Judicial complaint submitted about the judge's conduct for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office to ignore.
Judicial Conduct
Investigations Office
Complaint form
Date form submitted 7 November 2015Investigations Office
Complaint form
Background to case
North East Lincs Council (the 'Claimant') erroneously applied for a liability order for non-payment of council tax due to misallocating monies to a sum that had arisen from a previous year’s summons costs, which were disputed and appealed to the High Court. That sum was suspended pending the court's decision; therefore no payments in respect of the current liability were ever overdue. The case (High Court) is yet to be determined so the costs still suspended; therefore, under no circumstances was it a sum to which the Claimant could legitimately allocate payment.
Myself (the "Defendant") submitted extensive evidence to support that i) the appeal (as alleged) had never been withdrawn and so the suspension of costs from the account never lifted, ii) payments were in any event inferred by the circumstances to be appropriated to the current liability, iii) it was inconceivable that the summons costs as applied on making complaint could have been incurred by the claimant, as per the Claimant’s breakdown.
The Claimant made a statement (material in the proceedings) which he knew to be false, to the effect that the appeal challenging the costs had been withdrawn. Indisputable evidence was submitted to support why the statement was untrue and why the Claimant could not have believed it to have been true. The Defendant's suspicion that the statement was made with deliberate intent to deceive the court was made clear in those representations.
Professional Misconduct
The judge was unwilling to listen to, accept or understand any evidence which didn't fit in with the pre-determined outcome (to accept the false statement to justify granting the order). It was sensed throughout the hearing that the judge pretended to be out of his depth as a strategy for denying evidence that might, if considered, defeat the Claimant's argument and make granting the order more difficult to justify. His ineptitude was almost certainly put on for show; therefore a description far more accurate would be of 'Professional Misconduct' than that of incompetence.
Criminal Allegations
The judge was so lacking in objectivity and obviously pro-prosecution that had an unsighted person walked into the courtroom he would have almost certainly mistaken him as the Claimant's barrister, albeit one grasping at straws, raising irrelevant matters with the intention of hoodwinking the bench. It can therefore be stated unreservedly that there had been not even a hint of a fair hearing.
There seems no doubt that the judge had acted with intent to pervert the course of justice as he had before him indisputable evidence that a false and corrupt statement had been made. Granting an order therefore made him complicit in the Claimant's criminal actions that sought to exploit a complaint to the court for the purposes of defrauding the Defendant with an attached claim of costs.
Inappropriate Comments / Discrimination
His manner (the judge) was antagonistic and belittling and although there was no retaliation to speak of, the provocation was such that a conflict could have easily arisen. It is easily seen how such an approach might be used to distract attention from the case in order to discredit someone or simply to goad someone who the judge took a personal dislike to. If such incidents have occurred, which is difficult to see how they could not have, based upon my experience, I would fully support anyone who has fallen victim who might now, for example be on a charge for contempt of court, as a consequence of the provocation.
His concluding comments in so far as they can be recalled were that he’d listened for half an hour to an outburst of political diatribe for which only 5 minutes made any sense. This can only be put down to his inability (or demonstration thereof) to understand the representations which had in any event been submitted as detailed written evidence. The diatribe referred to can only reasonably be put down to a couple of issues raised. A reference to the misconduct of the Justices Clerk for the Humber and South Yorkshire which is considered so serious as to warrant answering charges of misconduct in public office is one. Secondly, a matter which the Claimant relied on was contended as being misleading evidence (additional to the false statement).
As for the ‘political’ reference, it was merely pointed out that the issues were of general public importance as they could detrimentally affect significant numbers and more so since government reforms introduced changes to council tax benefits. These issues were material to the case and did not exceed a brief mention as the judge made it plain that they were not matters worthy of consideration, presumably because they were not favourable to the outcome that had obviously been pre-determined in the interest of the Claimant. Again everything relevant to these points was set out in the written evidence.
His comments were far from the most tactful thing to say to someone, who whilst over the period of time that the judge will have received over half a million pounds of taxpayer's money, has had no remuneration whatsoever for consistently and voluntarily dedicating around 15 hours a day, 7 days a week to matters concerning the wholesale fraud, which it has become obvious is endorsed by people appointed in a judicial capacity.
The judge was acting beyond his authority when again in his belittling manner his interrogation turned to an irrelevant matter concerning the number of payments, in what sum those payments were made and the method chosen for paying council tax instalments. It irked him, so much so, that he enquired if a bank account was held and why payments weren’t made by standing order like everyone else. It wasn’t for the court to lay blame elsewhere for the Claimant exploiting its council tax processing system as a means of defrauding taxpayers.
Unashamed bias was displayed again when the judge referred to previous maladministration, similarly in respect of misallocated payments, for which 27 days was taken by the Claimant to respond and resolve the matter, by which time reminders and a summons were wrongly issued. The facts were distorted out of all recognition and portrayed in the courtroom to be the Defendant’s fault for the Claimant’s gross error. The judge was again noticeably irked to the point that he was motivated to make a spurious statement which was that the Claimant, as a consequence, had a right to demand subsequent year’s liability up-front thus removing the statutory instalment entitlement.
