Judges

Paul Osler

Description

A true story accusing three of Her Majesty's Judges of dishonesty A book which raises important questions about the power, integrity and accountability of our judgesThe judges of England and Wales - obliged by their oath of office to apply the law without fear or favour; the Magna Carta - a promise that no one will be denied justice; the rule of law - a promise that public officials, including judges, are bound by the law; Parliament - the sovereign law-maker to which the judges are subservient: is all this true or simply a pleasant fiction?Who will stand up to the judges? Who dares accuse them? In 2015 and 2016, the author, a retired successful solicitor, conducted a court case for a friend, which led to him accusing three judges, including one of the High Court, of having deliberately acted to defeat justice.This book tells the story of that case and those unprecedented accusations, and it sets out and explains the relevant law and evidence. Also implicated is Paul Kernaghan, a former Chief Constable of Hampshire, now the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman and a senior civil servant, who the author accuses of failing in his duty to supervise a complaint of serious misconduct made against a High Court judge.Are the judges worthy of the respect afforded them, or, at times, do they ignore their duty, the law, Parliament and our rights?

Sujets

• Droit et juridique
• Law

Informations

• Publié par: Troubador Publishing Ltd
• Date de parution: 28 juillet 2018
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781789010763
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 12 Mo

Extrait

The Judges

Paul Osler
Copyright © 2018 Paul Osler

The moral right of the author has been asserted.


Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers.


Matador
9 Priory Business Park,
Wistow Road, Kibworth Beauchamp,
Leicestershire. LE8 0RX
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Web: www.troubador.co.uk/matador
Twitter: @matadorbooks


ISBN 978 1789010 763

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.


Matador is an imprint of Troubador Publishing Ltd
To my father – a man of honour.
“… makes your blood boil at the injustice.”
Ian Winters, Ellis Winters Estate Agents, England.



“… a side of the legal profession I would never have believed existed… I kept thinking at every stage, each judge was so obviously covering the tracks of the other, that at some point the house of cards would fall down. The fact that all the players were venturing so far off base and still got away with it is astonishing.”
Bryan Dunbar, Retired Retail Consultant, Scotland.



“It’s a pity that the end couldn’t have been that all the judges were sacked.”
Tom Breese, Retired Civil Engineer, Wales.
Contents
PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

THE DEMAND

THE CLAIM

THE DEFENCE

PRE-TRIAL

THE TRIAL

THE APPEAL

THE HIGH COURT

THe JUDICIAL CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE Part One

THE JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND CONDUCT OMBUDSMAN Part One

THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE Part Two

THE JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND CONDUCT OMBUDSMAN Part Two

THE MPs AND THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

SO WHAT? WHO CARES?

APPENDIX A: Some of the evidence before the trial judge.

a) Letter dated 19th October 2012 from Roger Jones to Mr Turner, refuting the latter’s complaint.

b) Email dated 14th January 2013 from Mr Turner to Roger Jones, asserting the bathroom “cost £200 to repair”.

c) Property Ombudsman’s summary of Mr Turner’s complaint, showing, inter alia, £200 for the bathroom.

d) Letter dated 22nd February 2013 from Roger Jones to the Property Ombudsman, refuting Mr Turner’s claim.

e) Mr Turner’s County Court claim, showing £354 for the bathroom.

APPENDIX B: The district judge’s order made at trial on 26th February 2015.

APPENDIX C: The circuit judge’s order of 23rd March 2015, dismissing the appeal, and her letter dated 12th October 2015.

APPENDIX D: High Court documents.

a) Letter from the Administrative Court, advising the judicial review claim was issued on 3rd November 2015.

b) The deputy High Court judge’s order dated 14th April 2016.

c) Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly, showing the mean time between the lodging of a claim and a decision on permission to have been sixty-seven days in 2015 and sixty-four in 2016 (contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.).

APPENDIX E: Documents relating to my complaint against the deputy High Court judge.

a) My letter of complaint dated 8th June 2016.

b) Rule 21(b) of The Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014 (contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.).

c) Letter dated 28th June 2016 from the JCIO, rejecting my complaint.

d) Extract from the JCIO’s Supplementary Guidance on the rules, giving their definition of “misconduct” (see under “Rule 6”) and their interpretation of Rule 21(b) (contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.).

e) My referral to the ombudsman, setting out in box 4 my arguments for him to carry out a review.

f) Letter dated 22nd July 2016 from the ombudsman, accompanying his decision on my referral.

g) The ombudsman’s decision and report dated 22nd July 2016.

h) My email dated 16th August 2016, requesting further explanation from the JCIO.

i ) Letter dated 9th September 2016 from the JCIO, clarifying its reasoning.

j) My email dated 12th September 2016 to the ombudsman, asking him to revisit his decision.

k) Letter dated 26th September 2016 from the ombudsman, again rejecting my complaint.

