IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL APPEAL: EA/2017/0062

GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER

(INFORMATION RIGHTS)

BETWEEN:

Appellant
and

THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Respondent

EXHIBIT A-1
Undelivered documents
(Four year fiasco)
 HM Courts & Tribunals Service
Customer Investigations Team
Post Point 10.34
102 Petty France
London
HM Courts & SW1H 9AJ

Tribunals Service Email:

ComplaintsCorres&LT@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Mr

Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN32

6 April 2017 Our ref: 00042/165/1617

Without Prejudice

Dear Mr

Grimsby Magistrates Court

Thank you for your letter of 19 March about the way your application for a case stated
was handled by the Grimsby Magistrates Court. I am sorry that you remain dissatisfied
with the previous replies you have received. I am replying at the final stage of the
complaints process.

I have reviewed the previous responses from Mrs Watts and Mr Hopgood and having
done so I believe your complaint needs further investigation. After careful consideration
I have decided to uphold your complaint and offer you compensation for the poor level
of service that you have received. My reasons for this are as follows.

I understand that the North East Lincolnshire Council issued a summons against you
for unpaid council tax and the court hearing was set for 2 November 2012. Before the
hearing took place you paid the outstanding sum of 437.52 and also 10 towards the
costs. The court decided that you should pay the councils remaining costs of 60. On
the 21 November 2012 you applied to the court to state a case so you could appeal the
decision. An acknowledgment was sent to you on 22 November 2012 by the Deputy
Justices Clerk, Mr Draper.

You chased for a response on 28 December 2012 but your email to Mr Draper was not
delivered. You then emailed the Justices Clerk, Mrs Alison Watts, also on 28
December 2012. You received a response to your emails on 14 January 2013 from Mr
Townell confirming that he would find out what was happening with your application.
On the 24 January 2013 Mrs Watts wrote to you to confirm that the justices required
you to enter into a recognizance of 500 before they stated the case for consideration
of the High Court.

On the 5 February 2013 you wrote to the court to find out why you had been asked to
pay 500. You felt that you were being prevented access to the courts because you
could not afford this sum. The court acknowledged your letter on 6 February and
dfgdda
confirmed the matter would be brought to the attention of Mrs Watts. You chased for a
reply on 26 February and were informed on 27 February that Mrs Watts was looking
into the matter.

I note that on the 23 March 2013 you wrote to the Administrative Court Office (ACO)
telling them that you would like to apply to the High Court for an order that the justices
state the case. You were told by the ACO that you would need to apply for Judicial
Review (JR).

On the 27 March you asked the court for an update and you were informed on the
same day that the matter was receiving attention. In the absence of a response you
wrote a further letter on 29 April asking for a certificate under section 111(5) of the
MCA1980 to confirm the reasons why the justices have refused to state a case. You
explained that if you did not receive a response within 14 days you would be apply for a
JR. In the absence of a response you began the JR procedure and your application
was issued on 13 June 2013.

The courts response to your JR application was that you had not been asked to pay
the 500 upfront and that the letter dated 23 January 2013 explained that position.
However, the court agreed, in order to save public money, to prepare a draft case and
serve on the parties within 14 days. On the 24 July 2013 a draft case was dispatched
for the parties comments. You replied on 19 August 2013. I note that the council
responded on 9 September 2013.

On the 10 January 2014, and also on 13 February, you wrote to the court to ask why
the final case stated had not been sent out. On the 6 March Mrs Watts said she would
look into the matter and get back to you by the following morning. You then wrote again
on 22 April 2014 asking why you have not had a response. In the absence of a
response you raised a complaint with the Advisory Committee. I do not propose to
repeat the history of this specific complaint, but I have noted that you experienced
difficulties with the process. You escalated the matter to the Judicial Appointments &
Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) and received a final report on 23 May 2016.

On the 25 June 2016 you wrote to my team out of frustration because you were yet to
receive the case stated and this was preventing you to go to the High Court. At this
point you had waited three and half years for the case to be stated. In line with the HM
Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) complaints process my team asked the court to
investigate what had happened.

Mrs Watts wrote to you on the 22 July 2016 and acknowledge that the level of service
provided to you on occasions could have been better. She explained that the case
stated was posted to you on 19 December 2013 and that further copies were sent to
you on 20 February 2014 and 1 May 2014.

On the 26 January 2017 you emailed Ms Collins asking for a review of the complaint. I
believe that you had recently received copies of correspondence from the court file
following a Subject Access Request and had found that a number of letters had not
reached you through the post. Mr Hopgood responded to you on 22 February 2017 at
the review stage of the complaints process.

Page 2
My findings.

It is clear that you had a strong view about the costs that were awarded to the local
council on 2 November 2012. While the amount in contention was 60, it was your right
to apply to the court to state a case. The initial handling of your application was poor
because insufficient arrangements had been made to cover Mr Drapers work after he
had left the court. I am sorry that you had to wait two months before you received the
courts letter of 24 January 2013. You had a number of issues with the decision to
impose a recognizance to pay 500 and wrote to the court about this. I understand the
consequence of entering into a recognizance was that if you did not pursue your
appeal in the High Court you would have had to pay 500. If you did pursue your
appeal the 500 would not have to be paid. I cannot comment on a judicial decision but
I do consider the handling of your correspondence on the matter was very poor.

I could not find any substantial response to your letter of 5 February 2013 and I believe
this was the courts opportunity to clarify and explain the position to you. It must have
been very frustrating for you that you were not given a full reply. I am sorry that the only
way you were able to prompt a response from the court was by issuing a judicial review
application. It was at that stage that the court decided to prepare the draft case without
the need for a recognizance. It is my view that the final case stated document could
have been prepared in a timelier manner and served on the parties before the 19
December 2013.

You have said that you did not receive the courts letter of 19 December 2013 or the
additional letters sent to you on 20 February 2014 and 1 May 2014. I am not doubting
you did not receive the letters through the post. I am sorry that is the case but I have
not seen any reason to believe they were not posted to you. I have noted the courts
admission that the final case should have been sent by recorded delivery. The court is
unable to provide any evidence that this method of postage was used. Therefore I hold
the view the letter of 19 December 2013 was not sent by recorded delivery.

It is regrettable that you did not receive 10 documents through the post but, in the
absence of receiving the letters, I do appreciate why you felt you were being ignored. I
therefore understand why you made a complaint about the judiciary. After you received
the final JACO report in 2016 you reverted to the HMCTS complaints process. Again, it
is regrettable that you did not received the courts response dated 22 July 2016 but I
have not seen any reason to suggest that it was not posted to you in the normal way.

Conclusion

My conclusion is that you have experienced a very poor level of service due to the way
your correspondence had been handled. The court had a number of opportunities to
clarify the position for you and, in the absence of doing so, it caused you a lot of
frustration and inconvenience. While I am satisfied that the letters on file would have
been posted to you, it is my view that an alternative service method of the final case
stated should have been considered after your third request for a copy had been
received.

While I appreciate you were pursuing a complaint about the judiciary between 2014
and 2016, I do have to take into account the fact that you did not pursue the court for a
copy of the final case for over two years. I also appreciate the fact that you could not
pursue an appeal until the case had been stated by the magistrates court. However, I

Page 3
believe you could have contacted the High Court to explain the difficulties you were
having. In addition, I have not seen any reason why you could not have telephoned the
court to chase the final case stated document.

Overall, I believe an apology alone will not be sufficient in recognition of the poor level
of service that you received. I would therefore like to offer you the sum of 375 in
recognition of the poor handling of your application and subsequent correspondence. I
would also like to offer you a further sum of 375 to apologise for the frustration and
inconvenience that you experienced.

If you would like to accept the total sum of 750 please let me know in writing (by email
is fine) and I will arrange payment to you. If you would prefer a bank transfer please
provide me with your bank details. Please allow 20 working days for the money to
reach you after I have received your acceptance.

If you do not consider that my reply has dealt with your complaint satisfactorily, you can
ask a Member of Parliament to refer your case to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman (the Ombudsman). By law the Ombudsman can only look at complaints
about UK government departments and agencies if they have been referred by an MP.
Please fill out the form on the Ombudsmans website www.ombudsman.org.uk/making-
complaint first and then pass it to an MP. Please be aware that there are time limits for
the Ombudsman to look into complaints and they are investigated at the PHSOs
discretion. You can find your local MP at findyourmp.parliament.uk.

Yours sincerely

Richard Redgrave
Head of Customer Investigations

Page 4
 Page 1 of 4

From: " "< . @gmail.com>

To: "HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence)" <ComplaintsCorres&LT@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Cc: <melanie.onn.mp@parliament.uk>
Attach: Complaint appeal stage - Mr .pdf
Sent: 26 April 2017 21:34
Subject: Re: Complaint appeal stage - Mr

Dear Mr Redgrave

Re: Grimsby Magistrates' court Complaint - Submitted 25 June 2016

Thank you for your letter of 6 April 2017 which sets out your findings to my concerns. I apologies for the delay
in responding - this has been due to several deadline obligations arising from matters I have become
embroiled in as a result of the issues of this complaint.

I appreciate that there has been a degree of recognition in the fact that the complaint has overall been upheld
and a sum of compensation offered for the poor service and the frustration and inconvenience experienced.
However, I perceive what is described as 'poor level of service' to be far more serious than that and the
inconvenience would more appropriately be termed gross injustice.

I had anticipated that any consolatory payment which might be deemed appropriate would not go a fraction of
the way to compensate for the amount of time and effort that has been necessary to dedicated to this matter.
The inordinate number of hours consumed has extended far beyond that attributable to the difficulties with the
court. Though this element is obviously the most significant, the direct engagement with HMCTS pales in
comparison with all other public bodies that it has been necessary to deal with relating to the issues that
concern this complaint.

If it could be quantified in monetary terms, the cost (including potential loss of earnings) if aggregated over the
years for the gross inconvenience of having to deal with the negligence would amount to thousands of
pounds. However, if all the public authorities which it has been necessary to involve were factored in it would
increase the burden tenfold. Though for someone in my financial situation the amount offered is not
insignificant, it only represents around 1 per cent of an amount that would realistically compensate for the
overall injustice. It is therefore only on the basis that I would rather be paid the amount offered than not that I
accept the total sum of 750.

I am not satisfied that the full extent of the injustice has been recognised nor responsibility for it fully accepted
and will therefore be asking my MP to refer my concerns to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. You will no doubt
appreciate that I find the continued denial regarding my assertions about the undelivered items of post not
being sent irrational. In light of my representations and on the balance of probability the letters will not have
been posted (ten letters neither delivered nor returned), I find the view inappropriate that HMCTS has not
seen any reason to believe that the letters were not posted to me. It is not so much the reason that HMCTS
needs to look for to believe that the letters were not posted (though it should be discovered) but whether on
the evidence and probability it is credible that they were not.

The amount in contention only 60

Though it has been acknowledged that applying to the court to state a case was my right, it would be naive of
me not to have wondered if the unnecessary reference to the amount in contention (60.00) was for the
purposes of implying the matter did not warrant an appeal to the high court. In case this was implied I consider
it necessary to briefly defend the decision with a number of reasons justifying why pursuing the matter was not
frivolous.

Firstly, the council had weighed up the pros and cons about taking me to court (for the same amount) and
therefore could not itself have considered going to these lengths to be frivolous. If the amount was
significant to the council then for an individual in receipt of no income it stands to reason that sum was more
significant to me. The council had been informed that the outstanding debt had been paid and an
additional sum exceeding the cost incurred by the council for instituting the summons. The council is restricted
by law to claim no more than is reasonably incurred (it is an automated process). Extensive representations
had been submitted to justify why the 10 sum would cover the aggregate of the 3 court fee and out of
pocket expense of postage etc. for the summons issue, yet the council chose to pursue the matter in the court
to enable it to enforce an unwarranted additional 60 when it could have considered the matter closed.

Rather than the sum contended being the central matter, the true focus of the appeal was on the council
routinely claiming expenditure unlawfully in respect of many thousands of cases each year and clearly a

02/05/2017
 Page 2 of 4

matter of public importance.

Among reasons why the judiciary should have welcomed the appeal being presented was the fact that the
standard summons charge had been determined from a decision (public consultation) relating to the council's
2012 budget-setting. The decision was taken to front load all the cost of the court case to the cost of merely
issuing a summons, forecasted to raise 0.752 million additional revenue over four years (the summons
increased from 32 to 70). Details of the outcome to the public consultation showed that the majority of
respondents favoured generating income this way than the alternative proposals to introduce a charge for
replacement bins or garden waste collections. The costs appeared to have been manipulated for an unlawful
purpose therefore it was only reasonable to ask a court to adjudicate on the matter. On being advised by the
Magistrates court it was learned that a Liability Order can only be challenged by an appeal to the High Court
by way of either a case stated on a point of law or a judicial review.

It is useful, particularly for billing authorities that seem to get away with routinely picking the pockets of its
'customers' to be able to present to those unhappy being swindled, the only option to "lumping it" being to
challenge their actions in the high court. Councils know that those most likely to be victims will be the easiest
to obstruct access to justice because unless a solicitor is appointed (an unaffordable luxury) the
unrepresented litigant can evidently be ignored.

Not pursuing a copy of the case stated

I consider HMCTS unjustified to imply I should take some responsibility for its failure. A copy of the final case
was not pursued for over two years because I was unaware one had allegedly been sent. This period is
implied to be the time I was pursuing the complaint about the judiciary between 2014 and 2016. The period
incidentally that I did not directly pursue the court for the final case was for just over a year and a half, not for
over two years. It is also of note that the process of the judicial complaint including the Judicial Ombudsman's
involvement reported on page 16 of its 2015-16 Annual Report (re service fell below...) was unacceptable as
was the first stage of the present HMCTS complaint that was referred to the Justices' Clerk to address.

The final time I had contacted the Justices' Clerk (up until pursuing the judicial complaint) was 9 July 2014
when I had written to enquire into whether HMCTS had any arrangements in place to restrict my contact with
the court after receiving no reply to requesting the production of a Certificate of refusal to state a case. The
next time was 25 February 2016 on receiving the Judicial Ombudsman's 23 February 2016 email to which
was attached copies of three of the undelivered letters. One dated 16 September 2014 was a response to the
Judicial complaint in which it stated that a certificate of refusal to state a case was not issued by the Justices
because they did state a case which had been sent to me. I therefore asked in my 25 February email to the
Justices Clerk that the final case was sent (I had never received it) in order that the application to the High
Court may be proceeded with.

I also think that the lengths to which I had already gone and failed to get any cooperation would give me
enough reason to believe that the obstruction was deliberate and would not be assisted however many times I
tried to contact anyone. From August 2013 when the representations upon the draft case were submitted up
until September 2014 (Advisory Committee complaint), the Court was contacted a total nine times in
connection with obtaining the finalised document. All communications were ignored except one (6 March
2014) to which Mrs Watts replied with an undertaking to have written communication setting out the position
with the case and advising of the next steps. This undertaking was never acted on.

It is the opinion of HMCTS that I should have contacted the High Court to explain the difficulties I was
having. This is exactly what I had done initially when my communications were ignored which led to the High
Court advising that the appropriate avenue would be by judicial review. To have done as suggested (again)
would effectively have meant pursuing another judicial review claim for a mandatory order because the
previous claim had been closed on the basis that it had succeeded in the Magistrates' court undertaking to
proceed with the case. There are limits to how far one is expected to go and it should be reasonably
obvious for anyone to see that those limits had long been reached and pursuing the Judicial Complaint was
the most that could have been done under the circumstances to obtain answers.

Financial barrier to progress appeal and ongoing consequences

Even though the final case has been obtained I am still no nearer an outcome. As my 19 March 2017
submission explained, the 100% fee remission I was entitled to due to my financial circumstances was no
longer applicable because the criteria on which entitlement to fee remission applied had changed and fees
were payable in full. Due to the unacceptable number of years it has taken to obtain the final case stated there
is now a financial barrier to progress the matter which did not exist when the appeal was embarked upon.
Paragraphs 32 to 37 of the complaint explains in detail but this matter was not addressed and no solution
offered.

02/05/2017
 Page 3 of 4

I am left in a position with the council, even knowing it is in the wrong, unwilling to take steps to remedy the
situation because presumably it considers to be under no obligation unless the high court orders it to. Since
the disputed sum has been outstanding on my Council Tax account, the council has misallocated payment
causing the year's account which was current at the time to be in arrears on 3 separate occasions. A
computer generated letter received in April 2013 threatened summons costs of 70, instalment facility
withdrawal etc. Monies were eventually re-allocated so the account no longer in default and the threat of court
/ recovery action ceased but not until I had involved the Local Government Ombudsman.

The next time it more seriously resulted in a summons being served for non-payment, when again, payments
were up to date. A letter received in October 2014 threatened the usual but because the council failed to
respond to my letter explaining I had paid, further costs were added and a summons served. It was not until
27 days after it was contacted that the council replied simply stating that the payments had been reallocated,
there was no longer need to go to court, the costs had been removed and the summons withdrawn. However,
it required writing repeatedly and reporting the incident to the police via the website Action Fraud before it
remedied its mistake.

The most recent allocation error resulted in the council obtaining a liability order in October 2015 with the
addition of summons costs and several hundred pounds bailiff fees which it has refused to remedy because it
considers its actions legitimate (the court endorsed them). The consequences have been horrendous
principally because the council presented perjured evidence to the court to persuade the judge that it was
entitled to allocate payment to the disputed costs (leaving the balance of the years account that should have
been reduced in default). The Council had suspended recovery of the sum being appealed in the high court
until the case had been determined, however, it falsely claimed in its signed statement of truth that it believed
the appeal had been withdrawn therefore the disputed costs were no longer suspended. The appeal had
never been withdrawn and it is beyond all reasonable doubt that the council knew it had not been withdrawn
from incriminating evidence accompanying its witness statement.

The council was caught red-handed yet its Corporate Fraud team, police, etc., have allegedly found no
evidence of dishonesty even though the documented proof is conclusive.

It can be seen that during the period HMCTS has taken into account that I did not pursue the court for a copy
of the final case, I had plenty of other injustices to contend with that resulted from the maladministration. Time
consuming and fruitless disputes i.e., formal complaints escalating to the LGO, police, police appeals and
entering into a private prosecution against the police for negligence have all been undertaken as well as
pursuing additional judicial complaints which had arisen because of the judge's complicity (and other
misconduct) surrounding the false statement.

With the number of people this matter must have been considered by it is staggering that it has not at any
point fallen in the hands of someone capable of appreciating the impossibility of the situation who has had the
good sense and the authority to find a way of bypassing the obstacles to have the appeal dealt with. The fact
that is has not is an indication that the person responsible for obstructing the appeal may be someone more
senior than the Justices Clerk. I consider this matter requires far more investigation as I'm unable to settle for
being caused such unquantifiable injustice over the protracted period without finding out the real reason for
the gross failure that prevented the appeal reaching a conclusion.

Yours sincerely

02/04/2017
 MrsAWatts
Justices' Clerk for
Humber & South Yorkshire
FILE Ooncaster Magistrates' Court
HM Courts & PO Box 49
The Law Courts
Tribunals Service College Road
OONCASTER ON13HT

OX: 742840 (Doncaster 20)

When calling please ask for: Cellne AlIerton T: 01302 347303/304
Direct Line: 01302 34no~
F: 01302 327906
E: celine.allerton@hmcts.gsLgov.uk
karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Mr

-uffmsby
~----_. mt
Minicom VII: 01302 369066

www.justice.gov.uk

North East Lincolnshire

DN320QJ

Our ref: AW/CA 19 December 2013

Re: Application to State a Case

I acknowledge receipt of your representations upon the draft case.

North East Lincolnshire Council sought an extension to the time in which they may submit
representations on the draft case as the Council stated that they had not received the draft case.
This request was granted.

Enclosed herewith is the final case.

If you wish to pursue your appeal, the case must be lodged with the Administrative Court Office at
the Royal Courts of Justice within 10 days of receiving it from this office, and within four days of
lodging the case, the you must serve on the Respondent a notice of entry of the appeal together
with a copy of the case.

I shall be grateful if you would kindly acknowledge receipt of this correspondence and enclosure.

Yours sincerely

Mrs A Watts
Justices' Clerk

Enc

PROTECT-PERSONAL
 MrsAWatts
fiLE Justices' Clerk for
Humber & South Yorkshire
Ooncaster Magistrates' Court
HM Courts & PO Box 49
The Law Courts
Tribunals Service College Road
DONCASTER ON13HT

OX: 742840 (Doncaster 20)

When calling please ask for: Karen Crocken T: 01302 3473031304
Direct Line: 01302347303
F: 01302 327906
E: celine.allerton@hmcts.gsLgov.uk
karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Mr Minicom VII: 01302 369066
ant
www.justice.gov.uk
'-='1TITJ50Y
North East Lincolnshire
DN320QJ

Our ref: AW/KC 20 February 2014

Dear Mr r-''''

Re: Application to State a Case

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 13 February 2014.

As the Court has agreed to state case which was sent to you on 19 December 2013, there is no
longer cl requirement for you to enter into a recognizance.

I have enclosed with this correspondence a further copy of the case.

May I remind you that if you wish to pursue your appeal, the case must be lodged with the
Administrative Court Office at the Royal Courts of Justice within 10 days of receiving it from this
office, and within four days of lodging the case, the you must serve on the Respondent a notice of
entry of the appeal together with a copy of the case

Yours sincerely

Mrs A Watts
Justices' Clerk

PROTECT-PERSONAL
 MrsAWatts
Justices' Clerk for
FiltP'
iI f'l
U Humber & South Yorkshire
Doncaster Magistrates' Court
HM Courts & PO Box 49
The Law Courts
Tribunals Service College Road
DONCASTER DN13HT

DX: 742840 (Doncaster 20)

When calling please ask for: Karen Crocken T: 01302 347303/304
Direct Line: 01302347303
F: 01302 327906
E: celine.allerton@hmcts.gsLgov.uk
karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
MrN Minicom VII: 01302 369066
It
www.justice.gov.uk
-GrTmSOY ---------
North East Lincolnshire
DN320QJ

Our ref: AW/KC 1 May 2014

Dear Mr "",.a{l

Re: Application to State a Case

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 22 April 2014.

The Court has already stated a case for the opinion of the High Court which was sent to you under
cover of correspondence dated 19 December 2013 and 20 February 2014. Accordingly the Court
will not be issuing a certificate of refusal to state a case.

I have enclosed with .this correspondence a further copy of the case.

May I remind you that if you wish to pursue your appeal, the case must be lodged with the
Administrative Court Office at the Royal Courts of Justice within 10 days of receiving it from this
office, and within four days of lodging the case, the you must serve on the Respondent a notice of
entry of the appeal together with a copy of the case.

Yours sincerely

Mrs A Watts
Justices' Clerk

Enc

PROTECT~PERSONAL
 THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND LORD CHANCELLOR'S
HUMBER ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

MrsA Watts Doncaster Magistrates' Court

PO Box 49
Secretary to the Humber Advisory Committee The Law Courts

Celine Allerton / Karen Crocken College

DONCASTER DN1Road
3HT
Secretary's Assistants
celine.allerton@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk Tel: 01302 347303/4
karen. crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk Fax: 01302 327906

Mr Our Ref: AW/KC

?
'-~
GrimSBy---- _ Date: 16 September 2014
North East LincolnsRire-----_
DN2-" nr.'.l

DearMr~
.~.

Re: Complaint

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 2 September 2014.

I can confirm that the complaint you made in relation to the conduct of Mr J A O'Nions Jp and Mr T
A Shepherdson Jp has been referred to the Deputy Chairman of the Humber Advisory Committee
in accordance with the prescribed procedures contained within the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates)
Rules 2014.

Having considered your complaint, in accordance with the powers available to him under the
Rules, the Deputy Chairman of the Advisory Committee dismissed your complaint in respect of
both magistrates. The decision to dismiss the complaint was made first on the basis it related to a
judicial decision made in proceedings against you which did not a raise a question of misconduct
by the magistrates, and second that the actions you have complained of were not done or caused
to be done by the magistrates. A certificate of refusal to state a case was not issued by the
Justices because they did state a case for the consideration of the Administrative Court and the
final case has been sent to you.

If you feel that the Advisory Committee has not handled this case properly, you can complain to the
Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman. Please note that the Ombudsman can only
consider a complaint about the handling of this complaint and he has no power to investigate the
conduct issue itself.

The Ombudsman will be able to investigate your complaint about the handling of this complaint if
you write to him within 28 days of receipt of the Committee's decision. After that period he will
consider whether it is appropriate to investigate it. Further information about the Ombudsman may
be found atwww.judicialombudsman.gov.uk. The office of the Judicial Appointments and Conduct
Ombudsman can be contacted in writing at 9th Floor, The Tower, 102 Petty France, London SW1h
9AJ, bye mail at headoffice@iaco.gsLgov.uk or by telephone on 020 33342900.

Yours sincerely

Mrs A Watts
Secretary to the Advisory Committee
 THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND LORD CHANCELLOR'S
HUMBER ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

MrsA Watts Doncaster Magistrates' Court

PO Box 49
Secretary to the Humber Advisory Committee . The Law Courts
Celine AJlerton/ Karen Crocken College
DONCASTER DN1Road
3HT
Secretary's Assistants
celine.ollerton@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk TeJ:01302347303/4
karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Mrt- Our Ref: AW/KC

,"
~------ Date: 29 May 2015
North East LincolnsmrEr-----
DN32 nf"\~

------------
Re: Complaint

I have been contacted by Judicial Office in connection with your complaint of 2 September 2014.

This matter was responded to by the Humber Advisory Committee on 16 September 2014 and I
enclose herewith a further copy of that reply.

Yours sincerely

MrsAWatts
Secretary to the Advisory Committee

Enc
 THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND LORD CHANCELLOR'S
HUMBER ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

MrsA Watts Doncaster Magistrates' Court

PO Box 49
Secretary to the Humber Advisory Committee The Law Courts
Celine Allerton / Karen Crocken ' \ :r College
DONCASTER DN1Road
3HT
Secretary's Assistants r ,; :
celine.allerton@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk Tel: 01302 347303/4
karen.cfocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Our Ref: AW/KC

".

Gr~ __ Date: 6 July 2015

North East Lincolnshire------
DN3" 0/"'1'1

Re: Complaint

I have been contacted by Judicial Conduct Investigations Office in connection with your
complaint of 2 September 2014.

This matter was responded to by the Humber Advisory Committee on 16 September 2014
and I enclose herewith a further copy of that reply.

Yours sincerely

Mrs A Watts
Secretary to the Advisory Committee

Enc
 MrsAWatts
Justices' Clerk for
Humber & South Yorkshire
Ooncaster Magistrates' Court
HM Courts & PO Box 49
The Law Courts
Tribunals Service College Road
OONCASTER ON13HT

OX: 742840 (Doncaster 20)

When calling please ask for: Judicial Support Unit T: 01302 347303/304
Direct I in' f11~n? ~A7~"l?
E: SY&H-Secretariat@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Minicom VII: 01302 369066

nt www.justice.gov.uk

Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN320QJ

Our ref: AW/CA 15 April 2016

Dear Mr ,.. ... _.~

Re: North East Lincolnshire Council V (\J-" .11:-

Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates' Court
Application to State a Case

Further tJ your email correspondence of 25 February 2016 please find enclosed a further copy of
the final case which was originally issued to you under cover of correspondence dated 19
December 2013, and subsequently on 20 February 2014 and 1 May 2014.

You will note there have been a number of attempts to send you this correspondence and none
has been returned to this office as undelivered.

May I remind you that if you wish to pursue your appeal, the case must be lodged with the
Administrative Court Office at the Royal Courts of Justice within 10 days of receiving it from this
office, and within four days of lodging the case, the you must serve on the Respondent a notice of
entry of the appeal together with a copy of the case.

, shall be grateful if you would kindly acknowledge receipt of this correspondence and enclosure.

Yours sincerely

MrsAWatts
Justices' Clerk

Encs
 MrsAWatts
Justices' Clerk for
Humber & South Yorkshire
Ooncaster Justice Centre South
HM Courts & College Road
Doncaster
Tribunals Service ON13HS

OX 703001 Ooncaster 5

When calling please ask for: Judicial Support Unit T: 01302 308300
Direct Line: 01302308300 E: SY&H-Secretariat@hmcts.qsLgov.uk

www.Justice.gov.uk

nt
Gifmsoy- ------
North East Lincolnshire
DN320QJ

Our ref: AW/CA 22 July 2016

Your ref:

I was forwarded on 5 July 2016 your email correspondence of 25 June 2016 addressed to
HMCTS Customer Service.

In reply to the key points made in your e mail I would respond as follows:

Initial Delay

It is regrettable that a delay was caused following receipt of your application to state a case. I
understand from you that you had been in correspondence with Mr Draper (Deputy Justices'
Clerk) at Grimsby Magistrates' Court for some time prior to his departure from HMCS (the
organisation was then called).

Only some time after his departure did it become clear that your matter had not been reallocated
for ongoing supervision by another member of HMCS staff was the case then escalated to me. At
the time there was no other member of staff available to whom to allocate supervision of the case.

Unnecessary Claim for Mandatory Order

In correspondence sent to you on 24 January 2013 it was made clear that the recognizance
sought by the court was not a sum of money to be paid by you. You would only become liable to
pay in the event that an appeal was not pursued by you in the Administrative Court. The figure
stated in the recognizance was not a sum you had to pay over immediately, unlike a fee for which
it subsequently became clear you were entitled to remission owing to your financial
circumstances. Until such time as you came to the magistrates' court to enter into the
recognizance required by the magistrates, no further work on preparation of a draft case could
take place. By attending court to enter into the recognizance the court would have been in a
position to review the amount of the recognizance as you could have informed the Justices of your
financial circumstances which may have resulted .in a different amount being ordered. You did not
attend as requested, thus time passed without the matter progressing much further.

Cont!
You then chose to exercise your right to go to the High Court in this matter. The magistrates' court
decided in the interests of saving public money and court time to offer to state a case
notwithstanding the absence of your having not attended court to enter into a recognizance as had
been requested of you. This did not represent any change form the court's original intention to
state a case, just a willingness not to require a recognizance before doing so.

Unanswered Correspondence to get Final Case

It is correct that not every item of email correspondence received from you received a reply for
which I apologise. However, attempts to make communication with you a little easier owing to the
almost constant requirement for me to be absent form my office to fulfil duties in accordance with
my role were not met with success as whilst you did telephone my office when I was not available
you were unwilling to leave a telephone number to enable me to return your calls.

You were sent the final case under cover of correspondence 19 December 2013. Upon receipt of
your letter of 13 February 2014 I wrote to you on 20 February 2014 to advise you there was no
need to enter into a recognizance as the Court had already stated a case and I re-sent the case to
you under cover of the same letter. I apologise that I did not follow up my email to you of 6 March
2014 as promised. When I received your letter of 22 April 2014 seeking a certificate of refusal to
state a case, under cover of a letter dated 1 May 20141 replied to say that the Court would not be
issuing a certificate of refusal to state a case as it had stated a case. I enclosed a further copy of
the case with the correspondence.

Judicial Complaint to Humber Advisory Committee

You made a complaint about the conduct of the magistrates who adjudicated upon your case in
the magistrates' court. Your complaint was referred to the Advisory Committee and was
investigated and dismissed in the exercise of the powers assigned to it. You were informed of the
outcome under cover of a letter 16 September 2014 and were advised of the right of review by the
Judicial Ombudsman.

Subsequent to this I received an email from Judicial Office on 15 May 2015 and from Judicial
Conduct and Investigations Office on 29 June 2015 which respectively both forwarded messages
from you indicating that you had not heard an outcome which in turn caused me to send you copy
of the letter of 16 September 2014 under cover of letters 29 May 20156 July 2015 respectively. In
accordance with your rights you challenged the matter first with the Judicial Conduct and
Investigations Office and second with the Judicial Ombudsman but yourcomplaint was not upheld.

In light of your indication in your email of 25 February 2016 that you had not received the case I
undertook to send this to you by 15 April 2016. Under cover of a letter of that date the case was
re-sent to you by first class post on 18 April 2016 as unfortunately my correspondence had missed
the post when submitted for posting on 15 April 2016. No correspondence that has been sent by
me to you has been returned by Royal Mail.

I acknowledge and apologise for the slight error in the post code in correspondence relating to the
Advisory Committee matter. Had this error prevented Royal Mail from delivering the
correspondence I would have expected that it would have been returned to me.

Cont!

2
If you are unhappy with this reply you may seek a review of it by contacting

Julie Collins
Cluster Manager - Humber & South Yorkshire
HMCourts & Tribunals Service
LevelS
Leeds Magistrates Court & Family Hearing Centre
PO Box 97
Westgate
Leeds
LS13JP

Yours sincerely

MrsAWatts
Justices' Clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire

3

HM Courts &
Tribunals Service
MrsAWatts
Justices' Clerk for
Humber & South Yorkshire
Ooncaster Justice Centre South
College Road
Ooncaster
ON13HS

OX 703001 Ooncaster 5

When calling please ask for: Judicial Support Unit T: 01302 308300
Direct Line: 01302 308300
E: SY&H-Secretariat@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

www.justice.gov.uk

28 November 2016

Mrf

-----Unmsoy
North East Lincolnshire
DN320QJ

Dear Mr f':.': _
~-

I have been contacted by Customer Service who have forwarded to me your message of 17
November 2016.

Please find enclosed a copy of my letter to you dated 22 July 2016.

Yours sincerely

MrsAWatts
Justices' Clerk

Enc
 HM Courts &
Tribunals Service
filE COpy MrsAWatts
Justices' Clerk for
Humber & South Yorkshire
Doncaster Justice Centre South
College Road
Doncaster
DN13HS

OX 703001 Doncaster 5

When calling please ask for: Judicial Support Unit T: 01302 308300
Direct Line: 01302308300
E: SY&H-Secretariat@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

www.justice.gov.uk
Mri

--Grlmsoy- - -- ----
North East Lincolnshire
DN320QJ

Our ref: AW/CA 13 December 2016

Dear Mr ,.. ... _.,

I have been referred your message of 21 November directed to the Customer Service Unit in
which you ask the question:

"What formal route of complaint is available if you are unhappy with how a case has been handles
by a judge?"

I note in your message that you have already received information from the Ministry of Justice on
14 November 2016 in this regard.

To add to the advice that has already been tendered to you:-

1. Dependent upon where the proceedings in question have reached, it is possible that you may
be able to seek a Judicial Review of the way in which a judge has exercised his case
management powers in the case in question. You may wish to consider taking your own
independent legal advice before pursuing this course of action.

2. There is no doubt that the Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office may not consider
concerns about the way in which a judge exercises his/her judicial discretion in the application
of case management powers in a particular case. However, if the are concerns about the
manner in which the judge exercises those powers, ie the behaviours of the judge if it could be
said to go beyond the robustness a case deserves, eg being rude, then a complaint may
possible be considered and as such could be referred to the Judicial Conduct and
Investigations Office.

3. If the way in which a case has been handled by a judge has resulted in a decision of the court
about which an affected person (ie defendant or party to the proceedings) is aggrieved, then
that person should pursue the line of appeal available for the type of proceedings in question,
eg Crown Court, High Court, etc.

I hope that the foregoing is of assistance to you.

Yours sincerely

Mrs A Watts
Justices' Clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO Ref: CO/ /2017
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

BETWEEN:

Appellant
and

NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE COUNCIL

Respondent

CHRONOLOGY

1. The billing authority (the Respondent) sent a Council Tax reminder dated 12.9.12
in respect of a missed instalment which was due on 1.9.12. It warned that
instalments would be withdrawn if the account not brought up to date, and if
following that the balance was not paid immediately, a summons would be issued
(incurring costs) without further notice.

2. Neither demand was met so on 17.10.12 a summons was served on the Appellant to
appear before the Magistrates Court on 2.11.12 to answer the said complaint. It was
stated alternatively that all further proceedings would be stopped if the amount
outstanding including summons costs was paid before the date of the hearing.

3. Payment was made on 17.10.12 which included the outstanding Council Tax liability
and an amount in respect of reasonable costs incurred (albeit a lesser sum than was
stated on the summons as the costs element). The Respondent was notified by letter
under cover of an email and sought whether it would proceed to obtain a court order
to enable enforcement of the element of costs which the council may have
considered was unpaid.
4. On 17.10.12 the Respondent acknowledge receipt of the letter, and advised that it
had been forwarded to its Court Enforcement Officers to deal with. There was no
further response in relation to the issues raised so assumed it would proceed to
obtain a liability order.

5. On 26.10.12 the Magistrates Court was notified that the liability had been settled
and advised that unless the application for a liability order was withdrawn the
complaint would be defended at the hearing of 2.11.12. A summary accompanied the
letter to support several documents asserting that the sum sought by the Respondent
was an unreasonable claim for costs.

6. On 28.10.12 an assessment of costs incurred in pursuance of the defence was

submitted to the Magistrates Court.

7. The complaint was heard in the Magistrates Court on 2.11.12 where the bench
granted a liability order in respect of the costs which the Respondent claimed were
incurred.

8. On 5.11.12 the Magistrates Court was contacted by email expressing the wish to
appeal the courts decision to grant a liability order and request to have details
forwarded of the relevant person to correspond with on the matter.

9. The court responded in a letter dated 6.11.12 advising that a Liability Order could
only be challenged by an appeal to the High Court by way of either a case stated on
a point of law or a judicial review and strongly suggested taking legal advice.

10. On 16.11.12 the court was contacted by email in regards appealing by way of a case
stated and to advise that seeking legal advice was not viable because of
unemployment and having no entitlement to benefit.

11. The court responded by email on 19.11.12 and clarified some points raised and
advised that in certain circumstances it is possible to apply for fee remission.

12. On 20.11.12 the court was contacted by email querying the relevant Criminal
Procedure Rules and again on the 21.11.12 to obtain particulars of the Liability
2
 Order hearing as were required to complete the prescribed form to state a case.

13. The court responded in two separate emails on 21.11.12. The first advised it could
not provide assistance with the appeal and the second, advising that case references
were not allocated in Council Tax cases.

14. On 22.11.12 the application to state a case for an appeal to the high court was served
on both parties, that is, the Respondent and Magistrates' Court, within the time limits
laid out in the Criminal Procedure Rules.

15. The Deputy Justices Clerk acknowledged receipt of the application in a letter dated
22.11.12 and advised that once the documentation had been considered further
contact would be made.

16. There was no communication and on 28.12.12 an attempt to contact the Deputy
Justices Clerk was made by email, however, a 'delivery failure' notice was
generated and returned. An attempt was made under advice to contact the Justices'
Clerk for Humber & South Yorkshire but without a response. A further attempt to
make contact on 10.1.13 was also unsuccessful.

17. The court made contact on 14.1.13 where it transpired that the Deputy Justices'
Clerk who had been dealing with the appeal had left HMCTS at the end of 2012. The
Legal Team Manager stated in his email that he would make enquiries into what was
happening with the application and update as soon as possible.

18. The matter had been put in the hands of the Justices' Clerk for Humber & South
Yorkshire, who in a letter dated 24.1.13 advised that the Justices require
recognizance to be entered into in the sum of 500 and outlined the conditions of
recognizance.

19. The Justices' Clerk was contacted on 6.2.13 by email with the Respondent and
Grimsby Magistrates Courts Legal Team Manager copied in. An attached letter to
the Justices Clerk dated 5.2.13 highlighted that the recognizance should be set at a
level which does not deny a person access to justice and that the proposed sum
effectively would. Alternative remedies were suggested, which in the case of the
court, was to set aside the liability order, and for the Respondent, to apply for the
3
 order to be quashed.

20. On 8.2.13 the Respondent replied stating it was not prepared to apply to the
Magistrates Court to quash the liability order as it was correctly obtained. This was
disputed in a letter dated 14.2.13, on the grounds that the application should have
ceased when the aggregate of the sum outstanding and an amount equal to the costs
reasonably incurred by the Respondent was paid.

21. The Justices' Clerk was contacted twice by email in February 2013, once on the 19th
and again on the 26th to prompt a response to the letter dated 5.2.13.

22. There was no communication from the Justices Clerk and on 23.3.13 the
Administrative Court Office was contacted by letter to make preliminary enquiries
about a mandatory order requiring the Justices to state a case for an appeal to the
High Court.

23. The Justices' Clerk was again contacted by email on 27.3.13 to prompt a response to
the letter dated 5.2.13, but the concerns raised regarding the recognizance were
never addressed.

24. A Pre-Action letter dated 29.4.13 was sent to the Justices Clerk advising that it was
intended that an application would be made for permission to bring judicial review
proceedings for a mandatory order requiring the Justices to state a case.

25. The application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings was submitted
on 31.5.13 as a consequence of there being no response from the Justices Clerk in
relation to the 5.2.13 and 29.4.13 letters. Similarly, there had been no response from
the Respondent to the 14.2.13 letter.

26. Sealed copies of the judicial review application (seal date 12.6.13) were received on
17.6.13, along with directions to proceed with the claim.

27. On 18.6.13, sealed copies of the judicial review claim forms and accompanying
documents were served on the defendant and interested parties in accordance with
the relevant Civil Procedure Rules. Certificate of Service was lodged in the
Administrative Court on 19.6.13.

4
28. Confirmation received (re-delivered letter signed for 16.7.13) that the Magistrates'
Court had lodged the Acknowledgement of Service (dated 8.7.13) with the
Administrative Court (judicial review claim), in which the defendant Court gave an
undertaking that it would serve the draft case within fourteen days of the date of the
Acknowledgement of Service. It was revealed too that the question of the
appropriateness of the recognizance and/or the amount could have been considered
by the court had an arrangement been made to appear before the defendant court to
enter into a recognizance.

29. A letter sent by the Respondent dated 19.7.13 advised that the disputed court costs
were suspended, and dependent on the outcome of the proceedings, would either be
withdrawn or remain outstanding with the council.

30. The draft case, together with a statement of the delay for its production, both dated
22.7.13, were received on 30.7.13. These were accompanied with a covering letter
dated 24.7.13, advising that any written representations upon its content would
require submitting within 21 days from receipt of the draft case, in accordance with
rule 77(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981.

31. On 19.8.13, representations upon the content of the draft case were served together
with letter advising that the Court had (from the latest day on which representations
may be made) 21 days to state and sign the case in accordance with rule 78 of the
Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981. At the same time, a copy was served on the
Respondent.

32. An order from the High Court in the matter of the application for judicial review was
received on 6.9.13. The administrative court required updating with what had
happened after the defendant court undertook to serve a draft of a Case stated within
14 days of the Acknowledgement of service. A reply was sent the same day and
copies sent to the interested parties stating that the draft Case had been served and
representations made on the draft case.

33. On 9.9.13, the Respondent served representations on the Appellant and Magistrates
court expressing that it fully supported HMCTS submission (presumably the draft
case).
5
34. The administrative court wrote on 12.11.13 proposing that the judicial review claim
be withdrawn because there no longer appeared a need for further action on the part
of the High Court as the draft Case had been served. On 20.11.13, the administrative
court was notified of the wish to withdraw the judicial review claim.

35. The Justices' Clerk was contacted by letter under cover of email on 10.1.14
enquiring into why it was that the justices had not served the Case in accordance
with the relevant rules (on or before 10.9.13) and why there had been no
acknowledgement of the representations made upon the content of the draft case.

36. On second guessing why the case had not been delivered, it was assumed that the
judicial review claim only prompted the court to give an undertaking to serve the
draft case but not the final case until recognizance had been agreed. The Justices'
Clerk was therefore contacted again by letter under cover of an email on 13.2.14 to
arrange a recognizance hearing in order that the appropriateness and/or the amount
may be considered and agreed.

37. On 3.3.14, Doncaster Magistrates Court was contacted by phone, having received
no reply from the Justices Clerk in the matter of the recognizance. The Justices
Clerk's assistant (Legal Admin Team Leader) took the call who confirmed that a
message would be left for the Justices Clerk to make contact that day.

38. On the morning of 5.3.14, having still no contact, the Court was called again and a
team member from the Judicial Support Unit took the call who ensured a message
would reach the Justices Clerk who was due in later. A second call was made on the
afternoon of 5.3.14 where a different member of the Judicial Support Unit took the
call and confirmed that the message had been passed on but the Clerk was again not
at the premises so unavailable.

39. The Clerk to Justices made contact on 6.3.14, stating in an email that either that day
or the following the position regarding the case (advising on the next steps) would
be set out and communicated in writing. Despite this undertaking, and two further
calls to the court on 19 and 28 March 2014, there was never any such
communication sent.

6
40. The Justices' Clerk was contacted by letter under cover of an email on 22.4.14
requesting the production of a Certificate of refusal to state a case under section
111(5) of the Magistrates Court's Act 1980. Neither a Certificate of refusal to state a
case was provided nor was a reply to the communication received.

41. The Justices' Clerk was contacted by email on 9.7.14 to enquire into whether Her
Majestys Courts and Tribunals Service had any arrangements in place to restrict the
Appellants contact with Humber and South Yorkshire, and if so in what way. There
was never a reply and to date the query remains unanswered.

42. On 2.9.14 a judicial complaint was submitted to the relevant Advisory Committee
(the AC). The events outlined up to paras 41 in this Chronology was attached
highlighting the difficulty the Appellant was encountering progressing the case.
Neither an acknowledgement nor an outcome was received in relation to the
complaint. It is understood that the Secretary to the AC for the Humber to whom
the complaint was addressed is also the Justices Clerk involved in the present
case.

43. On 14.5.15 an enquiry was made with the Judicial Office as an alternative to
contacting the AC in the hope of establishing why the complaint had not been
acknowledged. However, there was no advantage, as the Judicial Office merely
forwarded the email to the AC Secretary, after which no response was received.

44. On 25.6.15 concerns were raised with the Head of the Judicial Conduct
Investigations Office (JCIO) who responded on 29.6.15 stating that she had
contacted the Committee Secretary in the hope she would make contact directly. It
was suggested complaining to the Judicial Appointment and Conduct Ombudsman
(JACO) if the handling of the complaint remained unsatisfactory.

45. A response was not received from the AC Secretary and so JACO was contacted
expressing the wish to escalate a complaint, first on 8.8.15 and again on the 19.8.15
after receiving no acknowledgement.