Misuse of Judicial Powers
Not withstanding his reliance on a statement which he knew was false, the judge acted outside his powers by granting the order. The regulations governing council tax liability do not give the court authority to make an order when the defendant has proved that there is no outstanding debt. No discretion in such cases is given to impose a penalty (especially not for one’s own perverse gratification) which is what the judge did in this case by allowing the application and granting costs, based on his own opinion differing from the Defendant’s about how, and in what manner bills are paid.
Neither is the court allowed discretion in the amount of costs it orders. The regulations restrict the level so that no more than the expenditure incurred by the applicant in respect of instituting the complaint is rechargeable to the defendant. The breakdown contained indisputable evidence that the vast majority of the costs claimed were not incurred by the Claimant in respect of instituting the complaint in the Defendant’s case. The judge approved the level from a brief glance of the breakdown. It was then explained to him that the costs itemised referred largely to council resources dealing with enquiries, rescheduling and monitoring payment plans etc. and subsidising bad debt for which none could be attributable to the Defendant’s summons. A detailed analysis in this regard had in any event been submitted in the written evidence.
The order was not made because there was a legal obligation, but for what appeared to be the assistance that imposing a financial penalty might provide in coercing the Defendant into conceding and making payments in line with the Claimant's preferred method.
There was a substantial amount of evidence before the court. Had due process followed and the representations considered objectively it is inconceivable that the judge would have determined the case in the way he did. He seemed to view his role as a disciplinarian rather than someone who was duty bound to deliver a decision based on the legal arguments that were before him.
It is appreciated that a complaint cannot consider the judge's decision (that is now a police matter), but this is not a complaint about that, rather it concerns the failure to carry out his duties in an unbiased way and for that reason unfit to sit on the bench in a court of law and should no longer be allowed to for the sake of future potential victims of the judicial system.
Annex A to C
The misconduct is of such a serious nature that should the concerns raised be misjudged and no action taken as a consequence, the justice system’s reputation will be seriously at stake. That is why material has been included in Annex A to C which demonstrates, for want of a better phrase, that it is beyond reasonable doubt, that the Defendant has been stitched-up by what points to a criminal conspiracy between the Claimant and the court.
Annex A
Contained here is an exhibit identified as “NELC12”. In its Witness Statement, the Claimant refers to the letters in that exhibit to justify having ‘no further reason to believe that the costs were being disputed’ because the Defendant had ‘withdrawn his application for the Judicial review of the costs’.
It is not only clear from the content of the Defendant’s letter dated 20 November 2013 that the application to state a case regarding costs had not been withdrawn (only the claim for a mandatory order), but the letter was not a copy of the original. It is beyond all reasonable doubt that the Claimant had sourced those letters from a public forum, the same forum which it had sourced the contents of another of its exhibits (NELC11).
Annex B
The letters contained in Annex A had been redacted and matched the entries that were posted on the public forum as seen in Annex B [posts, #171 and #172]. The forum is the only place from which those letters could be sourced in that redacted form. The characteristics of the letters which the Claimant submitted to the court were identical to the forum posts.
Clearly the Claimant had not sought the original letters and had presumably for convenience consulted the public forum on which all letters connected with the matter (albeit redacted) where conveniently in one place. It is a reasonably assumption that if on this occasion the Claimant consulted the forum to produce its exhibit, it would have done so subsequently where further updates on that forum continued providing evidence that the case stated was still very much being pursued. That would only reinforce the established fact and so does not matter whether the Claimant did or did not continued monitoring the forum, as the crux of the matter is that the post (Annex A) from which the content was sourced was accompanied with some commentary which reinforced the matter in itself. Crucially the commentary ended with this sentence: ‘the next move will be to arrange to appear before the Magistrates' Court to agree terms of a recognizance.’
Annex C
The exhibit (NELC1) is the Defendant’s 2015/16 council tax bill (demand notice) which displays unambiguously at the bottom of the document that an amount of £60.00 is a sum which is subject to Court Proceedings. The same has been included on each of the Defendant’s demand notices ever since the appeal, by way of a case stated, was instituted.
Allegations of Judicial Misconduct
For the avoidance of doubt, this does not constitute an appeal of the court’s decision, it is a complaint made in accordance with the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014 about the judge’s conduct on several counts which are set out in detail above and itemised as follows:
i) Professional Misconduct
ii) Criminal Allegations
iii) Inappropriate Comments / Discrimination
iv) Misuse of Judicial Powers
iii) Inappropriate Comments / Discrimination
iv) Misuse of Judicial Powers
I confirm that the information I have provided is correct
Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office, Royal Courts of Justice,
Queens Building, Strand, London WC2A 2LL
Leave a comment: