Uncategorized – Page 2

February 12, 2021September 19, 2021

What is a Dismissal List Manager responsible For? Substandard Case Administration?

Was going to write a length diatribe on how badly served we are by Civil Appeals Office at The Royal Courts of Justice but a short explanation, a couple of screenshots and a reproduced email do the job just as well.

This is a blog entry about how a civil appeal matter has received suboptimal service by HMCTS staff, how it’s taken some five months to identify claimed issues with documents supposedly not being sent, but in fact these documents were supplied. How is this related to the shady post of Dismissal List Manager which HMCTS dislike revealing the details of?

To start with here are the screenshots. I’ve been waiting for a response from Civil Appeals Office on this matter since November 2020, their last communication to me prior to this taking some two months to be sent.

Joseph Goswell states his position is in the Case Management Section at Civil Appeals office. He writes:

What is stated to be wrong with the application…

Rather a tight time limit for a letter sent to an Applicant on 11.2.21!

In actual fact none of the stated errors with the application exist. All the documents required in the matter were supplied in September 2020. See the reproduced email below.

One thing Joseph Goswell doesn’t tend to advertise is his other job at HMCTS – Dismissal List Manager. This is certainly not the post he mentions in the above letter.

It is noted that HMCTS are very shifty and refuse to answer reasonable data access requests for what a Dismissal List Manager actually does. For more on this bizarre refusal to address a perfectly legitimate question see the link below:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/duties_of_dismissal_list_manager

Ludicrously it is claimed no data exists on the role and the responses given to the data access request above are so vague as to be meaningless. In a position paid for out of the public purse why such coyness unless there’s a vested interest in keeping the data secret.

However we can theorise that this role may be someone within HMCTS whose purpose is to frustrate claims at an administrative level for the purpose of enabling them to be dismissed. This seems to tally with the letter content written above in which non-existent issues are identified with a bundle. Of course if HMCTS would like to explain what this role actually is then I’d be happy to include the data here.

My email in response to the letter from Civil Appeals Office states:

I refer to your email below.

I note the delay in response to any issue arising out of this matter and that there has been no communication from your office since November last year. I note that the email prior to that took some two months to receive a response.

The core bundle was filed and served on 2.9.20. Since that point CA have not identified any issue with the bundle which would make it non-compliant.

You state that there is no index. A copy of the index was supplied (index.doc). This shows the reference number for each of the following documents which corresponds to the number starting each document. As was a copy of the sealed order being appealed against (4). The Judicial Review claim form is at (12) and the grounds for JR both follow on from this. In other words all of the grounds you give for the bundle being in error are in fact present and correct and have been with your office since September 2020.

I note further that there has been no communication from CA since September 2020 in relation to the bundle supplied. We are now some five months gone from September 2020. Perhaps you could explain why this is so if there are thought to be errors? For your convenience I have attached a copy of all correspondence so far with CA office.

To go from September 2020 to February 2021 without identifying errors in a bundle and reverting to the Claimant five months later and only at the point at which the Claimant chases the matter up represents an unacceptable service level failure for which I now make a formal complaint to The Court Manager. The errors you state exist with the bundle are not present, as I have shown.

It is further poor service that the attached letter of 11.2.21 states you require these errors correcting by 18.2.21 when you have been sat on these issues for so long. However as stated above each of the documents you claim not to be present is in fact present within the bundle.

A further copy of the bundle is attached to this email.

Please inform me of the progress of this matter, and the progress of the complaint alongside the name of the Court Manager to whom the matter has been referred.

Email of 12.2.21 ends.

So there are the following issues arising here:

Let’s assume there WERE errors in the bundle supplied to The Court of Appeal… why does it take five months for these to be identified?
More to the point why wait until an Applicant emails the court five months later before informing of these?
..and then give a total of seven days in a pandemic (five if we discount the weekend) for these to be corrected when these matters have been left to lay on file for five months now?
Admin staff can see that all of the documents they claim were not supplied were in fact attached with the original bundle. So why do they claim they were not?
Why has there been no communication on this claim for some three months?
Why is there seemingly no data on the post of Dismissal List Manager which can be made public?
Why does Joseph Goswell not use his correct title in the letter to me of 11.2.21?

Suspect the answer to the above questions can be found in the shady and little-stated other position of Joseph Goswell as “Dismissal List Manager”!

Is the handling of this matter standard HMCTS incompetence or is the role of Dismissal List Manager a shadier one than we can imagine and one in which civil claims are subject to interdiction and mishandling to frustrate them?

As always anyone or any organisation cited in this blog post has a right to corrections which I will be happy to make on receipt of relevant evidence.

UPDATE TO THE ABOVE: 19.9.21.

I have today been contacted by email by another person who has had a very similar experience with the same people in the same department as I have.

The experience relayed by this person is interesting. Goswell’s position as “Dismissal List Manager” suggests a specific purpose: does HMCTS have a policy of purposefully frustrating and delaying certain types of claim which might prove embarrassing or politically sensitive to the organisation? More data needed but at least three persons to my knowledge have had experiences which suggest so.

December 31, 2020December 31, 2020

ICO Address Police Breaches of the Law on GDPR

Police forces are notoriously bad at responding to subject access requests (those are requests for your own personal data) as well as requests for data overall from the force, especially if the request for access is made by the public.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has recently published a report (link seen below) outlining just what an absolute catastrophe police responses to these requests are.

Click to access timeliness-of-responses-to-information-access-requests.pdf

As ever with such a report the real eye-opener are the recommendations made by ICO. In this instance these are nine points which show how UK police forces are failing to deal with data access requests in anything like an efficient and professional way. Often this is because the purpose of data access legislation clashes with police’s wish to keep information regarding errors in procedure and process wholly secret.

This report will cause consternation in particular at failing Humberside Police, a force subject to many eye-watering fines from ICO in the past for failures to comply with the law on data access by the public. The recommendations ICO suggest will likely be impossible for the force to implement.

West Yorkshire Police – as expected one of the forces most likely to break the law to try to avoid the production of data – said at a meeting convened by their Police and Crime Commissioner recently that they would be looking at increasing the staffing in the Information Management Department in the next year (budget permitting) to cope with the demands made upon it. “Looking at” and “budget permitting” is another way of saying that nothing will be done to address the problem.

December 7, 2020December 7, 2020

Doncaster County Court: Consistently Poor Service Standards

This blog is in danger of becoming a post largely carping on about service level failures by court staff at HMCTS.

Having said that the errors they make are sufficiently numerous and serious in consequence that they’re like busses: there’s always another one along in a minute. This makes it very easy to produce material for this blog. Although I’m likely to get bored of telling you about all of these errors long before HMCTS stop making them.

Doncaster: the County Court here fails to serve the people of the city well.

The kind of service level failures court staff specialise in would – in any normal workplace – result in disciplinary proceedings. But HMCTS is presently sufficiently desperate to retain any form of staff to keep at least a semblance of function in civil courts that even the most spectacularly gaff-prone employees are retained. Better the devil you know than someone even more slackly incompetent.

The end result of this for court users is of course loss of time, expense and waste of effort.

And so it has been today in relation to a claim at Doncaster County Court, (already noted for more than its fair share of errors in handling this particular claim) at which yet another service level failure has take place.

In several occasions in the past both parties have been all set for trial only for the trial to be cancelled when all are in attendance. Grounds: over-running of a prior matter, file in poor condition etc. On one occasion the file was even lost!

There’s always an excuse for appalling service but the basic grounds ultimately come down to two things: an inability on the part of court staff to administrate claims properly and the failure of District Judges to deploy appropriate oversight of a case or to get a grip on case management issues.

An application in this claim was made in April 2020. Estimated time to hearing was 12 weeks, which of course came and went without any Notice of Hearing.

Two other hearings In the same claim took place in October and November at which the application could have been scheduled to be heard. Needless to say it wasn’t even though the District Judge made clear she was aware of its existence.

This is a critical fact: that staff failed to schedule the application in a way that would have dealt with it reasonably at an appropriate time within the claim, saving the parties time and effort. Having acknowledged receipt of the application they simply forgot all about it

…until the point I sent them a timely reminder in relation to the application. This brought a further hearing date. Which again drags all the parties over to Doncaster for what ultimately ends up as a futile exercise.

When the matter of the application could have been heard within other hearings in the same claim but wasn’t because court staff forgot about it we have clear evidence that the civil court system has collapsed and cannot now administrate in even the most basic respects.

How do many legal professionals react to their cases being so poorly run? Often by keeping their heads down and accepting the situation. To speak out in public or in the court itself would perhaps cause damage to careers and lead the judiciary to take against them on future appearances. And so nothing in the civil system improves.

HMCTS service standards are… well not very good at all really!

November 20, 2020November 23, 2020

“Cuffing” or “Shonking” at South Yorkshire Police.

In modern police parlance “cuffing off” a job means to look for a way to avoid dealing with a complaint about a crime made by a member of the public. Shonking means the same thing. South Yorkshire Police is very much focused on internal award ceremonies for its staff and members of the public calling to report criminal offences gets in the way of this. Most inconvenient.

So here’s the story. I had an offence to report on the basis of information that came my way. Having researched the offence and charging guidelines for the same as well as collated sufficient documents to show who was responsible and how I completed the South Yorkshire Police online form. This is their preferred way of contacting you. And so I waited for contact back. And waited. And waited.

Eventually a series of phone calls were made on one afternoon to South Yorkshire Police via 101. The poor handling of the initial report from the webform data and subsequent poor handling of all subsequent contacts are described below.

Basically the webform was ignored. Phone calls to check on the progress of the report of a crime were also consistently mishandled.

From the 1980’s to the present day SYP is mired in scandal.

The basic issues are as follows:

1. A complaint of a crime was made. This was done via the online form for such. That the response from the online form took longer than the 72 hours the website states for any action to be taken in respect of the referral of a crime.

2. That the online form had still not been processed some 7 days later.

This amount to the first effort to “shonk” the job.

3. That from comments made by Professional Standards Dept. at SYP in a later email to me it would appear that this online referral has been “lost”.

4. Following the lack of response to the webform a series of phone calls were made by me on the Tuesday and Wednesday to SYP to establish what was happening in relation to the online referral.

5. That these calls were either cut off when transferred to the appropriate department or else rang out for an exceptionally long period. The time it took to get through to someone was the time of my journey that day from West Yorkshire to Bridlington on the East Yorkshire coast. Some one hour and fifteen minutes.

6. That on eventually speaking to an officer he stated that he had no copy of the online form in front of him but proceeded to dismiss the referral of a crime being committed on the basis that this incident was not a crime and therefore not something that police would deal with.

This is incorrect. I quoted CPS guidance and sentencing guidelines that clearly show the activity reported was a criminal offence.

Most police officers have a very poor working knowledge of the law and are often the worst people to decide if an offence falls into their jurisdiction or not. Or if an offence has been committed in law. Without sight of evidence etc. the officer was additionally on very shaky ground.

7. That the same officer rang me back several minutes later. He had performed a search on my name after our initial conversation and my refuting his comments that the matter complained of was not an offence in law.

8. That his call back to me amounted to harassment and intimidation. His manner during this second call was offensive, uncivil and harassing. Having tried to “cuff / shonk the job off” only to be confronted by a member of the public who knew the law put his fragile and delicate nose out of joint.

Most police officers have exceptionally fragile egos and cannot bear not to have the last word on something. As sites such as the exceptional. ://crimebodge.com show (especially I would recommend their YouTube channel) this can often lead to violence and assault from the officer if a member of the public stands their ground.

9. That the officer concerned did this solely for the purpose of causing harassment, vexation and distress. On the second call he refused to give his name or service number when asked which is usually indicative of an officer misconducting himself. South Yorkshire Police have plenty of form for this. Ask the miners who were at The Battle of Orgreave: SYP removed their epaulets displaying service numbers so they couldn’t be subject of individual complaints.

South Yorkshire Police are internationally famous for violence and criminal negligence.

That overall the standard of conduct in relation to this matter was sufficient to cause loss of professional reputation, such as it is, for the force. Overall the behaviour described above gave the impression of South Yorkshire Police as being inept, incompetent and evasive.

Later that day is I rang again. This time to make a formal complaint. The College of Policing Code of Ethics has a series of guidelines which had each been breached in the police’s handling of this matter. Not least of these are those related to courtesy and respect. https://www.college.police.uk/What-we-do/Ethics/Documents/Code_of_Ethics.pdf

I was told I would be called back in a few days. However again there was no response.

This matter relates to the following issues in the College of Policing Code of Ethics:

1. Authority, respect and courtesy.

2. Duties and responsibilities.

3. Conduct.

I emailed Professional Standards Department at South Yorkshire Police a few weeks later. The response was initially in terms of my complaint call of a few weeks earlier and stated:

Unfortunately, we are unsure as to who the officer was who spoke with you…

This suggests that the admin systems at South Yorkshire Police are not robust enough or else that they’ve already tried to evade examination of the complaint in the same way as they avoided examination of the original report of a crime. The comment is also vague: do they mean the misconducting officer I spoke to at around around lunchtime or the one spoken to to enter the complaint at 18:30 on the same day?

But it gets worse:

In relation to the online complaint form this does not a appear to have been received by us.

So an additional copy was attached to the response. Neither the original web form reporting a criminal offence nor the complaint form sent by email were received by the force. How many others have been similarly missed by them?

By this point some three weeks had elapsed since this complaint form was sent in to Professional Standards Department and their sobriquet was looking further and further misapplied. The South Yorkshire Police webform auto-generates a copy of the complaint for the public so it is unlikely that a copy was not sent to PSD. The comments they made about not receiving a copy are likely bunkum.

They stated:

If you would like to reply to this email with your initial complaint, we will pass it for assessment and ask our assessors to look into it asap.

So this created a further issue to the complaint: that failure to record the initial complaint call made around 18.30hrs in the evening to SYP via 101 amounts to a further breach of duty. A copy of this call will have been recorded on the Airwave system, which records all incoming and outgoing calls from police stations.

The failure to properly action the issues raised by phone in the evening call amounts to an effort to evade dealing with the complaint from an early stage. The “loss” of the follow up complaint form to PSD is a further effort in this direction.

Matters have now been before Professional Standards Department at South Yorkshire Police for two months without visible progress.

The whole fiasco makes SYP look doubly incompetent in their behaviour in failing to action the original webform, then “cuffing off” the job on the phone.

Then they fail to record and action the complaint made from 18:30hrs on the same day and further claim a follow up communication on the complaint was “lost”.

Heaven help people who actually live in South Yorkshire when it comes to reporting crime or making a complaint to SYP. Because the force’s systems are clearly set up to avoid having to deal with either.

November 18, 2020November 21, 2020

West Yorkshire Police: COVID-19 Super-Spreaders?

Presently the East Yorkshire city of Kingston Upon Hull has the highest COVID-19 rates of infection in the UK. The virus appears to be running rampant in the city causing a significant numbers of deaths.

The Guardian has quoted local Hull resident Gavin Storey in an article published this week. The original article can be found at:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/18/gypsyville-hull-most-deprived-and-covid-infected-suburbs-in-england

It states that Storey thinks it suits the ruling class have let the virus run riot through deprived communities like his. He says:

“It seems like they are trying to get rid of us. That way when it’s over they won’t have to spend so much money around here. Let the kids go to school, spread it to their parents and then let them all die. Most of the people in the country who are on benefits will be dead.”

Twitter users react to Mr. Storey’s comments in the article.

This all got me thinking about the initial wave of the pandemic to hit the UK in spring 2020.

According to information passed over to me in a conversation in spring 2020 from one of Leeds’ top criminal defence solicitors West Yorkshire Police were arresting and pulling suspects in for questioning with an urgency and speed which was quite at odds with the nature of a lethal pandemic and the requirement for people to self isolate.

Those arrested were not given masks and at that point before the end of the first lockdown self-sourced PPE was not commonly owned like today. The overall idea at that point was to protect by keeping your distance from others which makes the arrests carried out seem even more bizarre. Command Teams must have been aware of the risk of police stations as focal points for the spread of the virus. Frontline officers were of course given PPE but of dubious effectiveness which had been sold to the force, desperate to be seen to protect officers, as a “job lot”.

This is also unusual behaviour for a force which remains in financial dire straights considering the potential costs of increasing the pace in ongoing investigations.

Indeed I was told that at that time even people who had been released under investigation for a long period and who had no notification of progress on potential charges were being re-arrested and brought in for interview.

UK police tend to be toxic at the best of times.

In the same way as Mr. Storey thinks schools are being used to spread COVID-19 in deprived communities the sudden urge of West Yorkshire Police to pull in suspects for interview in the initial wave of a lethal pandemic seems… unsettling.

Were these actions part of a deliberate policy to assist the virus to spread in deprived communities?

Is this too outlandish an idea? Then consider also that in spring 2020 the elderly and frail were discharged from hospitals into care homes without adequate screening to ensure they were not infecting others.

The initial Government policy on the virus was to let it run through the population. This was the planning in the early stages of the UK’s response until SAGE, the Government’s scientific advisory group, suggested this strategy would lead to potential UK deaths of up to 250,000. This initial discredited strategy meant excess deaths through the initial lockdown coming too late. It is known that former Government advisor Dominic Cummings is a eugenicist who employed another advisor for a short period in February 2020 before that person’s past writings in eugenics were made public leading to their dismissal.

In every one of multiple other respects the UK’s response to the pandemic was lethargically slow and inept. This situation continues to this day.

The idea then that there has been purpose in the UK’s handling of COVID-19 has some merit. That the initial plan to allow the virus to rip through the population is still in play but not stated openly as a matter of State policy.

It is likely then that people with either criminal records or suspected of committing a criminal offence have been considered in the same light as the fail and elderly: a potential burden to society and something best gotten rid of. That the virus provides (to the State) a convenient ability to do just this.

I know of one clear instance of West Yorkshire Police officers attending at a suspect’s home without masks or PPE in May despite being aware of a vulnerable person being present at the home. Breaking subject access request laws the Right of Access Department at West Yorkshire Police have failed to release body worn video footage of this incident showing officers attending without PPE.

The theory that West Yorkshire Police were actively pulling in suspects in an attempt to spread Coronavirus around is just a theory.

But it’s a theory that does seem to fit into the overall approach of the authorities towards the virus from the inept Test and Trace system to Eat Out to Help Out. All of these have assisted the virus to move through the poorer sections of the population to the point where we’ve ow reached the second point of national lockdown within one year.

In South Korea there have so far been less than 600 deaths from COVID-19. Britain has (at a low estimate) 60,000 to date.

November 13, 2020November 14, 2020

Reign of Terror: The Long Shadow of the Yorkshire Ripper

The recent death of Peter Sutcliffe (a man dubbed in the media as The Yorkshire Ripper) presents a practical public-relations problem for West Yorkshire Police. It again raises the spectre of how Sutcliffe was able to kill so many people for such a sustained period. The answers make uncomfortable truths for that force.

West Yorkshire Police’s failure to catch Sutcliffe in what was one of the UK’s biggest manhunts plays a significant part in their present international reputation as a force beset by incompetence and corruption. It is a reputation with considerable justification.

Sutcliffe was not blessed with high intelligence enabling him to evade capture. Nor was he the popular fiction version of a serial killer: a creature of almost animal cunning and divine luck. Granted he was aided considerably in his activities by the relative infancy of forensics in the late 70’s. But this does not tell the whole story.

For the most part the reason Sutcliffe was able to carry on killing was down to long-identified administrative and operational failures on the part of the police. He is known to have been interviewed several times by officers in the course of their investigations but each time was discounted for further investigation. Other operational errors are known to have included an excess of paperwork generated in the course of the investigation. Detectives were hindered rather than helped by the weight of data generated and the primitive storage of such.

I would argue another failing contributed to the deaths of thirteen women. This is that police officers both at the time and now have a particular mindset which pre-disposes them towards both a closed minded approach to investigations and a form of “tunnel vision”. This comprises some of the issues I’ll discuss below.

Personal characteristics

To start with it’s popularly said that a Yorkshireman is a particular sort of stout character. Gruff, uncommunicative and 100% convinced he’s right in the face of all opposing evidence. Bluff and stiff-necked. The Harry Enfield comedy version of a Yorkshireman isn’t far from the mark. You know as well as I do the popular stereotype. For some reason beyond my capacity to fathom West Yorkshire Police provides a home to people very much of this mindset: there is a poisonous organisational culture which incubates some undesirable personality characteristics.

Consider the absolute certainty with which the senior officer in the Sutcliffe investigation, George Oldfield, was sure the killer was the voice on the Weirside Jack hoax tape is a tragic example of this unwillingness to admit to error once a set path has been taken. In the police both of the 70’s and today face-saving is also a strong motivating force. Especially so when consistent underperformance or failure are likely to result in downgrade to civilian worker status.

A former Australian Director of Public Prosecutions Nicholas Cowdry produced a book called “Getting Justice Wrong” in which he argued that tunnel-vision on the part of officers (…he must have done something even if we can’t get him on what we’ve arrested him for!) plays a significant part in police failures. Tie this into the inability to admit to errors being make and you’ve an already toxic mix.

The “right” sort of victim

Sutcliffe’s first few murders were women largely at the margins of society. It is only with his killing of Jane Macdonald, a shop worker, in 1977 that the investigation increased in speed and urgency. This was partly in response to media pressure. But police then and now categorise crimes reported to them in an internal value system based partly on the perceived “worth” of the victim in society (socio-economic status etc). Sutcliffe attacked a young woman outside of Bradford in 1974 who sustained horrific injuries but police handling of the complaint and their investigations were at best suboptimal. The same occurred later when he attacked a lady who was a member of the BAME community in Leeds. Her complaints were “cuffed off” (to use the current parlance of West Yorkshire Police) rather than investigated. it is likely because of her background and low educational attainment that she was not considered a significant enough figure for her complaint to be deemed “worth” investigation.

Presented without comment. BBC News report on the day Sutcliffe’s death was announced.

