with me'. I hope not. The situation you describe is a much closer call, but actually it may easily be just as quickly a clear cut and proper decision that the application is wrong headed.

Look up 'ultra vires'
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12273
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 Denning » Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:21 am

What you stated is totally different from permission to apply for judicial review. The Claimant objective at the permission stage is to persuade the Court that there was an unlawfulness about the decision of the public body and the Court has a duty to read about what the Claimant was saying was the unlawfulness or public wrong upon which permission for judicial review be granted.

The evidence showed that the judge in this case read ONLY the Acknowledgement of Service presented by the lawyer representing the public authority and formed decision to refuse Claimant's permission to apply for judicial review solely on that Acknowledgement of Service.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

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

Postby dls » Sun Jan 31, 2016 10:02 am

You are making two complaints

1 The judge (you say) did not read a judicial review application fully.
2 Your complaint about this was rejected as being outwith the jurisdiction of the person to whom you made the complaint.

Your chosen title suggests that the second is your real concern.

You ask a general question about when a person making a decision can do so without the fullest consideration of the papers submitted.
I answer your question generally by pointing out that the second question does provide exactly an example of when an application might be rejected.
I have said twice that I know nothing of your application for judicial review and express no opinion either way on it.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12273
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 Denning » Mon Feb 01, 2016 6:09 am

dls wrote:You are making two complaints

1 The judge (you say) did not read a judicial review application fully.
2 Your complaint about this was rejected as being outwith the jurisdiction of the person to whom you made the complaint.

Your chosen title suggests that the second is your real concern.

You ask a general question about when a person making a decision can do so without the fullest consideration of the papers submitted.
I answer your question generally by pointing out that the second question does provide exactly an example of when an application might be rejected.
I have said twice that I know nothing of your application for judicial review and express no opinion either way on it.

The problem is that you are presumptuous as to the complainant's identity rather for you to have an open mind to deal with the issues as reported. I have stated that I presented this case not interested in the merit of the judicial review. The JCIO and the Ombudsman are not independent bodies as they are both managed by the Human Resources Team for the Judiciary.

My point is that it is within the remit of the JCIO to investigate the judge's behaviour because it is a judicial misconduct or disciplinary matter for a judge not to read a Claimant's application for permission to apply for judicial review and decided the case solely on the Defendant's Acknowledgement of Service.

You are likely to know someone who has acted as a judge or queen's counsel in the Administrative Court. What I ask you to do is to put the question before him or her whether a judge not reading a Claimant's application for permission to apply for judicial review is a misconduct or disciplinary issue?
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 » Mon Feb 01, 2016 7:04 am

Your "reports" of the"issues" are unreliable.

Your "point" is misconceived, as has been explained to you several times. You are not the Bellman**; what you say three times does not become true.

Your refusal to go into the merits of the JR is a cop-out. If the case was hopeless, the judge was right to apply the coup de grâce. If it had merit, you[r bloke] should have appealed rather than diverting energy by barking up the wrong tree.

** The Bellman, in Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark:
"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19901
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

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

Postby dls » Mon Feb 01, 2016 10:31 am

Since I have pointed out that there may well be circumstances, for example a clear lack of jurisdiction, where it would be unnecessary to read the papers in full, your central premise fails. If it does fail, then it was not misconduct, and the JCIO were right to reject the complaint.

Of course, such a failure may be misconduct in certain circumstances, but it will not always be.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12273
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 » Mon Feb 01, 2016 10:34 am

dls wrote:...such a failure may be misconduct** in certain circumstances, but it will not always be.

**giving grounds for appeal.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19901
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

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

Postby dls » Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:40 am

From the guidance:

10. Guidance to the Rules
Rule 6: The JCIO may only consider a complaint that contains an allegation of
misconduct by a judge or other office holder. Such misconduct relates to the judge’s
personal behaviour for example: a judge shouting or speaking in a sarcastic manner
in court; or misuse of judicial status outside of court. It does not relate to decisions or
judgments made by a judge in the course of court proceedings. The only way to
challenge such matters is through the appellate process.
4
Where a complaint does not contain an allegation of misconduct the JCIO will advise
the complainant that it cannot investigate the complaint and will inform the
complainant of the reasons for rejection.


See
http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk ... lders_.pdf
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12273
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 Denning » Mon Feb 01, 2016 3:38 pm

atticus wrote:Your "reports" of the"issues" are unreliable.

Your "point" is misconceived, as has been explained to you several times. You are not the Bellman**; what you say three times does not become true.

Your refusal to go into the merits of the JR is a cop-out. If the case was hopeless, the judge was right to apply the coup de grâce. If it had merit, you[r bloke] should have appealed rather than diverting energy by barking up the wrong tree.

** The Bellman, in Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark:
"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."

It is deceitful for you to state my "reports" of the "issues" are unreliable. You claiming to be a lawyer does not make you to be more believable. Various surveys showed that the lawyers are less believable as compared to teachers, scientist, medical doctors etc. So stop making sweeping generations as if you are in control of the universe.

You failed significantly to accept the obvious that the court appeared to frustrate very good cases in which Litigant-in-Persons are involved as they do not want to be seen making precedents without lawyers submissions. So the unwritten rule is to refuse permission to appeal on the papers in any way or form.

Just so you know in this case appeal was made and (like other similar cases I have seen or heard) the bundle prepared for the Court of Appeal was mysteriously ordered to be destroyed by the Civil Appeals Office and after about one month in which the bundle was destroyed a Lord Justice decided the case and refused permission to appeal without the Appellant being asked to reproduce a new bundle. As at the dated time a letter was written by the Civil Appeals Office and that letter received by the Appellant to produce a new bundle the Appellant was already having on his hand the refused decision of the Lord Justice.

Back to the issue of what happened at the administrative court, in my opinion abuse of the position of a judge is a disciplinary or misconduct issue that the JCIO ought to investigate in accordance with the rules. Had a queen's counsel presented the allegation to the JCIO, the JCIO would have assigned it a nominated High Court Judge to determine for the purposes of the rule whether the judge should be investigated on misconduct or disciplinary issue or in some way if the judge's action can be deemed to have fallen short of the high standard of a judge of the High Court. Since it was a LiP the JCIO decided not to use that part of 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 Denning » Mon Feb 01, 2016 3:50 pm

dls wrote:Since I have pointed out that there may well be circumstances, for example a clear lack of jurisdiction, where it would be unnecessary to read the papers in full, your central premise fails. If it does fail, then it was not misconduct, and the JCIO were right to reject the complaint.

Of course, such a failure may be misconduct in certain circumstances, but it will not always be.

The jurisdiction of the judge dealing on a permission to apply for judicial review ALWAYS (without fail) rest principally on the personal responsibility of the judge to read the application and pleadings made by the Claimant. Absent the Claimant's application and pleadings a judge has no jurisdiction to determine a permission to apply for judicial review. Once a judge without a jurisdiction to sit makes any decision that decision made falls under misconduct or disciplinary issue even if there is another avenue of an appeal. The misconduct or disciplinary issue does not normally affects the judicial decision made according to the JCIO.

Thank you for bolded part of your comments which fit into this case having seen the evidence. In fact the initial decision made by the Ombudsman was that there was a strong case that the JCIO was wrong not to investigate but after discussion(s) between the Ombudsman and the Human Resources Team for the Judiciary on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice and the Chancellor, the Ombudsman decided to affirm the decision of the JCIO.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Administrative Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests