Complaints, Correspondence and Litigation Team

1st Floor, Post Point 1.4 Grimsby

102 Petty France North East Lincolnshire
London DN32 0
SW1H 9AJ

19 March 2017

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

I am escalating my complaint to Customer Service Team as I consider the review of Mrs Watt's
response leaves a number of concerns that require further investigation. I suspect also that the
representations I have submitted have been misinterpreted and some completely overlooked.

The response suggests that HMCTS has some awareness of the inconvenience caused, but there is
no evidence that it appreciates anywhere near the full extent of the injustice directly resulting
from these matters which has had to be endured over the four years this has been ongoing. Details
are briefly set out on the initial page of the 25 June 2016 complaint.

Copies of the undelivered correspondence are appended in chronological order as well as the
representations made on the reply from the Justices’ Clerk and the cluster manager’s response
*
(emails of 26 January 22 February 2017). The original complaint and various supporting
documents are provided separately which are itemised below:

LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

No DATE DESCRIPTION FILE NAME

1 25 June 16 Complaint Handling and Enquiries Team - 102 Complaint Handling and
Petty France Enquiries Team - 102 Petty
France.pdf
2 Various Appeal documents (Missing items positioned in Case stated application missing
date order) docs.pdf
3 2017 Royal Mail's registered envelope, contents and Chron p5 - Env - contents.pdf
relevant page of Chronology
4 2017 Consent Order (case bundle document – high Consent order.pdf
court application)
5 2017 Grounds of appeal (case bundle document – high Grounds of appeal.pdf
court application)
6 2017 Skeleton Argument and Exhibits (case bundle Skeleton and Exhibits.pdf
document – high court application)
7 2017 Chronology of events (case bundle document – Chronology draft.pdf
high court application)

*
Note: Letter item no 5 wrongly dated in the email; correct date is 29 May 2015.

Yours sincerely

.
 Complaint escalated to HMCTS Complaint handling

19 March 2017

1. Re. Grimsby Magistrates' Court Complaint - submitted 25 June 2016

1. Regarding the 28 week delay for obtaining the response (3 January 2017), the investigating
manager has stated that 'Mrs Watts did indeed post her reply' on 22 July 2016. Unless Mr
Hopgood actually witnessed this or has some definitive proof that the response was posted
then it is not seen how this statement can be justified. Mr Hopgood doesn't support his
assertion that the Justices' Clerk did in fact post her reply; it has to be assumed that he was
either told this or has simply taken the 22 July date on the copy made 16 December 2016 to be
a posting date.

2. He has been unable to offer an explanation as to why the letter was not delivered and implies
that his inability to explain may somehow be attributable to the letter not being returned as
undelivered. The fact that a letter was not returned would more likely explain that on the
balance of probabilities it was never posted which would be reinforced by the discovery of
nine other letters that were neither delivered nor returned. This demonstrates perfectly why a
complainant can hope to achieve nothing from a process whereby employees of HMCTS have
essentially to investigate their colleagues because on the balance of probabilities, these letters
will have been produced in response to investigations and were therefore never posted. This is
presumably why the cluster manager for Humber & South Yorkshire prefers not to offer the
most feasible explanation.

2. Initial delay (N/A)

3. Unnecessary Claim for Mandatory Order

3. Representations I made in this matter have been misinterpreted. The 'judicial decision' of the
justices requiring recognizance was not actually the complaint, rather it was the failure to
address the queries I had formally submitted about the recognizance, initially in a letter dated
5 February 2013 and subsequently in the letter before action (29 April 2013). In-between the
initial correspondence and the letter advising of the intention to bring judicial review
proceedings for a mandatory order, the court was prompted by email to respond on three
occasions.
4. Correspondence appended to the 25 June complaint shows this was done twice in February
(19th & 26th) and on 27 March 2013. The court responded on 27 February 2013 confirming
that the correspondence was receiving attention from the Justices' Clerk who would respond
further in due course. However, there was never a response, and it was not known until the
judicial review claim was underway that had an arrangement been made, the appropriateness
of the recognizance could have been considered by the court.

5. The Acknowledgement of Service (AOS) was signed for on 16 July 2013 suggesting that the
Justices' Clerk does not routinely disregard the requirement to send important documents by
Royal Mail's recorded delivery service. A scan of the envelope (attached) provides evidence
that the letter had been delivered. Accompanying the attachment is the envelope's contents
along with the relevant page of the Chronology of events intended for the high court appeal
(case stated).

6. It will be noted in Section C of the AOS (the court's summary of grounds) that the reasons
given to the Administrative court for the hold up was as follows:

‘To date the claimant has not appeared before the defendant court to enter into a
recognizance. Had he done so the question of the appropriateness of the recognizance
and/or the amount could have been considered by the court.

...in the interests of saving the Administrative Court time and public money on a matter
that is likely to reach the Administrative Court via the route of an appeal by way of case
stated, the defendant court gives an undertaking that the draft case will be served upon the
defendant within fourteen days....’

7. It was disingenuous to claim that the court was waiting for me to enter into a recognizance
when the court had expressly stated that the 5 February correspondence querying the
recognizance was receiving attention from the Justices' Clerk who would respond further in
due course. Where my queries with the Magistrates' court went unanswered, the judicial
review process succeeded in drawing from the Clerk that if I had appeared before the court to
enter into a recognizance, its appropriateness and/or the amount could have been considered.
Having this information initially would have rendered the judicial review claim unnecessary,
but for some reason it was withheld for almost six months.
8. It was irrational for the defendant court to express regard for the Administrative Court's time
and public money as reasons for waiving its rights to a recognizance. The most effective way
to have saved the court's time and public money would not have been by withholding crucial
information until a mandatory order was sought but rather provided it at the appropriate time.

9. It was clearly administrative failure to have delayed clarifying a concern that had been raised
22 weeks earlier, which in any event would never have been clarified were it not for the claim
being made for a mandatory order. The complaint was about the unacceptable failure to deal
with the query when the answer was obviously to hand and could have been provided without
delay.

10. The fact that the justices required a recognizance set at £500 and that it was a judicial decision
has no relevance to this complaint, as the sole cause of the judicial review claim being
instituted was down to the administrative failure in dealing with correspondence.

4. Unanswered correspondence to obtain final case

11. The first paragraph in Mr Hopgood's response in this matter does not really answer any of the
concerns. There is no obvious relevance to the remarks regarding the Justices’ Clerk’s email
of 6 March 2014 referring to my case as a whole rather than just the Case Stated nor
emphasising that the Draft Case had by then been served and on which I’d made
representations on 19 August 2013. The court was telephoned specifically about why the Final
Case had not been served which according to the Magistrates court rules 1981 (MCR) should
have been by 10 September 2013 (written communications were not being responded to). The
calls were made over a period beginning 3 March 2014, before the Justices’ Clerk’s email, up
until 28 March, long after the undertaking to communicate the position regarding the case
(advising on the next steps) was not acted on.

12. The Justices’ Clerk was first made aware on 10 January 2014 and again on 13 February that
the 19 December 2013 letter, allegedly posted, had not been received. It was also obvious that
the recent claim of its sending was not known about then. The content of the 6 March 2014
email considered in the context of what is set out in the alleged 19 December 2013 and 20
February 2014 letters is as irrational as it gets. Both letters explicitly set out what steps are
required regarding lodging the Final Case should I wish to pursue the appeal, yet the 6 March
2014 email stated the following:
 “I am due to be in meetings all day today but I will have written communication with you
either later today or first thing tomorrow setting out the position with your case and
advising you on next steps.”

13. There is no uncertainty about the email being sent on 6 March 2014 which is the only
correspondence sent by the Justices’ Clerk I received (after 16 July 2013 signed for AOS).
Predated letters are produced easily, albeit not always credibly nor with proof of posting,
whereas correspondence sent electronically does not provide that flexibility. Contrast the
email’s content with what appeared both in the alleged 19 December 2013 and 20 February
2014 letters before it, and again in the alleged 1 May 2014 letter afterwards, all containing the
same typo (emphasis added):

“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.”

14. The several emails/letters querying the service of the Final Case and the Justices’ Clerk’s one
email response are the only communications that can be of assistance to establish the events.
If the Final Case had been produced and served on 19 December 2013 and sent again on 20
February 2014 then it would have been imperative to have stated this in the email, more so on
account of the court being pressured for not complying with the MCR.

15. If there was a question of the document not being received, which obviously there was, it
would have been the Justices’ Clerk’s priority (on first being made aware) to ensure that a
record of posting was retained so in the likely event evidence was required it could have been
presented as proof. The object is defeated of sending an important document by recorded
delivery if a record is not kept of that delivery.