The “right” sort of crime

Easy to solve crime is preferred. Especially if it’s hitting targets or addressing an issue of public concern. More complex investigations are likely to be shunned on the basis of the time, expenditure and difficulty of prosecuting successfully. Then and now police have one eye on the crime statistics and are more likely to address issues of public concern based on recent media exposure of such crimes. There’s a reason The Serious Fraud Office are so notoriously unsuccessful despite The City of London being rampant with financial corruption. In the matter of the Sutcliffe investigation it is arguably only when he began to operate outside of the red light areas from 1978 onwards that the police ramped up efforts due to increased public concern. This public concern increased again from 1980 onwards.

Conclusions

Ultimately Sutcliffe was caught by sheer luck and the most basic of police work.

He was picked up by uniformed constables from South Yorkshire Police in a situation in which he was likely preparing to kill again. Having disposed of his weapons behind a toilet cistern under the pretext of needing to urinate it is the quick-thinking of a South Yorkshire PC which led to the discovery of the weapons and the eventual confession of Sutcliffe that he was the killer.

The hugely expensive and lengthy investigation by West Yorkshire Police had been an excruciating waste of time and money. Arguably by tying itself in knots by a combination of weak administration and blinkered mindset the investigation had allowed Sutcliffe to carry on killing.

Serial killers are thankfully exceptionally rare and unusual. The advances in forensic technology and other policing methods in the forty nine years since he was caught render another Yorkshire Ripper type of killer thankfully even less likely.

However a weak spot remains in the mindset and attitude of police officers as I have discussed. Then and now significant barriers exist in investigations due to habits it’s almost impossible for police officers to break. This is partly fostered by an inherited organisational culture and thus will remain with us for some time yet.

November 12, 2020November 12, 2020

Malfeasance at the Office of West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

The West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner is Mark Burns-Williamson, a largely gaff-prone failed politician. Heaven knows there’s sufficient data out there in the public domain to show that by any stretch of the imagination the man is unsuited to any role requiring public trust.

My favourite one details how he sent an inadvisable letter in a “love triangle” which would ordinarily have rendered him open to criminal prosecution. This was however covered up by West Yorkshire Police’s (then) DCI Simon Bottomley leading to the eternal gratitude of Burns-Williamson to the force he is supposed to scrutinise.

It also appears his office is prepared to manipulate and ignore facts to protect the very organisation it should be holding to scrutiny.

This blog entry tells the story of one such incident.

Burns-Williamson demonstrates the degree to which he hold the local force to scrutiny.

In May 2020 The Ministry of Justice’s Data Access Office sent data to a person (who we will call the recipient) in error.

This data was information on a third party who lived in the London area. This amounted to a serious data breach as the disclosure included the subjects name, address, date of birth and bank account details etc. as well as other disclosures regarding a series Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings against the data subject.

The recipient of the data informed The Information Commissioner’s Office and The Ministry of Justice as well as the data subject whose information had been disclosed. He also posted regarding this on Twitter but did not reveal any confidential information in so doing.

Data Access at MoJ requested the recipient remove the mocking tweet. The recipient of the data refused citing his freedom of expression under The Human Rights Act and that no offence in civil or criminal law had been committed by the tweet.

Three days later the recipient of the data was arrested at his home by West Yorkshire Police on the basis that he had breached The Data Protection Act. The allegation being that he had shared the confidential data sent to him in error on Twitter.

This was palpably untrue as an examination of the tweet would have confirmed. However police did not examine the tweet for themselves but took it “on trust” from MoJ that a supposed offence had taken place. Of course it hadn’t but MoJ were burning with indignation that a serious data security error had been made public and to their official regulator on data matters the ICO.

Police were aware that no offence had occurred.

The bar for arrest for any offence is set very high as recent cases such as Rachid v. The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2020) show. Instead police took it on trust from The Ministry of Justice that an offence had occurred in a situation in which the Security Manager for MoJ’s correspondence (seen by this blogger) reveals his desire to give the recipient “a nasty shock”.

The recipient’s home was entered by police on his arrest. In the middle of the Spring 2020 pandemic a vulnerable family member who was shielding was subject to interaction with police who did not wear PPE or take any form of precautions regarding introducing COVID-19 infection into the home. Electronic devices were removed and the home was ransacked in the search. The officer leading this was PC Alan Jackson. Police actions amount to trespass to property (since there were no reasonable grounds for arrest) alongside trespass to goods and wrongful arrest.

The home of the recipient of data was raided by police without PPE in the middle of the spring pandemic.

Predictably no charges were brought. Emails seen between the Officer in Charge (OIC) and The Ministry of Justice reveal MoJ immediately loose interest when the recipient was arrested which fits in with the prior email claiming MoJ wanted to give him a nasty shock. No further action resulted to the recipient from either Police or MoJ.

A complaint was duly made by the recipient to West Yorkshire Police Professional Standards Department (PSD). Their internal investigation under The Police Reform Act 2002 confirmed – but only internally to the police – that the arrest was wrongful on the basis that WYP had not seen or been provided by MoJ with any indication that a criminal offence had taken place. Other aspects of the complaint made were ignored by PSD and not investigated.

An organisation such as West Yorkshire Police which has an international reputation for both corruption and incompetence needs to be able to head off complaints and minimise them early on. The investigation concluded in a document called an Assessment and Progress Log that there had indeed been no reasonable grounds for arrest, therefore logically the arrest was unlawful. This document was an internal document not for public or complainant’s consumption.

Police of course cannot admit that they have erred to the complainant. It opens the door for civil action for wrongful arrest and payment of compensation. It also amount to loss of professional reputation.

