Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BETWEEN:
Appellant
and
Introduction
1. These grounds of appeal are in accordance with paragraph (5)(b) and (5)(c) of rule
42 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules
2009.
2. In the circumstances (i.e. where the public body cites vexatiousness to facilitate a
cover-up in which the police and governing bodies etc. are complicit) it is
considered an oppressive use of the Tribunal to assist them in obstructing the
disclosure of information requested by the Appellant by dismissing the Appeal. It
is therefore in the public interest that the matter is put before the Upper Tribunal
for consideration.
Grounds of Appeal
4. The requests were considered vexatious by the council because they related to a
cover-up in which the police, etc., etc., subsequently became complicit. This has
reinforced the Appellants already held view that the statutory system of
governing complaints and associated procedures has been devised primarily to
facilitate cover-ups but at the same time presenting a false image to the public that
those suffering injustice at the hands of public bodies are treated fairly with an
avenue where their grievances can be independently adjudicated.
Lack of objectivity
6. The Tribunals decision notice at paragraph 12 focuses on the fact that the
Appellant has been making requests to the Council over a number of years.
Presumably this is to reinforce the argument that the Appellants requests are
vexatious, implying he randomly decided in 2011 to embark on a quest to burden
the Council.
8. The Tribunal has not been asked to explore this or adjudicate on whether the
Council has been dishonest. However, it has been provided evidence, which the
Judge and Tribunal members have read with care (Exhibit A-1) proving beyond all
doubt that false evidence was submitted to the court which has been covered up
ultimately by the Council applying Section 14 FOIA exemptions.
9. The Tribunal is not required to make formal judgment in respect of the allegations
but it would be judicially unsound (an oppressive use of the judicial system), in
the face of such an obvious cover-up for the Tribunal to obstruct the Appellant in
favour of assisting the Council keep a lid on the unfair and dishonest manner in
which it conducts its business.
10. It is the Appellants view that the gross injustice caused him, which may continue
indefinitely because the Council has exploited Section 14, is of significant
importance to outweigh the factors relevant to assessing the burden put upon the
authority. The Tribunal however is not persuaded that this is the case and must
presumably have considered that the Appellant would have had no reasonable
foundation for thinking that the information sought would be of value to him.
Paragraphs 11-15 disagree.
11. The Appellant is in the unfortunate position to be fighting the injustice of three
cover-ups involving holders of public/judicial office, police etc., who are liable to
imprisonment for misconduct related offences. He therefore has only FOI
legislation available for carrying out investigations which the negligent/criminal
public bodies should have investigated on his behalf in return for the taxes he
pays.
12. It will be no revelation to the Tribunal that each public body, in response to every
request concerning these matters has exploited Section 14 to avoid disclosing the
information requested. However, despite having all the section 14 complaints
upheld by the Commissioner concerning Humberside police, NELC and the MoJ
on the grounds that they had no serious purpose it is worth noting a Decision
Notice dated 28 June 2017 (FS50622653) regarding Humberside police.
13. Ironically the outcome was useful, despite the Commissioner upholding the
section 14 exemption. It revealed (FS50622653, para 24) that a police officer who
the Appellant had alleged to have inaccurately set out his Witness Statement
relating to his wrongful conviction to include the phrase "you can't make me" was
the same constable involved in a separate incident where it was reported that the
exact phrase was said by another defendant who was subsequently convicted.
14. The possibility therefore is that the use of standard (not necessarily true) phrases
are incorporated into Witness Statements to the detriment of the defendant. The
Appellant has recently succeeded in having the Independent Police Complaints
Commission (IPCC) take over a complaint into this matter which Humberside
police wrongly dealt with by Local Resolution and had delayed its outcome by
taking 510 days to complete. This information is now usefully available for the
IPCC and Criminal Cases Review Commission in support of the Appellants
allegations against the police for wrongful arrest, false statements and miscarriage
of justice.
16. Paragraph 14 of the Tribunals Decision needs to be clarified because in the re-
wording from the Appellants Response it has taken on a whole different meaning.
The relevant content in the Tribunals Decision states as follows:
The Appellant maintains that his requests for information have serious
purpose, and that the consequence of the original error in respect of his
liability for Council Tax is material in compounding the injustice further
and possibly preventing years of criminal wrongdoing by the Council being
uncovered.
The corresponding content is from the Appellants Response (paragraph 14). Note
the official error referred to is a reference to the Commissioners erroneous
assessment (in the Appellants view) of the requests being vexatious as opposed to
the Councils error:
6 July 2017