Dr Shantanu Panigrahi discusses the British Justice System with the Cabinet Office of the United Kin
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi discusses the British Justice System with the Cabinet Office of the United Kingdom
I have had some preliminary discussions with the government through email correspondence concerning the failings of the British Justice System. Some of this is already reported here: http://discussionforumfortruthseekers.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/misfeasance-in-public-office-at-the-royal-courts-of-justice-london/. This needs to be updated.
On 18 March 4.54 pm I received an email from Cabinet Office Public Correspondence – Parliamentary and Correspondence Team (in reply to my 30 January 2014, 17.42 hours email addressed to Nick Clegg at firstname.lastname@example.org – see the above link) as follows:
Thank you for your email. Your case is currently being looked into and the reference is TO615415. We hope to have a formal reply to you soon, Kind regards, Louise: Tel 020 7276 0527.
I replied on 25 March 2014 at 11.17 am as follows:
To Louise Cabinet Office Public Correspondence – Parliamentary and Correspondence Team 1. Thank you for agreeing to look into the processing of my complaint on the handling of my report to Kent Police of internet malicious communication harassment crimes from a ‘Phands’ and a Nick Clegg (the Deputy Prime Minister) impersonator (?)) by the Independent Police Complaints Authority and the Administrative Court of the Royal Courts of Justice, and the subsequent advice of the Crown Prosecution Service on how this Misfeasance in Public Office (the Court Service) is to be dealt with under the current law and the Constitution of the United Kingdom.
2. If you would please le me know the date by which I can expect to receive your formal reply on this matter, I would be most grateful.
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
No reply was received from Louise. However on 8 April 2014 at 3.09 pm I received an email from the Criminal and Civil Law Policy Unit (CLPU) at the Ministry of Justice from CLPUCorrespondence@justice.gsi.gov.uk as follows: Dear Dr Panigrahi Please find attached a reply to your email of 30 January to the Deputy Prime Minister about Misfeasance in Public Office, Kind Regards. Reference TO14/1417. The attachment was:
Dear Dr Panigrahi Thank you for your email of 30 January to the Deputy Prime Minister about misfeasance in public office. Your email has been passed to the Criminal and Civil Law Policy Unit of the Ministry of Justice to reply. You will appreciate I am unable to comment on your specific case, but I can comment on general aspects of the law.
Misfeasance in public office is a tort and is an action against the holder of a public office, alleging in essence that the office-holder has misused or abused their power. The claimant must establish that specific loss or damage has been suffered. Should you wish to consider bringing such a civil claim I would suggest you seek legal advice on the options which may be available.
Your letter calls for misfeasance in public office to become a criminal offence, or alternatively, for a special body to be set up to investigate cases and make recommendations to the Crown Prosecution Service as to the appropriate disposal of a complaint.
There are a number of offences that may be applicable where misconduct in public office has occurred. These include the criminal offences of fraud and bribery, and the common law offence of misconduct in public office. As there are already offences available, I can confirm that the Government currently has no plans to change the law in this area.
I hope you find this information helpful.
Yours sincerely Criminal and Civil Law Policy Unit.
I replied as follows:
From: Shan Panigrahi Sent: 08 April 2014 15:55 To: CLPU, Correspondence Subject: Re: TO14/1417 – Misfeasance in Public Office To Criminal and Civil Law Policy Unit
Thank you for your letter where you state in paragraph 4 that: there are a number of offences that are already offences available where misconduct in public office has occurred which includes the common law offence of misconduct in public office.
Please therefore inform me on who is currently investigating the following two cases of misconduct in public office: (a) against Mr Nitin Dodhia of the Administrative Court at the Royal Courts of Justice; (b) against the Court Manager of Medway Country Court with regard to the non-enforcement of my N244 Application Notice dated 17 March 2014 on Claim Number ME010463.
Thank you for your further assistance.
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
The Ministry of Justice replied with:
On Wednesday, 9 April 2014, 9:47, “CLPU, Correspondence” wrote: Dear Dr Panigrahi,
Thank you for your further email. The Criminal and Civil Law Policy Unit does not hold this information and we are not able to assist further. You may wish to contact the Police, Crown Prosecution Service or HM Courts and Tribunal Service about your query.
Criminal and Civil Law Policy Unit Reference: TO14/1417
This evening I forwarded this correspondence back to the Cabinet Office under TO615415 Proceedings giving my name address and mobile phone number as follows:
Shan Panigrahi To email@example.com 7 May 2014 at 6:09 PM Dear Louise
I did not receive your reply to my last email but wondered if it was directed to the Ministry of Justice to deal with. In case this is so the Cabinet Office needs to be more specific than the Ministry of Justice has been on who is dealing with this matter, whether it is the Police, the Crown Prosecution Service or some special part of the HM Courts and Tribunal Service that I should approach now.
Can you advise urgently please?
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
18 May 2014 Update: There has been no communication back to me from the Cabinet Office. However, on 16 May 2014, I received a communication dated 15 May 2014 in the post from Medway County Court informing me of its decision to fix a Hearing on 16 October 2014 with regard to my 17 March 2014-dated N244 Application Notice (see https://shantanup.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/alexander-barristers-chambers-is-reported-to-the-legal-ombudsman-for-racial-discrimination/) that it sent back to me with this communication. The communication also required me to ‘lodge with the Court not less than 7 days before the application a bundle of Court papers, witness statements and pleadings in the original case’.
I replied to the Court immediately by email that I did not agree to the 16 October 2014 Hearing, requiring the Case to be decided without a Hearing, and would only submit two specific pieces of documentary evidence, one of which I sent as an attachment document to this email to the Court (being my correspondence with the University of Greenwich between 4 February 2014 and 22 February 2014), and the other would be, in due course, a doctors certificate on my present medical condition if the Court agrees to this representation to reconsider the matter.
6 June 2014 Update: Medway County Court sent me a letter dated 5 June 2014 in the post as follows:
Dear Sir/Madam Re: Case Number: ME010463 Dr Shantanu Panigrahi v The University of Greenwich Your email letter dated 16 May 2012 was placed before District Judge Green who has made the following comments According to the Court Record, no steps were taken in this matter between 16 November 2007 and the receipt of your email of 11 March 2014. In accordance with Court policy the Court file relating to the case has been destroyed and accordingly the Court requires the bundle which the Judge has directed that the Claimant files. If the bundle is not filed the Court will not be able to deal with the Application and may indeed strike it out. Yours sincerely, Court Section
I replied immediately to the Court with the following email:
RE: ME010463 Proceedings: Dr Shantanu Panigrahi vs The University of Greenwich (2) Me To firstname.lastname@example.org 6 June 2014 at 12:32 PM To The Court Manager The County Court at Medway Anchorage House 47-67 High Street Chatham Kent ME4 4DW
Dear Sir or Madam 1. Thank you for your letter dated 5 June 2014 stating that ‘if the bundle is not filed the Court will not be able to deal with my 17 March 2014-dated N244 Application and may indeed strike it out’. I do not want this to happen at any cost so have prepared the attached bundle (ME010463ProceedingsBundle) to provide whatever information that the court requires from me through emails on the history of my grievances. 2. The bundle I have prepared and sent to the Court today is based on my understanding of District Judge Green’s requirements for a judgment in this case. Please examine this and let me know if it meets with the Court’s approval in terms of content or if I need to submit any other specific evidence and statements to assist the Court into arriving at a just decision. 3. I should be grateful if you would please make an immediate decision on ME010463 because I am struggling again to make ends meet with only temporary part-time employment in my state of chronic mental illness so that the University must be forced to place me on medical retirement now by the Court’s judgment.