Thus the results of the PSD investigation which were presented to the complainant in August 2020 were totally at odds with the actual true findings of the investigation. The official line was that nothing untoward had occurred and that the arrest was legitimate: the unseen internal report stated quite the opposite. A copy of this report has since been obtained from WYP and examined.

If you find that the above shocks you then I would respectfully point out you may have little experience of the police complaints process and the extent to which it seeks to hide the conduct of misconducting and underperforming officers.

The complainant found some 21 issues with the PSD investigation response which were either suboptimal or evaded examination of the facts. Of course if you’re prepared to commit mendacity on such a scale as a police complaints office then it’s best to keep any communication simple. The response provided by PSD’s Vicky Silver was clearly exceptionally evasive and the errors in it were manifest.

Police Professional Standards Departments go to any length to dismiss valid complaints.

The complaint was progressed as an appeal to The Office of The Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire, this being a body with supposed oversight of the local force. Karen Gray at PCC was tasked with the examination of the appeal.

It is a basic element of any investigation that the investigator should have access to all of the data available to be able to reach a reasoned conclusion. This is common sense. In the course of the PCC’s investigation they either failed to obtain copies of documents such as the PSD Assessment and Progress Log or else were provided with a copy of the relevant data but chose to ignore it in favour of a rubber-stamped approval of the earlier PSD investigation.

Thus the office of West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner have shown themselves to be either as throughly dishonest or professionally incompetent as the police force they are supposed to supervise. Further they are prepared to support the local force in their dishonesty.

A further complaint was made regarding the failure of the PCC to obtain all relevant data meaning that the Karen Gray investigation was fundamentally flawed. This was responded to more recently by PCC’s Jane Owen who has stated that Karen Gray could not have been aware of the Assessment and Progress Log on the basis that it was produced after the conclusion of the original PCC review.

However the document in question from PSD is dated 5.6.20.

Therefore it was produced BEFORE the complaint was referred to PCC by around two months. The response that it was not available in the original PSD investigation is therefore an outright lie.

It is of course inconceivable that an investigation properly conducted would not have requested a copy of, assessed and examined the PSD Assessment and Progress Log which was in existence by this point and therefore PSD’s position that Karen Gray had access to all of the required documentation to enable correct conclusions is not only incorrect but also deliberately misleading.

The essence of the complaint to PSD regarding wrongful arrest etc. was proven – as that office was well aware – by 5.6.20.

All subsequent efforts of PSD and the office of the PCC for West Yorkshire have sought to bury the facts under an increasing mound of guff and nonsense.

PSD chose to issue a response completely opposite to the facts they had themselves established and The Office of The Police and Crime Commissioner has assisted them in this cover-up and continues to do so.

In a desperate final attempt to avoid further scrutiny Jane Owen writes:

I have concluded that you have used the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s complaints process to try and change the outcome of your complaint… and the subsequent review undertaken by this office but – in line with the statutory guidance that has been issued that sets out how reviews have to be handled – you do not have a further right of review

Is it any wonder that both West Yorkshire Police and The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner have such a poor reputation both locally and nationally?

Certainly both are prepared to bend the truth into impossible angles to avoid any admission of error or loss of professional reputation. Perversely this ends up in a situation as described above in which loss of face and reputation end up occurring both from the original issue and the labyrinthine efforts made to conceal it.

November 10, 2020November 11, 2020

Anatomy of Child Protection Failures in Doncaster.

In Doncaster in early January 2020 a child died. His name was Keigan O’Brien.

Doncaster overall has an appalling reputation as a place in which children can grow up safely and free from fear of harm. Several incidents in recent years have put the city’s child protection measures into the national spotlight. At one point the relevant responsibilities would have rested with the local authority.

However Doncaster Children’s Services Trust (DCST) is an offshoot organisation set up by Doncaster Council. This follows a series of disastrous child protection failures from Doncaster Council (itself a noticeably underperforming local authority) and the establishment of DCST was clearly to place some element of distance between the Council and child protection services in the city. A useful tactic for the senior organisation avoiding blame and bad publicity. But the service provided by DCST is still the same appallingly poor standard as when matters were under the Council’s jurisdiction.

Tellingly the most recent OFSTED reports that DSCT show on their own site end in 2018.

The head of DCST is Jim Foy, the improbably titled LADO or Local Authority Designated Officer. The title is of course a hangover from the days when the service was an in-house Council run operation.

On the occasions this correspondent has encountered him Jim Foy seems a man hopelessly disengaged with the job he has to do and the overall impression is of a man who is the cause of chaos in his employment which others run then around correcting. This is bad enough in any post but in one with the responsibilities of LADO the consequences of failure are catastrophic to service users, their families and the local community.

And so it proved when Jim Foy – in the course of his duties – recorded data on a person who had engaged in a new relationship with a clerical support worker in a Doncaster area school. Not only did he record the data wrongly but he also recorded a matter which was not an offence in British criminal law. He failed to spot either of these errors. He then used this incorrect data to confront the clerical support worker and used it to try to force her out of her employment.
When later faced with clear evidence that he had recorded the data incorrectly Jim Foy refused to amend or correct the error. Instead only after matters were investigated by the UK’s data regulator, The Information Commissioner’s Office, which found against DCST was the data reluctantly corrected.

The DPA 1998 states at 10(1) that a data controller is required to cease processing of personal data on ground that process of that data likely to cause damage / distress and is unwarranted.

Principal 4 also states that data held on an individual should be both accurate and kept up to date.

The error caused by DCST is twofold then: the recording of incorrect data in the first instance and the failure to correct it in the second. It is assumed that Jim Foy is sufficiently aware of these regulations and how they impact on his responsibilities although the persistent failure to correct the error when notified suggests otherwise.