Letters not acknowledged

16. The Justices’ Clerk received confirmation from myself on two separate occasions upon the
request that letters were acknowledged. The first was the registered envelope dated 12 July
2013 inside which was the AOS regarding the judicial review claim. An email was sent to
acknowledge receipt on 16 July 2013 (the day the letter was signed for). The second dated 24
July 2013 was the Draft Case which was acknowledged in an email of 30 July 2013.
17. The correspondence next in date order (undelivered letter of 19 December 2013) asked
similarly if I would acknowledge receipt of the correspondence and enclosure. Of course, no
acknowledgement was sent as the letter was never delivered and a copy of it only received on
3 January 2017. If the letter had been sent, it would have been shortly after this that the first
alarm bells should have rung. Another correspondence (undelivered letter of 15 April 2016)
also asked for acknowledgement which was not sent for the same obvious reason.

18. Confirmation is presumably asked for to ensure safe receipt of important documents and if
there is no acknowledgement it must be considered a possibility that the delivery has failed,
especially when the same recipient has previously acknowledged such requests.

Other inconsistencies

19. The Justices' Clerk was aware from a letter copied to the interested parties dated 20 November
2013 of a suspicion I had that the court's undertaking might have been to deliver only the draft
case. The letter updating the Administrative Court expressed this on account of there being no
delivery of the final signed case which by that time had overrun by approximately two
months.

20. There was no communication indicating whether the undertaking had been to deliver only the
Draft Case or also the Final Case upon representations being made on the draft.
Representations made by myself had been served on 19 August 2013 together with a letter
advising the Court that (in effect) it had up until 10 September 2013 to state and sign the case
in accordance with rule 77 of the MCR.

21. The copy of the undelivered Final Case documents dated 19 December 2013 acknowledges
receipt of my representations made on the Draft Case served on 19 August 2013 which is an
extraordinary 4 month delay. The letter explained that the court, by request of the council,
granted an extension to the time in which it may submit representations on the Draft Case as
the Council stated that it had not received the Draft Case.

22. The council's representations were served on the court and myself on 9 September 2013 but
there is no evidence of when the council sought an extension or when it was granted. In
accordance with rule 78(2) of the MCR the Justices' Clerk was obliged to attach a statement of
 the extension and the reasons for it on serving the final case. Though the copy of the letter
dated 19 December 2013 gave the reason, i.e., that 'the Council stated that they had not
received the draft case', an appropriate statement of the extension was not attached.

23. It should be noted that the council became aware that the Draft Case had been unsuccessfully
sent no later than 19 August 2013 when representations on the draft were served by myself on
the interested parties. Unless or until it can be determined the date of service in respect of the
council it may be assumed (in the court's favour) that the date on which the council served
representations and the extension start date were the same and the extended time was equal to
the number of days originally provided under rule 77(2) of the MCR. On this basis, the latest
date by which the court had to state and sign the case would have been 21 October 2013 (42
days from 9 September).

24. However, observing that 9 September 2013 coincides with 21 days after the council became
aware that it had not received the draft, it is more feasible that the extension would have been
granted on 19 August 2013, therefore the date on which the council served representations
was the latest day on which representations may have been made under rule 77(2) of the
MCR. On this basis, the latest date by which the court had to state and sign the case would
have been 30 September 2013 (21 days from 9 September).

25. The copy of the undelivered Final Case document is dated 19 December 2013, so after
factoring in the extension that had been granted, the case, if it had been sent as alleged, would
have been 80 days past the 30 September date required for service.

Freedom of Information

26. The second paragraph in Mr Hopgood's response in this matter addresses specifically the Case
Stated document and agrees that it should have been sent by registered post in accordance
with the MCR. The Freedom of Information request made to the MOJ was referred to which
determined that records for 2013 were no longer available and could not confirm whether or
not the Case Stated had been sent by registered post. The MOJ confirmed that the request to
send it by recorded delivery would have been made by the MOJ as it is their practice, in
accordance with the rules to send the "case stated" paper work out by recorded delivery.
27. It may also be relevant to consider another Freedom of Information request and why it had
been labelled vexatious and refused to be complied with on those grounds. The Judicial
Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman. 2015-16 Annual Report included a sample of
complaints, one of which concerned a case escalated to the Ombudsman that was initially
dealt with by an unnamed Magistrates' Advisory Committee (Case Study five, Page 30 of the
Report). The extract provided enough information to determine that it was not my complaint,
though in similar circumstances to mine, the complainant had not received the Advisory
Committee's letter dismissing the complaint.

28. The Justices' Clerk is also the Secretary to the Humber Advisory Committee so it seemed
worth exploring whether the Advisory Committee referred to in Case Study five was in fact
the Humber Advisory Committee. A Freedom of Information request was therefore submitted
asking which Advisory Committee was referred to in the case study plus any other instances
where the complainant stated similarly that they had not received correspondence from the
Advisory Committee. However, the Ombudsman refused to disclose the information
maintaining his decision that the request was vexatious after carrying out an Internal Review.
Obviously the request was not vexatious and it would be very worth while finding out the
answer. Although no Decision Notice has been issued the matter is with the Information
Commissioner and allocated a reference number which is FS50668580.

29. Likewise, another request has been considered to be vexatious which simply asked for the
identity of the Deputy Chairman of the Advisory Committee who in one of the undelivered
letters (dated 16 September 2014) is said to have dealt with the complaint. The copy, along
with two others relating to the matter had not been seen until 23 May 2016.

5. Judicial complaint to Humber Advisory Committee

30. The investigating manager revisits the Royal Mail issues which were first addressed in item 1
and states the following (emphasis added):

“Your concern here is again about the number of letters sent by HMCTS in Humber &
South Yorkshire, via Royal Mail, that were not delivered to you, and neither were they
returned to HMCTS undelivered. You say that 'there has to be another explanation',
though you do not offer another explanation.”
31. The explanation is that on the balance of probabilities the letters were never posted and will
have been produced in response to investigations (see above para 2). This explanation was
offered in correspondence contained in the document supporting the complaint (Case stated
application missing docs). See below for examples:

3 March 2016 email to the Judicial Appointments & Conduct Ombudsman (page 24)

“As you will recall, the email I sent Mrs Watts on 25 February 2016, asked for the case
stated to be re-sent and to be informed of the original date it was served. The Justices'
Clerk has not responded to the email which raises the question, why, if the document
exists and has been sent once would it be an issue to do so again. The answer, in all
probability lies in the fact that the final case stated has never been sent nor produced
which can also be said of the 16 September 2014, 29 May and 6 July 2015 letters. On the
balance of probabilities, these letters will have been produced in response to the
investigation, which by your own admission took a significant amount of time to obtain
from the Advisory Committee”

24 May 2016 email to the Judicial Appointments & Conduct Ombudsman (page 38)

“To take over 12 weeks to disclose the documents does tend to suggest what I believe has
happened which is they have been produced purposely for the Ombudsman's investigation.
This would be supported by the fact that the final case stated, which is said in the 16
September 2014 letter by the Justices' Clerk who handled the complaint was sent to me
has apparently never been seen by anyone. Presumably the Ombudsman has not at any
time been furnished with the document and I definitely have not despite requesting or
enquiring about it on the following occasions:
............
The odds are virtually nil that four items of correspondence – correctly addressed, all but a
minor error – being sent that neither reached me nor were returned. I have stated that none
of the correspondence reached me and am prepared to declare so in a signed statement of
truth.

I would think the most sensible way forward – before a final report is produced – is for the
relevant person at the Advisory Committee to make a written statement of truth that the
documents said to have been sent to me on the respective dates were actually produced
and sent around that time.”

27 May 2016 email to the Judicial Appointments & Conduct Ombudsman (page 41)

“The Ombudsman has decided the outcome purely on the basis that he believes the
Advisory Committee's version of events when the overwhelming evidence is that the
letters have been produced afterwards and in response to preliminary enquiries.
...............
 I doubt the Ombudsman disagreed with my assertion that the odds of four items of
correspondence failing to be delivered are virtually zero. If he doesn't the matter
effectively comes down to being my word against the relevant person at the Advisory
Committee's. I have stated that none of the correspondence reached me and prepared to
declare so in a signed statement of truth and suggest that the relevant person at the
Advisory Committee does similar. However, this proposal has been ignored and believe it
has been because discovering the truth might not fit in with the Ombudsman's agenda.”

You of course have the final agreed Case Stated now

32. Due to the unacceptable amount of time taken to obtain the Final Case there is now a financial
barrier to progress the matter which did not exist when the appeal was embarked upon. When
my appeal should have been at the stage for lodging, I was entitled to 100% fee remission due
to my financial circumstances. It was only discovered, the last day I had for lodging case that
the criteria on which entitlement to ‘fee remission’ applied had changed and fees were payable
in full.

