top of page

Judge Hildebrand’s Competence to deal with my Complaint as Investigating Judicial Officer

6 May 2015

With regard to my complaints to the government on the handling of my civil cases on Shell Tribunal and Greenwich Legalities at the Employment Tribunal and Medway County Court a Judge by the name of Judge Hildebrand was appointed as Investigating Judicial Officer. Following correspondence that got nowhere in terms of the reconsideration of the decision to dismiss the Shell Tribunal cases, I sent this Judge the following email through his Personal Secretary Ms Anna Klodnicka questioning his competence to be acting in this role:

Judge Hildebrand’s Competence to deal with my Complaint as Investigating Judicial Officer From: Shan Panigrahi

To Klodnicka Anna (TS Croydon) 19 May 2015 at 7:44 PM

To Judge Hildebrand Investigating Judicial Officer By Email:

Dear Sir 1. I refer to our correspondence concerning my complaint of 28 April 2015 to Ms Lauren Wood, HMCTS, Customer Service Team. 2. Please let the President of the Employment Tribunals (England & Wales) Judge B. Doyle of Victory House, 30-34 Kingsway, London WC2B 6EX, know that I am now satisfied that your letters to me concerning this matter as conveyed by your PS Ms Anna Klodnicka give me sufficient grounds to lodge a formal complaint to him that you are not competent to be dealing with this matter. 3. Please forward all the correspondence and the Case Files to Judge Doyle for him to make a decision on this complaint. Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

The State appointed this Judge to do a hatchet job on me. His latest email came hours after I had sent the following reply to the Ministry of Justice:

FW: CCLPU – TO14/1417 Dr Panigrahi Response (2)

Shan Panigrahi


CLPU, Correspondence

19 May 2015 at 7:44 AM


Ms Julia Fulcher

Criminal Law and legal Policy Unit

Dear Ms Fulcher

1. I cannot take out a case against Kent Police in a civil claim for its inaction on my report of a criminal conspiracy against me by court officials and respondents on the Shell Tribunal and Greenwich Legalities issues because my past experience on the Internet Complaint matter has shown that the civil courts will ignore the application to protect other parts of the judicial system. In light of this evidence the government’s decision not to change the law to compel the Police to take action against court officials is wholly wrong. Judge Kurrein and Judge Wilkinson are therefore going free to perpetrate more injustices on people in their handling of civil claims.

2. It is clear to me that Mr Cameron’s decision on TO615415 displays that the Conservative Party will only act in ways that protect the business community as against the human rights interests of ordinary citizens as their employees. Your email teaches me that the Conservative Party exists to conserve all that is wrong in society and is therefore rightly known by the population as the nasty party. I regret having voted for Mr Rehman Chishti at the local and national election on May 7 thinking that I could trust Mr David Cameron to put justice at the heart of government policy.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

Show original message

On Monday, 18 May 2015, 9:46, “CLPU, Correspondence” <> wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi,

I have been asked to reply your email of 16 April addressed to Mr Vara.

We can only reply to your further query about making misfeasance into a criminal offence. We had replied to you by email on 8 April 2014 about this (ref TO14/1417).

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 that 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 the holder of a public office is alleged to have committed misconduct. 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.

Yours sincerely

Julia Fulcher


23 May 2015 Update:

This morning I have sent the following email to Judge Hildebrand:

Referral of a complaint to Judge Doyle

From: Shan Panigrahi


Klodnicka Anna (TS Croydon)

23 May 2015 at 11:26 AM


Judge Hildebrand

1. Please find attached my letter to Judge Doyle sent at 8.00 am by first class post this morning.

2. I trust you will find it self-explanatory when considered with the contents of the following blogpost:

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

1 Attachment: ToJudgeDoyle(President)23May2015.docx

The covering letter to Judge Doyle stated:

Dear Judge Doyle


Please investigate my complaint that Judge Hildebrand has been biased against me on behalf of the State in dealing with my complaint as referred to in the attached documentation.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

4 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Final Internet Archive Uploads 26 May 2024

Final Internet Archive Uploads 26 May 2024 ____________________________________________________________________ 1.

Information Received - Review Letter - OTP-CR-76/22

Information Received - Review Letter - OTP-CR-76/22 Inbox from: OTP InformationDesk <> to: "" <> date:


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page