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi (Claimant)
• 1 Attachment • ME010463ProceedingsBundle.docx (https://shantanup.wordpress.com/2014/06/06/bundle-document-of-me010463-associated-evidence-submitted-to-medway-county-court/)
I received a reply from Medway County Court as follows:
On Friday, 6 June 2014, 12:44, “Medway County, Enquiries” wrote: Your email which was received today will not be printed for the following reason/s: 1. We cannot print more than 10 pages of an email 2. It is not the Court’s responsibility to produce a parties bundle.
I replied with the following email:
RE: ME010463 Proceedings: Dr Shantanu Panigrahi vs The University of Greenwich (5) Me To Medway County, Enquiries 6 June 2014 at 1:01 PM To Medway County Court
Please forward my email to District Judge Green for his approval of the contents from a visual examination of the attachment document of the bundle (ME010463ProceedingsBundle.docx) on his computer terminal. Only if the bundle meets with the requirements of the Court, will there be any point is going through the expense, time and effort of sending a hard copy of it through the post. I hope this is acceptable to the Court. If not please let me know.
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
A reply came back from Medway County Court as follows:
On Friday, 6 June 2014, 14:12, ” Medway County , Enquiries” wrote: The Court cannot approve your Bundle and will be unable to forward the email to District Judge Green for his examination due to the Court remaining unbiased to all parties.
I replied with the following email:
From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: 06 June 2014 15:09 To: Medway County , Enquiries; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: ME010463 Proceedings: Dr Shantanu Panigrahi vs The University of Greenwich To Medway County Court I wish to appeal against this decision of the Court on the grounds that the bundle that I have submitted by email as blogged here for the attention of The University of Greenwich (https://shantanup.wordpress.com/2014/06/06/bundle-document-of-me010463-associated-evidence-submitted-to-medway-county-court/) to whom I am copying this email for fairness is part of my application of seeking permission to proceed with Case ME010463 in accordance with my 17 March 2014-dated N244 Application. Yours sincerely
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
Medway County Court replied with the following email:
On Friday, 6 June 2014, 15:13, “Medway County, Enquiries” wrote: Unfortunately unless you are willing to pay for the printing of such a large document for your hearing the Court cannot either produce the bundle for you or have a District Judge check the contents. The fee for printing is £10 for the first ten sheets then £1 per sheet thereafter
I responded with the following reply:
RE: ME010463 Proceedings: Dr Shantanu Panigrahi vs The University of Greenwich (11) Me To Medway County, Enquiries 6 June 2014 at 4:06 PM To Medway County Court I will pay for the printing costs, but there will be no Hearing as my N244 Application Notice states categorically that the Case must be decided without a hearing. Please let me know the total amount that I need to send a cheque for. Yours sincerely Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
7 June 2014 Update: For an update on associated matters, see: https://shantanup.wordpress.com/2014/06/07/reporting-ineffective-policing-and-an-ineffective-independent-police-complaints-commission-to-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom/
9 June 2014 Update: This morning the following email came from Medway County Court:
On Monday, 9 June 2014, 8:49, ” Medway County , Enquiries” wrote: Further to your email sent 6 June 2014. Due to the volume of papers within your bundle, the Court staff requested directions from the District Judge who states that it is not for the Court to produce a bundle for any party. Therefore, in this instance, we will be unable to print any documents. Also, with regards to the Application being heard with the main claim on 16 October 2014 at 11AM, this was as directed by a District Judge who having read the application, set it down to be heard on 16 October 2014.
I replied as follows:
From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: 09 June 2014 09:33 To: Medway County , Enquiries Subject: Re: ME010463 Proceedings: Dr Shantanu Panigrahi vs The University of Greenwich To Medway County Court 1. There will be no further submissions of any kind from me and I will not attend any Hearings at any time so that judgement should be passed accordingly now. 2. Any decision to strike out my 17 March 2014 Application Notice will be challenged on the grounds that the Court’s demands on me have been unnecessary, unfair and unreasonable in the context of the fact that all the Court needed to do was to assess the law to determine whether the University of Greenwich was justified in denying me medical retirement before October 1998 based on the fact that both my Bundle and the 4-20 February 2014 submissions have gone undefended. Yours sincerely Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
The Court replied with the following email:
ME010463 Proceedings: Dr Shantanu Panigrahi vs The University of Greenwich Medway County, Enquiries To Me 9 June 2014 at 9:43 AM Further to your email received 9:33AM 9 June 2014. The email will be printed and placed on the file in readiness for the hearing.