In a civil case at Doncaster Civil Justice Centre North this week the defence of DCST to the claim of breach of the relevant legislation was not accepted by the judge who saw through the (admittedly very weak) set of arguments defence barrister presented.

The wider issue in this matter is that if DCST is recording data on people wrongly then how can they hope to build a genuine picture of the potential threats to children in their area? The consistent failure of DCST to protect children in the Doncaster region is evidence of where these kinds of systemic failure leads.

There is a cost to the public purse of this. So far there have been five hearings in this claim settled this week at a figure of around £1,000.00 costs to DCST each time they have sent counsel and instructed solicitor. Conservative estimates therefore put the costs to then local taxpayer of defence of a matter which was doomed to fail in any event (including pre-trial preparation etc) at around £9,000.00. This is over the matter of a simple piece of data recorded wrongly from one telephone call.

Nor is this the worst part of this matter.

In a December 2019 hearing and – presumably desperate to gain some form of hold on the Claimant and tactical advantage in the case via obtaining information on him – Jim Foy overheard a conversation at court in the case which resulted in him making enquiries regarding the Claimant’s children which by any examination breach the Claimant’s Article 8 right to privacy. These enquiries were made not only to the databases that DCST would use as a matter of course but also to local police forces.

Jim Foy was running around gathering this data with questionable legality and no operational remit to do so at the same time Keigan O’Brien was being placed in peril by the actions of his parents.

Also at the same time Jim Foy was giving training sessions (https://buy.doncaster.gov.uk/Event/102055) on safeguarding children in the local area.

All this of course could only happen in DCST where actual child protection concerns come second to maintaining underperforming staff in post and ensuring the continuation of the organisation.

November 9, 2020November 9, 2020

A Cautionary Tale of Judges and Twitter. Part Two

Recorder Ben Nolan QC, a part-time, fee-paid judge on the North East Circuit posted an inadvisable tweet in the late evening of 18th June, 2020:

The relevant Twitter account has now been deleted.

Like the account of HHJ Sarah Greenan, a Family Court judge sitting at Leeds and who has been subject of a prior blog post regarding judicial misuse of Twitter.

Ben Nolan QC is assumed to have sufficient seniority as a judge to be aware of the judicial conduct rules and how these relate to the expression of opinions on social media and elsewhere.

However let’s count the issues with the tweet above, shall we?

Inappropriate uses of expletives
Political opinions expressed regarding the Government
Poor diction – an issue which has been said to appear in Ben Nolan’s judgments
“fetid Primark store” expresses social prejudice against the people you’d likely find in Primark if not the store itself.

A complaint was made to the reliably ineffective Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office which supposedly enforces judicial conduct guidelines. The complaint was made in the terms mentioned above. JCIO can usually be relied upon to evade proper action on complaints about judges via a series of “trapdoors” built into the regulations which allow such cuffing off of legitimate complaints.

However – again unusually for JCIO – the issue made it as far as Nominated Judge (NI) stage. In this matter the NI being The Right Honourable Lady Justice Carr. In a complaint outcome letter dated 21st August, 2020 the JCIO stated that the Nominated Judge (NJ) concluded that:

“I do not consider that the posting of the tweet amounted to judicial misconduct. The tweet was not sent from a judicial account. The details of the account did not identify its holder as a judge. Nor did the contents of the tweet identify in any way that the author was a judge. In short, the tweet contained a private expression of opinion, albeit in offensive language, on the part of the Judge in circumstances that did not implicate him as a judicial office holder. In these circumstances, it did not risk bringing the judiciary into disrepute”

The NJ also considered that:

“the tweet did not reflect any social prejudice on the part of the Judge. Rather it reflected what the Judge had seen in the newspapers and on television”.

You might of course wonder about the common sense of a judge who bases his opinions on things he has seen on television or read in a newspaper!

The Nominated Judge went on to say:

“Accordingly, the complaint has been dismissed under Rule 41 (b) of the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014.”

Regardless of the NI’s findings the rules regarding judicial conduct apply if the judge is identified / self-identified as such or not. Otherwise there is little point having the rules! As such the findings of Lady Justice Carr are at best unsustainable.

The findings of the Nominated Judge have been appealed on these grounds:

The outcome letter states:

The tweet was not sent from a judicial account. The details of the account did not identify its holder as a judge.

However the March 2020 Guide to Judicial Conduct states:

Judges should be aware; however, that participation in public debate on any topic may entail the risk of undermining public perception in the impartiality of the judiciary whether or not a judge’s comments would lead to recusal from a particular case. This risk arises in part because the judge will not have control over the terms of the debate or the interpretation given to his or her comments.

The risk of expressing views that will give rise to issues of bias or pre-judgment in future cases before the judge is a particular factor to be considered. This risk will seldom arise from what a judge has said in other cases, but will arise if a judge has taken part publicly in a political or controversial discussion.For these reasons, judges must always be circumspect before accepting any invitation, or taking any step, to engage in public debate. Consultation with their relevant leadership before doing so will almost always be desirable.Where a judge decides to participate in public debate, he or she should be careful to ensure that the occasion does not create a public perception of partiality towards a particular organisation (including a set of chambers or firm of solicitors), group or cause or to a lack of even handedness. Care should also be taken therefore, about the place at which and the occasion on which a judge speaks. Participation in public protests and demonstrations may well involve substantial risks of this kind and, further, be inconsistent with the dignity of judicial office.

This is stated in the context of post on social media or to newspapers etc.

There is no requirement in the Conduct Regulations that a judge is able to state anything he or she wishes provided he is not identified as a judge. Which of course makes a nonsense of the Nominated Judge’s application of the rules. In fact it rather shows that the NI has misapplied the rules to avoid making a judgment against Recorder Ben Nolan QC.