33. In between receiving the final signed case on 16 January 2017 and discovering there was no
longer entitlement to ‘fee remission’, additional work had been done amending papers to
account for the alleged letters that were never delivered but which were relevant to the case.
Hundreds of pages of the case had been printed off and the Appellant’s Notice completed
ready for lodging in the high court. A number of amendments had already been necessary
because of the 3 or so years delay, for example the 6 May 2015 judgment in the case between
R (Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates [2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin) meant almost the entire
case had to be reworked. This case was relevant to mine as it was adjudged by the high court
that awarding costs without having sufficient relevant information from the billing authority
of how they had been arrived at was unlawful. This is one of the questions of law asked of the
high court to determine in my appeal so I am being caused this protracted injustice in a matter
already settled by the high court.

34. The decision to appeal the Magistrates’ court order was made on the basis that my annual
income, effectively none, was below the threshold which one would be entitled to fee
remission. Prescribed court fees were disproportionate to the amount disputed and the
possibility of losing the case meant it would be madness to proceed without consent by the
parties (which was the plan) that there be no order as to costs. Therefore, the reasons are
obvious that the appeal was embarked upon because the issues were considered of public
importance and my financial circumstances allowed me to engage in the process at relatively
 little outlay. That doesn’t mean, however, that the difficulties in pursuing the appeal over such
a protracted period of time hasn’t amounted to a cost which if quantified in monetary terms
would amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds.

35. As mentioned, I don’t now qualify for fee remission, but would have up until 7 October 2013,
which is when a disposable capital test was introduced to the eligibility criteria for
determining fee remission. So, had there not been the departmental maladministration with
respect to handling the case due to staff leaving followed by the need to institute a judicial
review claim, then the final signed case would have been served several months before
eligibility changes were introduced. Even allowing for the error in serving the draft case on
the Council (a further delay), the extended date caused by the maladministration would still
have enabled the case to have been lodged before the changes. Though the final case was not
allegedly served until 19 December 2013, the estimated latest day for service of the final case
was 30 September 2013. However, this is largely academic because none of the
correspondence relating to the copies since obtained were actually delivered, and so even if
the final case was claimed to have been served by 30 September 2013 there’s no logical
reason why that would have been delivered either.

36. Essentially it is departmental error which has led to the final case being delayed for so many
years and rendered the appeal too costly to proceed. The implications are not only that I am no
longer eligible for fee remission but it is apparent that the prescribed fee payable on filing a
respondent’s notice increased in 2016 from £235 to £528.

37. It was not intended to proceed further unless the terms of the drafted consent order were
agreed; however, the case would have needed to be lodged along with the fee (or application
for fee remission) at the Administrative Court Office before knowing that outcome. Paying
hundreds of pounds to then find out that the agreement was unobtainable was not a risk I
intended to take. The exposure to risk I had prepared for was limited to what would have, and
has been, the wasted time and effort expended in producing the case and engaging in the
process. In fact the council declined a request to provisionally agree terms of the proposed
consent order and failed to cooperate when asked for details about its legal representative
required in the Appellant's notice.
 Page 1 of 2

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: <julie.collins1@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 26 January 2017 16:38
Attach: Case stated application missing docs.pdf
Subject: Grimsby Magistrates' court Complaint - submitted 25 June 2016

Dear Ms Collins,

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

I am escalating my complaint to you partly because as I consider Ms Watts' reply dated 22 July 2016 is
unsatisfactory, but mainly because of the time and effort required to obtain it (28 weeks). The response was
not seen until 3 January 2017 when it was emailed to me (a copy) by the NE Delivery Directors Office. Copies
of seven other letters going back as long ago as December 2013 were also attached which I had seen for the
first time.

Issues surrounding the reply dated 22 July

Initial delay

I regard the court having insufficient contingencies for staff members leaving is maladministration. Even if the
situation did arise because there was no staff available to supervise the case it would have been expected
that this could have been communicated.

Unnecessary Claim for Mandatory Order

A letter before action dated 29 April 2013 reiterated the situation regarding my financial circumstances which
had first been raised in a letter dated 5 February 2013 (see quote below):

"The justices – once deciding that a recognizance is necessary – must take the applicant's means into
account in setting the amount. A completed EX160 form accompanied my application to the
Magistrates’ court to state the case (22 November 2012). The supporting papers detailing my gross
annual income provided evidence that this was substantially below the set level, and so qualified for full
remission of the Magistrates’ court fee.