16 June 2014 Update For my final communication to the Cabinet Office (unless a direct reply is received), see: https://shantanup.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/grounds-for-turning-down-the-offer-of-being-a-governor-at-a-school-in-the-united-kingdom/.
4 August 2014 Update: This evening after waiting for information that did not arrive I sent the following email to the Ministry of Justice:
Subject: Transfer of Case TO615415 from the Cabinet Office to the Ministry of Justice Me To CLPU Correspondence (CLPUCorrespondence@justice.gsi.gov.uk) 4 August 2014 at 10:27 PM To The Ministry of Justice 10.37 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ CLPUCorrespondence@justice.gsi.gov.uk 4 August 2014 Dear Sir/Madam 1. I have been informed by Louise in the Cabinet Office (Public Correspondence Office) that the Cabinet Office has transferred its Case No TO615415 to the Ministry of Justice for action. 2. Please let me know the current progress of developments. Yours sincerely Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
I then forwarded this email back to Louise in the Cabinet office with the following covering note:
Transfer of Case TO615415 from the Cabinet Office to the Ministry of Justice (2) Me To firstname.lastname@example.org 4 August 2014 Today at 11:35 PM To Cabinet Office Dear Louise Did I use the right email address at the Ministry of Justice to obtain an update on this? – if I have not please forward this email to the correct email address at the Ministry of Justice or send their email address to me by return email. Yours sincerely Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
9 August 2014 Update: There has been no reply from Louise from the Cabinet office but a reply came from CLPU (Ministry of Justice) enclosing the same letter that it sent to me on 8 April 2014, 3.09 pm (see above) as follows:
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014, 17:11, “CLPU, Correspondence” wrote: Dear Dr Panigrahi It is not clear from your email below what correspondence your query relates to (Cabinet Office and MoJ use different reference numbers). I have checked our system and I have found one response letter on file that was sent to you in April this year about misfeasance in a public office a copy of which I attach for your information. If your query is about a different matter could you please provide a copy and we will be able to respond accordingly. Thank you Angela Tel: 0203 334 3204 Angela Wright |Criminal and Civil Law Policy Unit.| 6.24, 102 Petty France.| London SW1H 9AJ.| DX 152380 W estminster 8
I replied with the following email copied to the Cabinet Office:
Transfer of Case TO615415 from the Cabinet Office to the Ministry of Justice (4) Me To CLPU, Correspondence; email@example.com 9 August 2014 at 6:07 PM To Angela Wright CLPU Dear Ms Wright 1. The Criminal and Civil Law Policy Unit in 6.24 is clearly not the correct Department in the Ministry of Justice to deal with Case TO615415. The matter should have been forwarded by you to the Department in 10.37. 2. I have asked the Cabinet Office for the email address of that Department but so far it has not responded. This is about action to be taken on three on-going proceedings: Greenwich Legalities, Internet Complaint and UKIP Proceedings as explained to the Cabinet Office in my email of 3 July 2014 at 14.50 hours. 3. Someone seems to be prevaricating to prevent the just disposal of these proceedings. Is that person Louise? Yours sincerely Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
18 August 2014 Update: As no replies came from the Cabinet Office or the Ministry of Justice, I sent the following email to Medway County Court:
RE: ME010463 Proceedings: Dr Shantanu Panigrahi vs The University of Greenwich; Hearing of 16 October 2014 at Medway County Court (2) Me To firstname.lastname@example.org 16 August 2014 at 6:20 PM To The Court Manager Medway County Court Medway Civil and Family Court Anchorage House 47-67 High Street Chatham Kent ME4 4DW
Dear Sir or Madam
1. I wish to add another item to the Bundle document (see https://shantanup.wordpress.com/2014/06/06/bundle-document-of-me010463-associated-evidence-submitted-to-medway-county-court/) that I submitted to Medway County Court by email in preparation for the Hearing on 16 October 2014; a hard copy of which will be posted in time for the Hearing as required by the Court since it has apparently been approved by the District Judge responsible for this case – unless I hear from you to the contrary.