46. JACO finally replied in a letter dated 14.12.15 in which an apology was given for
the 4 month delay in responding. The Ombudsmans remit was also set out, some of
which permitted him to consider the delay in investigating the AC
7
 complaint submitted more than a year earlier on 2.9.14.

47. On 18.12.15 permission was given to JACOs Office to disclose the complaint and
correspondence to the AC and confirmed that the AC had not responded to any
correspondence about the matter and the case still unresolved requesting therefore
that the Ombudsman consider the process by which the AC handled the matter so
far. JACOs Office stated in an email sent on 22.12.15 that the complaint file would
be requested from the AC and an update given after it had been received and
considered.

48. JACO made contact on 23.2.16 informing the Appellant that the complaint file had
been obtained from the AC and apologised for the delay that was down to the
significant amount of time obtaining it. It transpired that the AC had three letters on
file that were sent to the Appellant in response to his correspondence to them (AC),
Judicial Office and JCIO. Though the Appellant did not receive the letters, copies
were attached to JACOs 23.2.16 email.

49. The first undelivered letter dated 16.9.14 was in response to the Judicial complaint
of 2.9.14 (see above para 42) dismissing the complaint as it did not raise a question
of misconduct. It further stated that a certificate of refusal to state a case was not
issued by the Justices because they did state a case for the consideration of the
Administrative Court and the final case has been sent to the Appellant. The
Appellant received neither the letter nor the final case referred to in that letter.
Moreover, there was no copy of the case stated sent by JACO presumably because
the complaint file obtained from the AC did not contain the document.

50. The second and third undelivered letters were in connection with the Judicial Office
and then JCIO prompting a response from the AC (see above paras 43 & 44 this
Annex) and were dated 29.5.15 and 6.7.15 respectively. Both copies state: This
matter was responded to by the Humber Advisory Committee on 16 September 2014
and I enclose herewith a further copy of that reply. The Appellant received neither
of these letters, consequently the 16.9.14 failed to be delivered on three occasions.

51. On 25.2.16 the Appellant contacted the Justices' Clerk by email advising he had not
received and was unaware of the letters sent, dated 16.9.14, 29.5.15, 6.7.15 and the

8
 final case stated referred to in the 16.9.14 letter. It was also advised that JACO had
sent copies of the three letters, though not one of the case stated, and would therefore
like that sent in order that the application to the High Court may be proceeded with.

52. Having received no reply or acknowledgement from the Justices Clerk in the matter
of the 25.2.16 email the Appellant contacted the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) on
13.3.16. The MoJ responded on 13.4.16 with a message saying that the Justices'
Clerk apologised for the delay in responding and for not arranging for an update that
she was dealing with the email. It was confirmed that the correspondence would be
responded to by no later than 15.4.16 after reviewing the file to give full
consideration to the matter raised.

53. Having received no reply the Appellant raised concerns with HMCTS customer
complaints on 25.6.16 which was referred to the Justices Clerk. The complaint
predominantly surrounded the difficulty in obtaining the final signed case stated.

54. HMCTS was prompted on 17.11.16 after still having received no response to the
complaint. On 7.12.16, in consultation with the Parliamentary Ombudsman, a
caseworker advised the Appellant to write to HMCTS allowing it reasonable
opportunity to reply, after which if there was no response to request that his MP
contact the Ombudsman to intervene.

55. On 8.12.16, the Appellant wrote to HMCTS formally asking to be given a date by
which he could expect the outcome to the complaint. Having received no response
he wrote on 20.12.16 to his MP, Melanie Onn, to ask that the Parliamentary
Ombudsman intervene.

56. HMCTS replied on 3.1.17 revealing 7 more letters (copies were attached) that had
been sent which the Appellant did not receive; not just in respect of the HMCTS
complaint but some dating to before the complaint of 2.9.14 to the AC. It transpired
that the Justices Clerk had posted a response to the complaint on 22.7.16. Another
letter posted 28.11.16 was in response to the Appellants email dated 17.11.16 (see
above para 54) with a copy enclosed of the Justices Clerks letter to the Appellant
dated 22.7.16.

9
57. The earliest undelivered item of post went back to 19.12.13 a letter acknowledging
receipt of the Appellants representations (19.8.13) upon the draft case (see above
para 31) with the final case stated enclosed. The letter also informed that the
Respondent had sought an extension (which was granted) to the time in which they
may submit representations on the draft case as it was stated that the draft case had
not been received. The position regarding proceedings (advising on the next steps)
was set out i.e., that the case must be lodged within 10 days of receiving it etc., and
it requested that the Appellant acknowledge receipt of the correspondence and
enclosure.

58. The next letter in order of undelivered post was dated 20.2.14 which acknowledged
receipt of the Appellants letter (13.2.14) seeking arrangement of a recognizance
hearing (see above para 36). The letter informed that the Court had agreed to state a
case which was sent on 19.12.13 and recognizance was no longer required. A further
copy of the case was enclosed and the position reiterated regarding the next steps if
the Appellant wished to pursue the appeal.

59. The next undelivered item was dated 1.5.14 which acknowledged receipt of the
Appellants letter (22.4.14) requesting the production of a Certificate of refusal to
state a case (see above para 40). The letter informed that the Court had already stated
a case for the opinion of the High Court which was sent to the Appellant under cover
of correspondence dated 19.12.13 and 20.2.14 therefore the Court would not be
issuing a certificate of refusal to state a case. A further copy of the case was enclosed
and the position reiterated regarding the next steps to pursue the appeal.

60. The last item of undelivered post (relevant to the appeal) was dated 15.4.16. The
letter was a reply to the Appellants email (25.2.16) advising the Justices' Clerk he
had not received and was unaware of the letters obtained by JACO (see above paras
51-53). The Justices' Clerks letter informed that the Court originally issued the final
case under cover of correspondence dated 19.12.13, and subsequently on 20.2.14
and 1.5.14. The number of attempts to send the correspondence and that none had
been returned to their office as undelivered was emphasised. The position regarding
the next steps to pursue the appeal was reiterated and requested again that the
Appellant acknowledge receipt of the correspondence and enclosure.

10
61. On 5.1.17 the Appellant contacted HMCTS by email with the Justices' Clerk and the
Respondent copied in to confirm that none of the letters had been delivered and were
seen for the first time upon being sent copies on 3.1.17. The preference was stated
for future correspondence to be sent by email and asked that a signed copy of the
final case was sent to enable lodging the application with the Administrative Office
(the copy held was unsigned and marked file copy).

62. The Court confirmed that the email request of 5.1.17 had been received and an
undertaking given to provide the signed final case as requested by 13.1.17. An
electronic copy of the signed final case was served under cover of an email on
16.1.17.

11