It is therefore illogical that by completing form EX160 (effectively means tested) I qualified for full
remission of the £500 Magistrates’ court fee, whilst the justices, after presumably taking my means into
account, concluded that the recognizance should be £500. Setting such a fee in these circumstances
could be seen as a denial of access to the Courts."

The judicial review claim could have been avoided if my letter was addressed. Instead, I was put to the trouble
of instituting another High Court procedure which was entirely alien to me. Only after the claim was underway
was it made known in the court's Acknowledgement of Service that ‘the question of the appropriateness of the
recognizance and/or the amount could have been considered by the court’.

Unanswered correspondence to obtain final case

None of the letters going back as long ago as December 2013 were delivered.

The correspondence which I did receive (email) on 6 March 2014 in response to prompting does not fit in
logically with the other letters that I now have copies of. The 6 March email stated that the position regarding
the case (advising on the next steps) would be set out in writing even though this had already been set out
twice by that time in letters dated 19 December 2013 and 20 February 2014. In both letters the following was
stated:

"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."

In any event the case stated document should have been sent registered/recorded as I understand the

28/04/2017
 Page 2 of 2

Magistrates Courts Rules 1981 provide for this.

Judicial complaint to Humber Advisory Committee

The response regarding the Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office and the Judicial Ombudsman not
upholding the complaint is entirely irrelevant to the present issue.

The Judicial Ombudsman obtained three items of undelivered post in his preliminary enquiries which further
identified that the final case stated had at some time been produced. The number of undelivered items sent by
post which I'm now aware of totals ten. There are virtually zero odds that ten items of correspondence –
correctly addressed (all but a minor error in three) – were sent that neither reached me nor were returned.
There has to be another explanation.

The list of undelivered post is as follows:

1) Letter 19 December 2013 (final case enclosed)

2) Letter 20 February 2014 (final case enclosed)

3) Letter 1 May 2014 (final case enclosed)

4) Letter (Humber Advisory Committee) 16 September 2014

5) Letter (Humber Advisory Committee) 29 May 2014

6) Letter (Humber Advisory Committee) 6 July 2015

7) Letter 15 April 2016 (final case enclosed)

8) Complaint response 22 July 2016

9) Letter 28 November 2016 (complaint response enclosed)

10) Letter 13 December 2016 (relating to unrelated enquiry)

I have attached a document containing a number of relevant correspondence arranged chronologically

spanning the period of the undelivered letters (unreceived items positioned in context) which I hope will be of
assistance in the review. If any of the contents of this email are not valid matters to be raised in this complaint
please consider those (missing items of post) to be a new complaint.

I believe at this stage of the complaint's procedure HMCTS aims to reply within 10 working days.

Yours sincerely

Attachment Omitted
Case stated application missing docs

Request if required
(57 pages)

28/04/2017
 Page 1 of 2

From: "Hopgood, Paul" <paul.hopgood@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

To: < @gmail.com>
Sent: 22 February 2017 16:32
Attach: Case stated application missing docs.pdf
Subject: FW: Grimsby Magistrates' court Complaint - submitted 25 June 2016 - Complaint reference
00042/165/1617

Dear Mr

Re: Complaint reference 00042/165/1617

Julie Collins forwarded your email of 26 January to me as I have now succeeded her as Cluster Manager for
HMCTS in Humber & South Yorkshire. I am sorry for the delay in replying to your request to review Mrs Watts'
response to your complaint.

HMCTS aims to respond to at least 90% of customers' complaints within 10 working days of receipt. Some
responses take longer to investigate and respond to and I apologise to you that I have not been able to reply
to you within the 10 day target. This was due to my own pressure of work and the need to fully investigate and
understand the issues you raise.

I am sorry that you have had cause to to write and complain about the service you have received from HM
Courts & Tribunals Service in Grimsby, and in Humber & South Yorkshire generally. I will attempt to address
the points you raise in order;

1. Re. Grimsby Magistrates' Court Complaint - submitted 25 June 2016

You sent your complaint, dated 25 June 2016, to the HMCTS Complaints, Correspondence & Litigation Team
in London. It was forwarded to Mrs Watts on 5 July to investigate and respond to you. Mrs Watts replied
substantively to you on 22 July, fourteen working days later. One of the main issues that you have complained
about is the fact that this letter (Mrs Watts' letter of 22 July 2016, responding to your complaint) and another
ten letters going back to December 2013, were not actually received by you. In relation to Mrs Watts' reply to
you of 22 July, you received a copy of that letter (for the first time) from the Delivery Director's Office, by
email, on 3 January, 2017.

