Judicial Conduct

Investigations Office
___________

Complaint form
Thank you for sending us details of your complaint.
Below is a copy of the details you supplied, please keep this form for your records.
When we reply you we will provide you with a unique case reference number. In the meantime, if you
need to contact us, please quote the reference number provided here.
Date form submitted

25 May 2016

Your details
Title

Mr

First name

Xxx

Last name

Yyyy

Address

XY Xxxx Yyyy
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire

Postcode

DNXY 0XX

Daytime telephone

None

Email

xxxxxxxxx@mail.com

Details about your case

Type of judicial
office holder

Deputy District Judge (Magistrates Court)

Name of judicial
office holder

Andrew Pascoe

Name of the court

or tribunal

Grimsby Magistrates Court

Case number

16AY/2837/15

Is your case still

ongoing

No

JCIO Complaint form (09.13)

Date of Hearing

22 December 2015

Brief description of your complaint

Category
of complaint

Not fulfilling Judicial Duty

Description of your complaint

Introduction
I am the victim of what I believe has been an opportunist stitch-up by Humberside police with the Crown
Prosecution Service (CPS) and Grimsby Magistrates' Court, as accomplices. The evidence points to a
conspiracy in which all three organisations have misused the Criminal Justice system in allowing fabricated
evidence to convict me for charges of which I am innocent in order to defraud me of a sum of 620 and burden
me with a criminal record. I suspect the motivation is that I had got on the wrong side of the police by
highlighting matters in which the force is complicit concerning substantial fraud.
The most recent correspondence to Grimsby Magistrates court regarding my complaint was 9 May 2016.

Background to case
The trial date was 15 December 2015 which was set at what I assume was a pre-trial hearing on 30 September
2015. I attended the earlier hearing and pleaded not guilty and stated that I believed the arresting officer had
incited witnesses to commit perjury and that the witnesses had lied.
I did not attend the trial on 15 December 2015 after discovering who would be trying the case as I was not
prepared to stand before the same judge who I'd complained about only weeks before the hearing (7
November) to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (ref: 22905/2015) and reported the matter of complaint
as a crime to the police.
It was expressed without reservation by writing to the court a number of days before the trial that I did not
consider the Judge, 'a fit and proper person to hear the case'. My assertion was founded on hard evidence
relating to the matter referred to above where the judge had unequivocally accepted a statement knowing it to
be false, which enabled the claimant, North East Lincolnshire Council to succeed in defrauding me through
court costs claimed in proceedings that were engineered to that end. The Council had therefore committed
perjury to defraud me, and the judge assisted by turning a blind eye to that breach of legal procedure.
Along with the correspondence expressing my opinion about the Judge, the court was sent copies of emails
sent to Humberside police regarding the allegations made against the judge and a signed statement of truth
containing extensively set out evidence (dated 2 December 2015). The court was also sent the complaint made
to the police about PC Thomas Blake who I suspected of inciting perjury, and an account stating that the two
members of the public had both made untrue witness statements. All these were sent to the court on 11
December 2015.

Pre-trial events
(Insufficient information about proceedings)
I had assumed the matter would be in the hands of the duty solicitor who had been appointed on being falsely
imprisoned in a cell at Humberside police station (27.8.15), as I had not been informed otherwise. However,
after updating him (Mr Havery) well in advance of the 30 September court appearance on the proceedings

there was never a reply.

Only minutes before being called into the courtroom did I find out from the usher I was not entitled to legal
representation (without explanation). This was only discovered because I could reply with no certainty on being
asked who my solicitor was. I stated it may have been Mr Havery from John Barkers but because he had not
kept in contact, i.e., replied to my correspondence, I was in doubt. The Crown Prosecution Service's case file
was handed to me at this point giving me no opportunity to read any of it before going into court.
Presumably the solicitor did not acknowledge my correspondence because doing so would have meant the firm
would be out of pocket as I had no entitlement to legal representation. Or, maybe this was part of the stitch-up
and the Court, Police and/or CPS had instructed John Barkers not to respond to ensure the best chance of a
successful conviction. However, in anticipation of being unrepresented, despite having no background of
criminal proceedings, and unsure if this was the correct procedure, a statement was produced and sent to the
court on the morning of the hearing.
At this hearing, a direction was made prohibiting me cross-examining the witnesses in person and arrangement
made for a solicitor to do so. Shortly before the 15 December trial (and by chance) I learned that a solicitor had
been arranged but no details given as to who. However, it was confirmed after the 22 December hearing
(sentencing) that Mr Havery, the solicitor who failed to acknowledge my correspondence, on the lead up to the
first hearing, had been appointed. It was also confirmed after more prompting that District judge Curtis allowed
Mr Havery to withdraw from the case and had done so because I had not attended.
It was contrary to the interests of justice that the solicitor was allowed to withdraw from the case by the same
judge who tried the case who had effectively made me surplus to proceedings by giving directions at the first
hearing prohibiting me from cross-examining the witnesses. Add to this that the Crown Prosecution Service
held no evidence to support the charge, but a guilty verdict found nonetheless, suggests all the more that the
outcome and proceedings were contrary to the interests of justice.

Lack of evidence
As the CPS had no evidence with which to justify prosecuting the case it is therefore suspected that Mr Martin
Howarth, the CPS Solicitor has been corruptly influenced by Humberside Police/Grimsby Magistrates' court to
proceed with a prosecution where the evidence fell below the standards which would be expected for a fair trial.
Moreover, I had insufficient information about the proceedings and did not know the position regarding my
rights to legal representation and left to produce representations myself. The case went ahead in my absence
during which I was found guilty and it appears the judge in sentencing at a later hearing, which I did attend, was
not briefed as the mitigating evidence documents I had sent to the court had not been considered in my
conviction.
The burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt in criminal cases and because there was no evidence I am
satisfied that a crime has been committed against me. In their witness statements, both Arthur and Tammy
Johnson lied and it is suspected that Police Constable Thomas Blake 1131 incited at least one of them to
commit perjury.
There are also very good grounds to suspect that CCTV footage, which would support my innocence, has been
destroyed. I have since obtained details of the arrangement Humberside police has for monitoring the public
grounds in front of the Victoria Street station. In respect of 27 August 2015 (the day of the alleged matter), a
total of 7 CCTV cameras covered relevant areas; one situated in the portacabin (temporary front office) and 6
covering the front of the station. The camera footage (it has been since discovered) is on a loop system and
kept for 90 days. I have learned that when asked for, video footage is retained, although Humberside police
have stated that no requests were received on 27 August 2015, and therefore the video footage has been
overwritten.
If there were 7 cameras covering the area, it would be expected that video footage, material in a criminal case,
would be available for proving the innocence of someone convicted of an offence alleged to have been

committed there on that date. Notwithstanding this, it could not have been known then whether video footage
would have determined the truth, so the fact I had voluntarily remained at the scene to help police with their
enquiries, speaks for itself.
In fact, it is recorded in the CPS case file, in reference to the summary of the Defendant interview on 27
August 2015, the following:
The defendant hopes there is CCTV as this will confirm his account
This, and being under no obligation to wait for an officer to arrive, reinforces the fact that I was innocent, as I
was clearly confident that if video footage existed it could not possibly have incriminated me, but more likely
disproved the accusations (paras 4 - 5, defendant's statement 30 Sept 2015). Someone who had been guilty in
the circumstances, with a possibility of being on camera would unlikely have voluntarily remained to assist nor
stated in interview that he hoped CCTV footage would confirm his account.
It is clear that the evidence (which appears to be none) fell short of the standard which would be required by
the criminal justice system to meet the criteria of a fair trial.

Inconsistent witness statements

The statements recorded in the CPS case file identified some glaringly obvious inconsistencies which
supported the fact that both the civilian witnesses had committed perjury. Two witness statements dated 27
August and 1 September 2015 produced by Arthur and Tammy Johnson provided evidence to remove any
doubt that they contain outright lies.
The statements are inconsistent with what was said before they were produced and with the front office clerk,
Mr Warriners account in his witness statement (also part of the CPS case bundle):
1) Mr Warriner in his witness statement says he was approached by Mr Johnson who informed him that there
is a man pissing up the tree outside. However, by the time Mr Johnson produced his statement, this changed
to it looked like he was going to have a wee against the tree. This points to Mr Johnson being an unreliable
witness as he had not seen anyone urinating, only assumed he had, which was confirmed in-between informing
Mr Warriner and producing his statement which he changed accordingly.
2) Arthur Johnson, before accompanying the officer to the tree which he had accused me of urinating against,
stated that he had seen me zipping or unzipping my fly despite the jeans I wore having buttons. This anomaly
was raised with the arresting officer shortly after the alleged incident took place. However, by the time Arthur
Johnson produced his statement, the reference to operating a zip was omitted. Tammy Johnson on the other
hand did refer to buttons, but this was in her witness statement made after the issue was highlighted that there
was no zip (her statement dated 1 Sept 2015). The first being the male appeared to be unbuttoning his jeans
and later untruthfully stated I then saw this male having unbuttoned his jeans and then describe in graphic
detail the alleged offence, knowing this was a complete fabrication.
Given the burden of proof required for criminal convictions, I am at a loss to know why Humberside police even
considered referring this matter to the CPS and even more bewildered that the CPS, considering the flawed
witness statements, have pursued the case knowing that under proper scrutiny there could be no prospects of
a successful prosecution.