2. Please see the attached document that I wish to add to this Bundle for the Hearing and confirm to me that the Hearing will take place as scheduled on 16 October 2014 at 11.00 am.
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi (Claimant) • 1 Attachment • ToUniversityofGreenwich(DisclaimerforReferee)15Aug2014.docx
The printed Bundle documents were posted to Medway Couny Court by first class recorded delivery today. There was no immediate reply from Medway County Court to the email sent. I now wait to see what the Court decides.
18 October 2014 Update: I have this morning received a General Form of Judgment or Order from Medway County Court on Claim No ME0101463 dated 16 October 2014 as follows: Before District Judge Wilkinson sitting at the County Court at Medway, Medway Civil and Family Court, Anchorage House, 4767 High Street, Chatham, Kent ME4 4DW. Upon neither party attending It is ordered that the Claimant’s application is dismissed. Dated 16 October 2014.
Comment: The Case was a simple one and all the evidence was supplied by me to the Court in my Bundle document. I had nothing more to add by my presence at the Hearing. The case for medical retirement was simply made and there was nothing to elaborate on it given that it went undefended by the University of Greenwich. The other injustices of the University of Greenwich are also clear in my Blog where the bundle document is published.
My complaint to the Cabinet Office against the court officials of Medway County Court for the non-enforcement of this Application Notice that is apparently being dealt with at the Ministry of Justice therefore stands. I will let due process resolve this matter through a fresh case that I have submitted to the High Court in London yesterday against the University of Greenwich on the issue of intentional defamation on which Medway County Court has also ignored my pleas. I sent an email back to Medway County Court as follows:
General Form of Judgment of Order dated 16 October 2014 in Claim ME010463 Me To email@example.com 18 October 2014 at 6:52 PM To The Court Manager Medway Civil and Family Court Anchorage House 47-67 High Street Chatham Kent ME4 4DW Dear Sir or Madam 1. I am writing about the General Form of Judgment or Order dated 16 October 2014 in Claim No ME010463 which states: Before District Judge Wilkinson sitting at the County Court at Medway, Medway Civil and Family Court, Achorage House, 47-67 High Street, Chatham, Kent ME4 4DW: Upon neither party attending, It is Ordered That The Claimant’s application is dismissed. Dated 16 October 2014. 2. I strongly disagree that the Claimant’s application can be dismissed legally just because neither party attended the above Hearing. The onus was on the University of Greenwich to provide a defence to the arguments and evidence contained in the Bundle documents that I submitted to the Court by writing to the Court with its counter arguments and evidence in order that I could have prior notice of their position or by being present at the Hearing to put forward these counter arguments. Since it did neither of these things my Claim has gone undefended and therefore cannot be dismissed by the Judge. 3. Of course, it is quite possible that in even in the absence of any counter arguments to my Application by the University of Greenwich, Judge Wilkinson has himself made the decision that my Bundle did not provide him with sufficient evidence that I had been very medically ill and thus according to its own official procedures the University was obliged to place me on medical retirement instead subjecting me to disciplinary action for my behaviour. If this is the Case, I wish the Court to review its decision by seeking the opinion of an independent psychiatrist or my own doctor on my medical condition before restoring my Application Notice. 4. If the Court will not review its decision on this basis, please provide me with full written reasons so that I may consider pursuing an Appeal in the High Court. 5. In the meantime, please be informed that I have applied to the High Court (please see the attached Claim Form) to pursue a claim for intentional defamation by the University of Greenwich as this issue is not the subject of the above Application Notice. Yours sincerely Dr Shantanu Panigrahi Claimant • 1 Attachment • ClaimForm-HighCourt(completed).pdf
29 October 2014 Update: The full written reasons of Medway County Court for dismissing my application were not sent to me despite my request. I have accordingly issued fresh proceedings this time at the High Court as blogged here: https://shantanup.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/fresh-proceedings-issued-by-dr-shantanu-panigrahi-at-the-high-court-against-the-university-of-greenwich/.