APPENDIX F: Correspondence with the MPs.

a) My email dated 2nd August 2016 to Lucy Frazer.

b) Letter dated 3rd August 2016 from Lucy Frazer.

c) Letter dated 13th September 2016 from Lucy Frazer, enclosing the letter from Dr Phillip Lee.

d) Letter dated August 2016 from Dr Phillip Lee.

e) My letter dated 21st September 2016 to Lucy Frazer.

f) My email dated 27th September 2016 to Lucy Frazer.

g) Letter dated 17th October 2016 from Lucy Frazer.

APPENDIX G: Extract from The Accountability of the Judiciary dated October 2007, and my unanswered letter to the Judicial Office dated 9th April 2017 (contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.).

Notes
“To no one will we sell, to no one
deny or delay right or justice.”
Clause 40, Magna Carta , 1215






“For in the same way you judge others,
you will be judged, and with the
measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
Jesus of Nazareth
Matthew 7:2 (New International Version)
This is a true story.
PREFACE
“Help, master, help! here’s a fish hangs
in the net, like a poor man’s right in the law”
William Shakespeare, Pericles (2.1.117-118)


What do you think of the judges of England and Wales? Do you respect them? Do you fear them? Are they honest, respectful and wise? Are they hypocrites? Are they accountable?
What is a court? Is it a building like a Gothic cathedral, or an oak-panelled room where the players wear costumes, appear important and intelligent and are supported by officials in a prevailing atmosphere of authority and control? In truth, surely a court can be any place where there is an honest attempt to apply the law and do justice. It could sit in a barn with judges who have straw in their hair and cow-dirt on their wellies. The essence of a court is what is said and done; the rest is trimming, our homage to justice. In a court, you should feel able to say what you want to say, be it right or wrong, without being ridiculed or bullied.
When I qualified as a solicitor in 1992, I never dreamt that twenty-three years later I would make allegations of dishonesty against three of Her Majesty’s judges, yet that is what has happened. Having founded Oslers Solicitors 1 in 1997, a firm which still exists with offices in Suffolk and Cambridgeshire; having in 2006 and 2007 represented Steven Wright, the so-called Suffolk Strangler; and having been retired for seven years, yet still in my mid-fifties; in a court case conducted for a friend, I would find my arguments, if not myself, treated with contempt by a sequence of three judges against whom I felt compelled to make extraordinary accusations.
In this book, I am going to take you through that court case and my allegations, but my main purpose is not to persuade you that the latter are true, even though they represent my honest opinion. Rather, it is to raise relevant and important questions in the public interest about the power, integrity and accountability of our judges and to ask you to form your own opinion.
Financial disputes of £10,000 or less are normally dealt with in court as “small claims” and they receive a more informal and swifter treatment. Most of the disputes which the majority of us will face will be small claims. Rarely, if ever, will there be a journalist or legal commentator present at the trial. Appeals are not usual. Often the parties are not legally represented. Effectively, these cases are off the publicity radar, and a judge might expect not to have her decision or conduct scrutinised. Yet perhaps it is in such cases we can learn most about the power and integrity of the judges, just as the measure of a person is found in what he or she does in the belief no one is watching. This book is about such a case.
I have used the word “dishonest” in relation to the decisions and actions of judges and civil servants. This does not refer to financial dishonesty but, rather, to the deliberate making of false statements and incorrect decisions.
If a judge dishonestly breaches her duty and, as a direct result, a person is denied money which he is lawfully entitled to, is the essence of that conduct different to that of the thief who snatches a purse from a woman? Perhaps the difference is that the thief does not pretend to be anything else; the judge, however, acts with state-licensed authority and power and wears a mask of decency.
It is important to say at the outset that not all judges are bad. There are many excellent judges, but this book is not about them; it is about the others and how the system fails to deal with them.
In this case, all of the judges were women, and, therefore, I have used the female gender when referring generally to a judge. On the other hand, the two house-purchasers were men, so