A delay of 28 weeks for you to see a response is unacceptable and I apologise to you for that delay. However,
Mrs Watts did indeed post her reply to you on 22 July and I can offer no explanation as to why that letter was
not delivered to you. It was not returned to HMCTS by Royal Mail as undelivered.

2. Initial delay

There was indeed a delay in continuing to deal with your case after the then Deputy Justices' Clerk, Mr
Draper, left HMCTS back in 2012. We should have made sure that all work that Mr Draper was dealing with
was properly handed over to a member of staff at the right level (in this case, someone at the most senior
level in the Legal Team). On behalf of HMCTS in Humber & South Yorkshire I apologise to you for the delays
caused at that time.

3. Unnecessary Claim for Mandatory Order

In her reply to your 25 June complaint, Mrs Watts explained the difference between a recognizance and a
court fee and indeed explained this to you in correspondence dated 24 January 2013. The court was quite
rightly waiting for you to enter into that recognizance before embarking on the work involved in stating a case.
It is important to note, and you will know, that it was a judicial decision of the justices to require a
recognizance and to set the amount at £500.

You decided to apply for a Mandatory Order which did in fact result in the court deciding to offer to state a
case at that point. The court would have done this if and when you had entered into the recognizance required
by the justices. I cannot comment on the decision made by the justices in setting the recognizance in the sum
that they did.

4. Unanswered correspondence to obtain final case

28/04/2017
 Page 2 of 2

You raise two points here; firstly that Mrs Watts' email to you dated 6 March 2014 in some way "does not fit
logically with the other letters" (ie with Mrs Watts' letters to you dated 19 December 2013 and 20 February
2014). That email of 6 March 2014 refers to your case as a whole rather than simply just the Case Stated
which had by then of course been drafted and indeed which you'd commented on (your letter of 19 August
2013). Mrs Watts was emailing you in response to a phone call from you to her office. Mrs Watts has
apologised for not responding to every one of your phone calls and emails. The final Case Stated document
was indeed posted to you on more than one occasion.

However, your second point here is that the Case Stated document should have been sent by registered /
recorded post in accordance with the Magistrates' Court rules 1981. That is correct. I understand that HMCTS
is dealing with a similar request for information from you on this point under the Freedom of Information Act,
but I can say that at time of writing, we have been unable to confirm whether or not this was sent by registered
/ recorded post as our records for 2013 are no longer available.

5. Judicial complaint to Humber Advisory Committee

In her reply to you of 22 July 2016, Mrs Watts did set out the chronology of events surrounding your complaint
to the Advisory Committee and subsequently to the Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office and Judicial
Ombudsman. You say that that was not the point you were unhappy about. Your concern here is again about
the number of letters sent by HMCTS in Humber & South Yorkshire, via Royal Mail, that were not delivered to
you, and neither were they returned to HMCTS undelivered. You say that 'there has to be another
explanation', though you do not offer another explanation. I apologise to you that a large number of letters,
spanning three years were not received by you, but I do not have the answer as to why you didn't receive
them. They were not returned by Royal Mail. All our correspondence will perhaps be best sent via email now.

Having reviewed the matters that you raise I find that there are two main issues in that HMCTS owes a
sincere apology to you. Firstly, the delay in dealing with a number of items of your correspondence, and the
delay in actively managing your case after the former Deputy Justices' Clerk left HMCTS in 2012. Please
accept my apology on behalf of HMCTS.

Another main issue that you raise, and regarding which there has been no satisfactory explanation, is that
concerning the many letters that you have not received. Again, whilst I apologise to you for that state of
affairs, I can offer no explanation for that. Of more concern is the fact that HMCTS cannot confirm at this point
whether the Case Stated was sent to you by registered / recorded post as required by the Rules. You of
course have the final agreed Case Stated now.

If you are still dissatisfied with my reply you can write to:

HMCTS Customer Service Team

10th Floor, (10.34), 102, Petty France, London. SW1H 9AJ

Please explain why you remain dissatisfied

Kind Regards

Paul

Paul Hopgood
Cluster Manager, Humber & South Yorkshire
HMCTS - North East Region

email: paul.hopgood@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

28/04/2017
 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