30 October 2014 Update: I had not received any communication from the Ministry of Justice since receiving this email from Mr Emman at the Cabinet office:
T0615415 Proceedings (3) On Monday, 22 September 2014, 9:29, Public Correspondence – Cabinet Office wrote:
This was transferred to MOJ on 7 April 2014.
Many Thanks [Emman] Correspondence Team, PCT, Cabinet Office, Room LG20, 70 Whitehall SW1A 2AS T: GTN 7276 0527/0523 F: GTN 7276 0514 E: firstname.lastname@example.org
Since all my communications with various institutions were seemingly now over, I sent a reminder to the Cabinet office yesterday as follows:
T0615415 Proceedings Me To Public Correspondence – Cabinet Office 29 October 2014 at 11:48 AM To Mr Emman Dear Sir, Since I wrote to you last I have encountered another major problem with the justice system of this country, namely the work of the Ashford Employment Tribunal Service. Would you kindly request the Ministry of Justice to include the Shell Tribunal matter also in its investigation of the areas of complaints that I have reported to you under your Case number TO615415? Yours sincerely Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
The details of the Shell Tribunal matter are set out here: https://shantanup.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/dugdale-solicitors-silence-on-dr-shantanu-panigrahis-employment-grievance-at-temple-farm-limited-a-shell-uk-ltd-business/.
9 December 2014 Update I received a document from Medway County Court this morning in the post to which I sent the following email in reply:
RE: General Form of Judgment of Order dated 8 December 2014; ME010463: Dr Shantanu Panigrahi v The University of Greenwich (2) me To email@example.com 9 December 2014 at 6:21 PM To The Court Manager Medway County Court Medway Civil and Family Court Anchorage House 47-67 High Street, Chatham Kent ME4 4DW Dear Sir/Madam 1. Thank you for sending me the General Form of Judgment or Order dated 8 December 2014 in Claim No ME010463 (in response presumably to my request to the Court for the full written reasons for the Order of 16 October 2014 from District Judge Wilkinson), stating: It is ordered that ‘The Court Order is quite clear, in the absence of any party at Court when the Claimant’s application had been listed for a hearing and the application being inmeritorious on its face in the absence of any further information the application was dismissed’. 2. I beg to state that this is not an adequate explanation that can be allowed to form the basis of the Order of 16 October 2014 to dismiss the application: what I have requested District Judge Wilkinson to do, as part of the full written reasons for the Order of 16 October 2014 and in order that I may consider appealing that Order, is to inform me in what way was my application ‘inmeritorious on its face’ in light of the fact all the evidence of my on-going medical treatment had been provided in the 56-page Bundle document that I submitted to the Court for the Judge to consider as the evidence needed for me to assert my employment rights under University of Greenwich own procedures, and as expressed to the University, to be placed on medical retirement instead of being subjected to the harassment of the disciplinary action that it took against me given that the University had plenty of timely notice of my medical condition from the summer of 1998. The Court was also made aware that I am still undergoing the same medical treatment (under medication) for mental illness 16 years later so that it was a chronic illness that I suffered from. On what basis was this submission of the Application Notice inmeritorious especially in the absence of a defence from the Respondent to this application? 3. I would therefore request Judge Wilksinson to immediately review his decision and make an Order that the University must pay me the approximately £10,000 medical retirement pay annually from October 1998 without the need for another Hearing. Yours sincerely Dr Shantanu Panigrahi