In fact the rules apply to judiciary regardless of if they are commenting from a personal perspective, or as a judicial office holder. Different rules of course apply to such as The Secret Barrister who is believed to be a member of counsel but is not identified directly as such.

There is no mention made in the Conduct regulations that the judge is able to publicise his own views regardless of if he mentions his judicial office or not. The rules apply equally to someone identifying themselves as a judge or not.

The response of The Rt. Hon. Lady Justice Carr hinges on the basis that the judge was not identified on his Twitter account as a judge. This is the basis for her dismissal of the complaint. This is not relevant to the complaint and in this matter has been seized upon as grounds to dismiss the complaint erroneously and contrary to the relevant rules.

One might wonder about the reliability of the investigation given the deeply odd findings made.

Anyone working on the North East Circuit (presumably the majority of Ben Nolan’s Twitter followers) are able to identify the Twitter account holder as a judge and the majority of the persons following the account will also have been aware that he was a fee paid judge from either media or professional connections. That the account holder was a member of the judiciary is something clear and obvious from the account itself.

Recorder Ben Nolan QC described as “a heavyweight in criminal practice”.

The basis on which the complaint has been dismissed is therefore spurious and erroneous.

In respect of the comments regarding Primark clothing stores the findings of the Nominated Judge stretched credulity even further. For good or ill that store seems to be one ripe for mockery as a place where people without much money tend to shop. The NI claimed:

“the tweet did not reflect any social prejudice on the part of the Judge. Rather it reflected what the Judge had seen in the newspapers and on television”.

This is problematic in a number of areas. Firstly why would Ben Nolan QC comment on something that he has picked up from second-hand experience? Is also his comment not reflective of social prejudice on the part of the source material in newspapers papers or on television in which he has seen such comments? Regardless of if a prejudice has been obtained from TV or newspapers the expressing of the same ideation by a person – particularly a person intelligent enough to recognise them as being prejudice – is effectively them expressing the same prejudice.

I would say that the tweet regarding Primark does express social prejudice on the part of a judge and that this is an exceptionally concerning matter.

The complaint outcome has been appealed. The outcome of the appeal is awaited.

It has been intimated in a separate civil case that Ben Nolan will shortly no longer be undertaking judicial work.

November 8, 2020November 8, 2020

A Cautionary Tale of Judges and Twitter. Part One.

Judge Sarah Greenan (or HHJ Sarah Greenan) sits as a judge in the Family Court at Leeds Combined Court and also as a Crown Court Judge in Manchester. Her old chambers are Zenith in Leeds.

For most of her time sat on the bench she appears both bored and irritated by the mechanics of the job she has to do.

Specific rules exist in relation to judges and their ability to express an opinion in a public forum as well as their use of social media. These are enshrined in the Judicial Conduct Rules.

In February 2019 Judge Greenan posted a tweet to her since deleted Twitter account @Sarah_Zenith which expressed satisfaction that a High Court Judge has upheld an appeal in relation to a judgement she made and also that the Court of Appeal upheld her in a different case.

You may of course be wondering at this point why this judge has so many of her cases sent to appeal. This isn’t for me to comment but doubtless you can draw your own conclusions. Her pastoral supervisor is Judge Mark Gosnell, the senior civil judge for Leeds and Bradford, who also sits at Leeds.

However the sending of such a tweet amounted to a breach of regulations governing judicial conduct.

In cases such as this (or for example if a judge is abusive or aggressive in a hearing) there is a body to which complaints can be made. This is the reliably ineffective Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office based at The Royal Courts of Justice in London. Despite its name this is an office which actively seeks to avoid any examination into judicial misconduct and will seek to disapply – that is to say reject – complaints for a number of spurious reasons. Britain’s public life is beset with watchdogs which have no bite: it enables a “business as usual” approach to the corruption and incompetence which characterise public life in the UK.

But to everyone’s surprise this matter was taken up by JCIO. Which was one of a handful of complaints they did choose to investigate in 2019 and not “cuff off” as is standard procedure. Perhaps because this is a relatively low-level offence for which the evidence of misconduct was clear and unarguable. Or perhaps JCIO had a quota of complaints to process in 2019 to make it look as if the office was actually doing their job and this was seen as a trouble-free investigation. The matter was examined by the reliably obstreperous Isabelle Odowa at JCIO.

In short not even JCIO could not find a way to dismiss the complaint!

The basis of the complaint was that a lack of impartiality was shown in the opinions expressed, that personal opinions were shown and that the relevant codes of conduct for judges making public comments were breached.

As per standard procedure the complaint was referred to a Nominated Judge and then onwards to The Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor. Each made a finding against HHJ Sarah Greenan with the ultimate conclusion being that the complaint was upheld.

The sanction imposed was informal advice in accordance with Para. 15 (2) & (3) of the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2014.

This “cosy chat” approach of providing informal advice doesn’t seem like much of a sanction. And it isn’t. Because as this and several other cases referred to JCIO and upheld by The Lord Chancellor show “light touch” regulation is very much favoured particularly when it comes to misconduct from judges.

However it can be noted that judges as far south as Central London County Court were aware of and discussing this case after The Lord Chancellor’s decision and as such it may have sharpened up the behaviour of some of the judiciary on social media. Or not in the case of such as HHJ Recorder Ben Nolan QC… whose case I shall go into in a separate blog post one day.

This whole matter has made it clear to Judicial Office however that HHJ Greenan isn’t someone who can be relied upon not to make inadvisable comments in public forums. The judiciary tends not to appreciate members who are too verbose in this was & her actions may cost her a promotion or a minor title on retirement somewhere down the line.