Search

Correspondence relating to Notice of Hearing of Appeal at Maidstone Crown Court on the Speeding Offe

Correspondence relating to Notice of Hearing of Appeal at Maidstone Crown Court on the Speeding Offence

This blogposts relates to the following one that resulted in proceedings being undertaken by Maidstone Crown Court: Following preliminary submissions by email I received a document in the post informing me of a Mention to Fix Hearing for my Appeal. I responded to the notification with the following correspondence: https://shantanup.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/my-response-to-the-court-on-summons-issued-on-me-by-kent-police-to-hear-its-notice-of-intended-prosecution/

(a) Correspondence with Maidstone Crown Court

NOTICE OF HEARING OF APPEAL DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN POST TODAY (9) Shan Panigrahi To Brady, Sue 29 Mar 2017 at 11:58

Dear Ms Brady

1. I did reopen these proceedings to prosecute the following private prosecution for the deliberate avoidance of Kent Police’s statutory duties to investigate crimes that I have been victimised with in the UK and committing its own crimes against me as listed in the following Case for the prosecution:

(a) protecting criminals on my submission of Internet Complaint hate crime; (b) protecting criminals on the Shell Tribunal matter; (c) protecting criminals in the UKIP proceedings matter; (d) protecting criminals in the Greenwich Legalities matter; (e) protecting criminals in the National Health Service directed crimes against me; (f) protecting criminals in the AuthorhouseUK book publication matter; (g) protecting the Legal Ombudsman from criminal activities against me with regard to several lawyers that I complained about; (h) Dover capture by Kent Police in 2004 to incarcerate me in a mental hospital without due reason; (i) capturing me at home and under handcuffs returning me to the mental hospital from where I had lawfully absconded; (j) pointless presecution of speeding offence that I was collecting money to discharge in January 2017. (k) protecting court officials who gave me an unjustified criminal record with the processing of the speeding offence at Medway Magistrates Court.

2. Please institute this private prosecution immediately as agreed earlier.

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Wednesday, 29 March 2017, 9:23, “Brady, Sue” wrote:

Dear Sir

Thank you for your email below but your appeal is no longer proceeding as you abandoned it.

Therefore it is closed and there are no future hearings listed.

You will require legal advice if you wish to reopen the proceedings.

Sue Brady General Office Admin Maidstone Crown Court 01622 202031

________________________________________ From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 29 March 2017 08:43 To: Brady, Sue Cc: Paul R. Reddy Subject: Re: NOTICE OF HEARING OF APPEAL DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN POST TODAY Dear Ms Brady

1. Thank you for explaining that it is my private prosecution against Kent Police that the Court has ruled requires a Mention to Fix proceedings for which the Court has accepted that I need not attend any Hearings personally on account of being on anti-psychotic medication. I will try and arrange legal representation for this with Slater and Gordon lawyers, and failing that will look for an alternative lawyer to conduct the prosecution.

2. I should also point out that I only abandoned the preliminary Hearing because I did not think it was appropriate for me to have to meet the Respondents Costs or Court Costs for this private prosecution of Kent Police, nor should I be penalised with any other Court Orders should my application to prosecute the Police fail to attain the desired outcome from my point of view, namely to secure a damages compensation of up to £5 million. As the Court is aware, I asked the Administrative Court to conduct a Judicial Review of this decision of the Court, the results of which are not known to me.

3. If on this basis, the Court is prepared to proceed with this matter I am ready and willing to restore my Appeal, and therefore submit the details of the Case for the prosecution to the Court.

4. Please let me know the decision of the Court today.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Tuesday, 28 March 2017, 9:57, “Brady, Sue” wrote:

Dear Sir

Thank you for your email of the 22nd March 2017 and apologise for the delay in getting back to you but I have been on leave.

Yes you did have a Mention To Fix Hearing listed on the 24th March 2017 at the Maidstone Crown Court, however you said that you would not attend any hearings due to being on medication.

The Judge asked us to list this matter which we did and you then abandoned.

Sue Brady General Office Admin Maidstone Crown Court 01622 202031

________________________________________ From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 22 March 2017 08:52 To: Brady, Sue Subject: Re: NOTICE OF HEARING OF APPEAL DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN POST TODAY Dear Ms Brady

1. I had written to Legal Services of Kent Police on 16 March 3.09 pm to determine if it had any objections to my abandoning my appeal which I am confirming with this email. There has been no reply from Kent Police.

2. In light of this lack of reply I understand that the ruling of the Maidstone Crown Court was that there should be Mention to Fix proceedings either for me to prosecute my counter prosecution against Kent Police which the Medway Magistrates Court denied me or for Kent Police to re-prosecute the speeding offence on the grounds that these particular proceedings at Medway Magistrates court were illegitimate and therefore the conviction and sentence for my speeding offence require fresh proceedings to be initiated by Kent Police at Medway Magistrates Court with a reissue of the Postal Requisition (which is what I always insisted). But would this not be prosecuting the same offence twice?

3. Please reply to confirm my understanding.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Friday, 17 March 2017, 8:41, “Brady, Sue” wrote:

Dr Panigrahi

Thank you for your notification that you wish to abandon your appeal.

The hearing listed on the 24th March 2017 has been vacated.

Sue Brady General Office Admin Maidstone Crown Court 01622 202031

________________________________________ From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 16 March 2017 10:28 To: Maidstone Crown, Enquiries Cc: Brady, Sue; CPU Driver Diversion Camera Prosecutions Kent; nckentmc Subject: NOTICE OF HEARING OF APPEAL DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN POST TODAY To Clerk to Justices Maidstone Crown Court The Law Courts Barker Road Maidstone Kent ME16 8EQ

Your Reference: A20170027 My Reference: 46TY0039517

Dear Sir

1. I have received a document in the post just now as the Appellant from the Maidstone Crown Court about a ‘Notice of Hearing of Appeal’ dated 15 March 2017 with the above reference numbers. It is against the decison of the Medway Magistrates Court against a speeding offence.

2. Having studied the warnings issued with this Notice of Hearing of Appeal, I am writing to abandon my appeal.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi 3 Hoath Lane Wigmore Gillingham Kent ME8 0SL

______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time.

(b) Correspondence with Maidstone Crown Court Appeal Mention to Fix A20170027 46TY0039517 (8) Brady, Sue To ‘Shan Panigrahi’ 15 Mar 2017 at 16:34

Your email has been placed on the file.

Sue Brady General Office Admin Maidstone Crown Court 01622 202031

________________________________________ From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 15 March 2017 16:30 To: Brady, Sue Subject: Re: Appeal Mention to Fix A20170027 46TY0039517 Dear Ms Brady

1. I have not received a response from Mr Reddy this afternoon and so am assuming that Slater and Gordon will not represent me at the Appeal.

2. As you are aware from my two previous emails I shall not be attending this Hearing or any other Hearing arranged whether or not the Hearing is adjourned because I now consider these proceedings to represent a Case of State-sponsored terrorism and persecution on me that is fully proven. Please ensure that HHJ Griffith-Jones QC is made immediately aware of this email.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Wednesday, 15 March 2017, 16:09, “Brady, Sue” wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi

The hearing will remain listed as your previous emails were put to HHJ Griffith-Jones QC who made the direction to list this matter with a time estimate of 30 minutes.

Sue Brady General Office Admin Maidstone Crown Court 01622 202031

________________________________________ From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 15 March 2017 15:24 To: Brady, Sue Cc: Paul R. Reddy Subject: Re: Appeal Mention to Fix A20170027 46TY0039517 Dear Ms Brady

I have just written to Mr P Reddy and am awaiting the response of this Lawyer Firm. If Slater and Gordon do not represent me at the Appeal in view of the correspondence that I have copied to the Maidstone Crown Court since 2 March 2017 by email I will look for alternative legal representation. Please adjourn the Hearing until I secure legal representation.

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Wednesday, 15 March 2017, 15:01, “Brady, Sue” wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi

Slater & Gordon Solicitors will not receive any documentation until they notify us that they are acting for you.

Sue Brady General Office Admin Maidstone Crown Court 01622 202031

________________________________________ From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 15 March 2017 14:48 To: Brady, Sue Subject: Re: Appeal Mention to Fix A20170027 46TY0039517 Dear Ms Brady

1. Please ensure that the documents are also served to Slater and Gordon Solicitors at the following name of lawyer and address:

Paul Reddy Practice Group Leader Slater and Gordon (UK) LLP

58 Mosley Street,Manchester,M2 3HZ DX : 14340 Manchester 1 Tel : 0161 383 3561 | Fax : 0161 383 3580

Email address: PReddy@slatergordon.co.uk

2. Please let me know if there is any difficulty in accommodating this request.

Thank you

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Wednesday, 15 March 2017, 13:42, “Brady, Sue” wrote:

Dear Sirs

This is to notify you of the Mention to Fix hearing which has been listed on 24th March 2017 at 10:00am with a time estimate of 30 minutes at Maidstone Crown Court.

The hearing notice has been sent 1st class post today.

Sue Brady General Office Admin Maidstone Crown Court 01622 202031

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

(c) Correspondence with the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

Your Reference: 2017/078871; Force Reference Number: IX/00040/17 (3) Shan Panigrahi To Alex Simms 25 Mar 2017 at 8:31 To Alex Simms IPCC

Dear Mr Simms

1. I extracted the central argument upon which your assessment of 13 March 2017 was based and pointed out that this argument is not sustainable in the law of the United Kingdom where all human beings are treated equally before the law.

2. Further, since your email came to me after the expiry of the 24 hours notice for action on your part, the Judicial Review at the Administrative Court became effective before you sent me your email.

3. Thirdly, please clarify how this Case impacts on the consideration of my latest complaint against Kent Police that is being considered by the IPCC under IPCC Reference: 2017/082607: I need to know this so that I need not write to the IPCC again.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

Hide original message On Thursday, 23 March 2017, 10:15, Alex Simms wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi,

Thank you for your email, the contents of which are noted. Your non-recording appeal was not upheld on the basis that your complaint was considered to be an abuse of the complaints procedures. The rationale for not upholding your non-recording appeal was fully explained in my letter of 13 March 2017.

I understand that you are disappointed with this decision however as I explained this decision is final and there is no internal review or appeal process available. I would advise you to seek independent legal advice in respect of this matter if you remain dissatisfied.

Yours sincerely,

Alex Simms Assessment Analyst Operations Directorate Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) PO BOX 473 Sale M33 0BW

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 22 March 2017 09:51 To: Alex Simms Cc: Case Progression Administrative Court Office Subject: Your Reference: 2017/078871; Force Reference Number: IX/00040/17

To Alex Simms Assessment Analyst Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) Tel: 0121 673 3767 http://www.ipcc.gov.uk

Dear Mr Simms

1. Thank you for your letter dated13 March 2017 about my appeal against Kent Police which you received on 16 February 2017. I draw your attention to your final paragraph in which you state that I am unable to appeal your decision, but that if I had any questions or need more information about your decision I should contact you at the details given at the end of your letter.

2. I intend to subject the contents of your letter to a Judicial Review given that you were in possession of my 1 March 2017, 1.17 pm email sent to northcasework@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk and did not incoproate the findings that I reported, namely that the legal processes that you allude to in your report that preclude the consideration of a complaint against the Police internally are not sufficient due processes to address the complaint that is available to all members of society regarless of resources and other material factors including State-organised persecution. This is clear in the fact that the Maidstone Crown Court introduced strict warnings on me as the Appellant that caused me to abort and abandon this due legal process in view of the unlawful nature of the threatened warnings prior to a Hearing of the Mention to Fix Appeal.

3. Please address this issue within 24 hours or I shall take steps to have the matter judicially reviewed. I am copying this email to the Administrative Court in case I do not receive your reply within the time stipulated in view of ongoing proceedings that the Court needs to take into account.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi 3 Hoath Lane Wigmore Gillingham Kent ME8 0SL

______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

Reply Reply to All Forward More

13 April 2017 Update

The following correspondence took place:

Appeal Mention to Fix A20170027 46TY0039517 (10)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

maidstonecrowncourt

CC

Case Progression Administrative Court Office

13 Apr 2017 at 14:30

Dear J Morris

I must first have the report on the Judicial Review at the Administrative Court that I applied for to asses what possibilities remain for me to access justice.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Thursday, 13 April 2017, 14:11, maidstonecrowncourt <maidstonecrowncourt@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

Thank you for your email. The name of Judge your email was referred to is HHJ Griffith-Jones QC. If you wish you can contact The Registrar, Criminal Appeal Office, RCJ Strand London WC2A 2LL for relevant form as they are not kept by the crown court.

1. Morris General Office HMCTS Maidstone Crown Court ME16 8EQ Phone: 01622 202000 Email:maidstonecrowncourt@hmcts.gsi.gov.ukI am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually nor to make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means. This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 12 April 2017 12:03 To: maidstonecrowncourt Cc: nckentmc; Civil Appeals – Listing Subject: Re: Appeal Mention to Fix A20170027 46TY0039517

Dear Mr Brady

1. Thank you for your email concering the directions of the Judge.

2. Please provide me with the name of the Judge who made this Ruling as I intend to appeal the decision at the Court of Appeal on the grounds of inconsistencies in the Courts decisions since the Appeal was brought to the attention of Maidstone Crown Court. Please also send me the official Form for this Appeal to the Court of Appeal and the email address of the Court of Appeal for the Criminal Division – I had already approached the Civil Appeals Office and could not obtain this information.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Wednesday, 12 April 2017, 10:06, maidstonecrowncourt <maidstonecrowncourt@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi,

Your email to the court of 10 April 2017 has been referred to a judge who has directed a response in the following terms: the only proceedings before Maidstone Crown Court comprised your appeal against your conviction/sentence by the North Kent Magistrates Court on 23 February 2017 in respect of a speeding offence. By your email of 16 March 2017 you expressly abandoned your appeal. Any hearing dates in respect thereof were accordingly vacated. There are therefore no outstanding proceedings before Maidstone Crown Court. Moreover, there appears to be no basis for your appeal, having been abandoned, to be reinstated. The proceedings have therefore concluded. Insofar as your correspondence suggests an inclination to pursue other proceedings, no such proceedings are before this court. It follows that any enquiries which your may have should be directed elsewhere.

P Brady

Yours sincerely

Crown Admin

Maidstone Crown Court

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 10 April 2017 11:08 To: Maidstone Crown, Enquiries Cc: Brady, Sue; Paul R. Reddy; Enquiries Subject: Appeal Mention to Fix A20170027 46TY0039517

To

Maidstone Crown Court

Dear Sir

1. On 29 March 2017, I put up a number of items on an email on which I wished to prosecute Kent Police in submitting to the Court a tentative Case for the Prosecution as I reopened these proceedings, but I have heard nothing from your official Ms Sue Brady on the current state of play in the Appeal.

2. I believed that the Court had ruled that my private prosecution of Kent Police should proceed in accordance with the agreement reached with Ms Sue Brady during that email correspondence. In this regard, I have yet to be informed of the outcome of the Judicial Review of the specific points raised concerning Respondent’s Costs or Court Costs and other Orders that the Court might consider necessary should the prosecution fail to convict.

3. As agreed earlier if there is going to be any further proceedings on my Appeal I will need to instruct a lawyer to contact the Court given that I am unable to attend any Hearings on account of being on anti-psychotic medication. I am therefore copying this email to Slater and Gordon so that it may immediately inform me on whether it is willing to undertake the work in the Appeal. Mr Reddy should note that failure to reply again will this time result in a complaint being lodged against this Firm of Lawyers with the Legal Ombudsman who is also therefore being informed of this complaint by copy of this email.

