Judicial Conduct Investigations

Office
81 & 82 Queens Building
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
DX44450 Strand
T 020 7073 0301

Our ref: 22905/2015

27 November 2015
Dear Mr
Your complaint about District Judge (DJ) Curtis
I am writing further to your complaint of 07 November 2015, received 09 November
2015, to inform you that the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) is unable to
accept it for consideration. This is because your complaint does not contain an
allegation of misconduct on the part of a judicial office holder. Rule 8 of the Judicial
Conduct (Judicial and other Office Holders) Rules 2014 requires that your complaint
meets this criterion if it is to be considered as valid.
In summary, you complain that DJ Curtis acted outside his powers and perverted the
course of justice by making an order in the claimants favour despite your
indisputable evidence that a false and corrupt statement had been made. You state
that DJ Curtis was unwilling to listen to, accept or understand your evidence and you
sensed he pretended to be out of his depth as a strategy for denying evidence that
might, if considered, defeat the claimants argument. Further, you state that DJ
Curtis was antagonistic and belittling as, in relation to your submissions, he
commented that he had listened for half-an-hour to a political diatribe, only 5 minutes
of which made sense, and he interrogated you about irrelevant matters concerning
council tax instalments.
The concerns put forward in your complaint, and summarised above, do not
constitute a case of personal misconduct on the part of a judicial office holder. Your
complaint relates to judicial decision and judicial case management. The JCIO is
unable to investigate, challenge or question a judges decision or case handling
because these are part of a judges function and not personal conduct. An essential
part of a judges function is weighing up the evidence presented to them and applying
the law accordingly. In order to carry out this aspect of their function, judges have
discretion to determine the evidence they are willing to consider and the matters they
wish to explore in a hearing, irrespective of whether a party considers those matters
irrelevant. Further, although I note you state DJ Curtis was antagonistic and belittling,
judges are entitled to respond to the parties evidence and I confirm that DJ Curtiss
response to your submissions would not be a matter of misconduct because it relates
to his handling of the case in court.

I note you state that your appeal to the High Court is still to be determined. I confirm
that judicial decisions can only be challenged through the appeal process, where one
exists, or by judicial review. The judicial discipline process cannot be used as
alternative method for challenging any aspect of a judicial decision. For example, if a
party were of the opinion that the decision in their case was influenced by bias, the
appropriate course of action would be to appeal. This office is not able to review a
judicial decision to be able to ascertain whether it was correct in law or made as a
result of bias. The only way of determining this is for a case to be appealed and,
therefore, subject to review by a higher court. If, on appeal, a judge was criticised for
their decision because of bias, this could then be subject to consideration by this
office and the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice.
In regard to your court case, you may wish to consider seeking legal advice.
Members of staff at the JCIO are not legally trained. However, you may find it helpful
to seek advice from a solicitor, law centre or the Citizens Advice Bureau
(http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk). The Civil Legal Service (CLS) a Government
organisation might also be able to help. This service helps put people in touch with
sources of legal advice in their area. Further details about the CLS can be found on
their website (https://www.gov.uk/civil-legal-advice). The Bar Pro Bono Unit may also
be of assistance. The Unit receives applications for assistance through advice
agencies and solicitors. The Unit aims to help in cases where the applicant cannot
afford to pay for the assistance sought or obtain public funding, has a meritorious
case, and needs the help a barrister can provide. Further details about the charity
and how to apply can be found on their website: www.barprobono.org.uk.
With further reference to your allegation that DJ Curtis has perverted the course of
justice, the JCIO does not have remit to consider criminal allegations. In the event
that a judicial office holder was to be found guilty of committing a criminal offence,
the matter may be referred to the JCIO for further consideration.
Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
If you are unhappy about my handling of your complaint, you should contact the
Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman, Sir John Brigstocke KCB. The
Ombudsman can consider complaints about how I have handled your complaint, but
he does not have the power to investigate your original complaint to the JCIO.
The Ombudsman will consider a complaint if you write to him within 28 days of our
decision. After this time, he will consider whether he is able to investigate it. You
can contact the Ombudsman:

in writing at: 9th Floor Tower, 9.53, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ;
by e-mail at headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk ; and
by telephone on 020 3334 2900.

For further information about the Ombudsman see www.judicialombudsman.gov.uk

If you require anything further, please contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Langworth
Caseworker Judicial Conduct Investigations Office