Single justice procedure: special rules

The Criminal Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2015 amended Part 37 of the 2014 Rules, introducing a
new provision, Single justice procedure: special rules inserted as Rule 37.9, which had the effect of
renumbering Rule 37.11 to 37.12 (Procedure where a party is absent). Consequently, this Rule was amended
inserting the provision that it does not apply where the court tries a case under rule 37.9 (Single justice

procedure: special rules). The procedure is prescribed by sections 16A to 16D of the Magistrates Courts Act
1980 (Trial by single justice on the papers). These have been renumbered and now Part 24 of the Criminal
Procedure Rules 2015.
The amendment Rules came into force on 6th April 2015 and so applied by the time my case was underway,
however, the case was not dealt with under the single justice procedure where rule 24.9 would have applied
and the relevant rule was 24.12 (Procedure where a party is absent).
Under the circumstances, a trial on the papers would have been the procedure most in the interest of justice to
have taken and is questioned why it was not, given that I was disadvantaged by having no legal representation
and completely in the dark as to my rights, if indeed I had any. Trying the case on the papers would have been
the fairer option as I had submitted various documents of mitigating evidence. This, would have gone some
way in compensating for my ignorance of the court system for which Im certain the judge has exploited to my
detriment in open court. Being unable to ignore the submission and set against the prosecutions lack of
evidence and the questionable, inconsistent witness statements, it is inconceivable that the judge could have
found a verdict of guilt.
In any event, the procedure set out under rule 24.12 (where a party is absent) does not give the court power to
find a guilty verdict merely on account of the defendants absence. Sub-paragraph 3 states that were the
defendant is absent the court must proceed as if the defendant were present and had pleaded not guilty. That
would not have entailed the judge allowing the solicitor, who had been appointed to cross-examine the police
and witnesses to withdraw from the case (I was prohibited from doing so), nor would the absence have justified
the court dismissing for consideration the documents submitted as mitigating evidence.
The overall impression was that the court, despite what really happened, was intent on finding a guilty verdict,
but this was also part of a conspiracy with the police and CPS who had set out to falsely criminalise and
defraud me. Additional to those representations to the Magistrates court (13 February 2016) it has since been
discovered that the bundle I was handed by the usher minutes before the court hearing on 30 September 2015,
contained documents, which appearing by their nature, should have been served in a prescribed manner by the
court, police and/or CPS for which there was, I suspect a legal duty. That procedure would not have entailed
passing papers to the accused last minute which were material in the case and requiring acting on with no
explanation as to their importance.
A letter, apparently produced from a template used by the CPS was in among the papers I was handed by the
usher which contained what appeared largely irrelevant computer printouts compiled by the CPS. The letter
dated 22 September 2015 was discovered after the case had concluded.
It is reasonable to assume that I should have been served this and other letters and because they concerned a
matter as serious as a criminal trial, I should have been alerted to any implications of not being legally
represented. The letters reference was as follows:
"LETTER TO DEFENCE WHERE THERE IS MATERIAL TO DISCLOSE (MAGISTRATES' COURT)"
The opening paragraph suggested that if I was not aware of the letter I would be disadvantaged because the
material it referred to was considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution, as quoted below:
I am required to disclose to you any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed,
and which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution or of
assisting the accused's case.
The letter also set out the legal requirement for submitting a defence statement among other instructions. This
correspondence, though dated 22 September 2015 was in my possession only minutes before the 30
September hearing, and in any event, because it was buried among irrelevant papers was not seen; that is until
after the case when I furthered my investigations into the conspiracy I suspected.
The failure to explain and correctly serve these documents reinforces my assertion that the authorities were
complicit in disadvantaging me to the greatest extent possible as a means to succeed in falsely criminalising

and defrauding me.

A further denial of my rights was in evidence in respect of the sentencing hearing on 22 December. After two
people who I suspect falsely claimed they were the police hammered on my door and coerced me to attend
court, I was imprisoned and told while awaiting the hearing that I would have access to the duty solicitor. That
never happened and I was handcuffed and led to the courtroom for sentencing.

Sentencing by Deputy District Judge Andrew Pascoe

I was asked at the 22 December hearing (sentencing) by deputy district judge Andrew Pascoe whether or not I
was guilty of failing to turn up for the trial on the 15 Dec 2015 without good reason. I pleaded not guilty as I
considered I had very good reason for not attending as I had no confidence in the judge trying the case fairly.
The court was informed in writing on 11 Dec 2015 as aforementioned.
Sub-section 2A of s11 of the Magistrates' court Act 1980 provides that:
"the court shall not proceed in the absence of the accused if it considers that there is an acceptable
reason for his failure to appear."
Notwithstanding the provision in sub-section 2A, there was no evidence that judge Andrew Pascoe was briefed
as he commented, after Id raised my objection to being found guilty when innocent, that I had a chance to put
my side of the story at the trial but did no turn up. This suggests that mitigating evidence documents, in which
my side of the story had been extensively set out and which had been sent to the court had not been
considered in my conviction.
For the deputy district judge to state that I had a chance to put my side of the story when I had in fact submitted
representations to the court, and been prohibited from cross-examining the witnesses would suggest
negligence and therefore a very good example of failing to fulfil a Judicial Duty.

Allegations of Judicial Misconduct

It is my strongly held view that Deputy District Judge Andrew Pascoe has by neglecting to fulfil his Judicial Duty
played a material part in criminalising and defrauding me by sentencing me unfairly which is borne out by the
above evidence. Therefore, pursuant to the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014 this
complaint alleges the judges misconduct in not fulfilling his Judicial Duty.

I confirm that the information I have provided is correct.

Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office, Royal Courts of Justice,
Queens Building, Strand, London WC2A 2LL
Enquiry Line: 020 7073 4719
JCIO Complaint form (09.13)

Fax: 020 7073 4725