4. Your immediate attention will be appreciated.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

Reply Reply to All Forward More

Further proceedings were as follows:

Sueing and prosecuting Kent Police in Civil and Criminal Courts (5)

Medway County, Enquiries <enquiries@medway.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk>

To

‘Shan Panigrahi’

13 Apr 2017 at 11:15

Good Morning,

If that is the case, this Court does not need to be included in these emails. You have said in your previous email that this Court needs to reconsider the primary applications which we cannot consider if there is no claim in place. Until an official verdict has been issued by the correct channels, we will not respond any further.

Regards,

Nic Gibson

Administrator & IT SPOC

Civil Section | HMCTS | The County Court at Medway| Anchorage House, 47 – 67 High Street , Chatham| ME4 4DW Phone: 01634 887914 Web: www.gov.uk/hmcts

Please note that I am not the direct administrator for your case and will not answer queries unless they are made through the enquires mailbox enquiries@medway.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 13 April 2017 10:28 To: Medway County , Enquiries Cc: nckentmc ; Legal Services HQ Kent Subject: Re: Suinng and prosecuting Kent Police in Civil and Criminal Courts

Dear Ms Gibson

This is a criminal matter in which the Chief Constable of Kent Police is personally to be held liable for the work of Kent Police. It is not appropriate for processing at Medway County Court until after the North Kent Magistrates Court/Medway Magistrates Court has made a ruling and its processing has been completed to determine whether Chief Constable of Kent Police is convicted or not and the nature of the sentence imposed on him and his organisation. Only after that process is completed can Medway County Court can enforce any costs and damages recommended by the Magistrates Court to the Applicant, that is to myself.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Thursday, 13 April 2017, 9:56, ” Medway County , Enquiries ” <enquiries@medway.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Good Morning Mr Panigrahi,

In regards to your email, the Court still has not received any Claim Forms. The Court cannot act on an informal approach such as an email in regards to issuing a claim and you have been told this on several occasions. The proceedings must be issued on the correct forms so that a proper case can be established and that the Defendant can consider the issues contained therein.

Many Regards,

Nic Gibson

Administrator & IT SPOC

Civil Section | HMCTS | The County Court at Medway| Anchorage House, 47 – 67 High Street , Chatham| ME4 4DW Phone: 01634 887914 Web: www.gov.uk/hmcts

Please note that I am not the direct administrator for your case and will not answer queries unless they are made through the enquires mailbox enquiries@medway.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 13 April 2017 08:50 To: Medway County , Enquiries ; nckentmc Cc: Civil Appeals – Listing; Criminal Appeal Office, General Office; maidstonecrowncourt Subject: Suinng and prosecuting Kent Police in Civil and Criminal Courts

To

(1) Medway County Court

(2) North Kent Magistrates Court/Medway Magistrates Court

Dear Sirs

1. I attach the directions of a Judge at the Maidstone Crown Court concerning my private prosecution of Kent Police for a number of issues that the Police has not responded to, and nor has the Independent Police Complaints Commission to whom my complaint against Kent Police was referred.

2. The direction of the Judge is clearly that I should take my proceedings elswhere. This can only be either at the local Magistrates Court or the local County Court.

3. The Medway County Court was approached last autumn with a submission against Kent Police that I described as being a Counter Claim for £5 million pounds of damages suffered by me. The Court took no action.

4. In February 2017 I lodged a counter prosecution of Kent Police on a speeding offence and whilst the Court showed an inclination to take my prosecution seriously, there has been no response to the application despite a reminder sent yesterday.

5. The matter was referred to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) to examine and there has been no response from that court. Similarly I have yet to hear from the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal to the application lodged yesterday late afternoon.

6. Unless either of the Medway County Court and the North Kent Magistrates Court reconsider the primary applications submitted, I am left with no conclusion other than the fact that a citizen is being denied the opportunity to sue and prosecute his local Police Force for damages and conviction/sentencing which I consider this to be a gross infringement of my human rights under the Human Rights Act to live in a safe environment and so wish to take this Case to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom for adjudication.

7. Your immediate attention will be greatly appreciated.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

.

March 29, 2017 Posted by shantanup | Uncategorized | Leave a comment