top of page

Misfeasance in Public Office at the Royal Courts of Justice London?

February 1, 2014

With regard to the following judicial proceedings (: that came to an abrupt end, I made an initial enquiry at the Crown Prosecution Service of the United Kingdom with an email as follows:

Misfeaseance in Public Office From Shantanu Panigrahi To

Jan 18 at 9:55 AM

To South East Area Operations Centre CPS South East Area Headquarters Priory Gate 29 Union Street Maidstone ME14 1PT

18 January 2014

Dear Crown Prosecution Service,

I am writing this email as a preliminary enquiry on whether the lack of a reply in the form of an explanation from Mr Nitin Dodhia of the Administrative Court in the Royal Courts of Justice, London to the attached letter that I sent him gives sufficient grounds to consider if there has been an incident of Misfeaseance in Public Office, and whether the you are able to deal with this matter.

Thank you for your anticipated reply.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

When no acknowledgement came I made a detailed case in the form of an application to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider whether I was the victim of an incident of Misfeasance in Public Office and sent it be first class recorded delivery in the post. My full application to the Crown Prosecution Service was as follows:

To Crown Prosecution Service Kent Division Maidstone office Priory Gate 29 Union Street Maidstone Kent ME14 1PT Tel: 01622 356300 General Fax: 01622 356348

21 January 2014

Dear Sir/Madam,

Misfeasance in Public Office

I sent you the attached email but then read that you are unable to enter into email communications with me concerning my complaint. I am therefore sending my submission to you by post. As you will note from these documents there are two issues processed by Kent Police that formed the subject of the Judicial Review application that I sought permission to proceed with at the Administrative Court of the Royal Courts of Justice, London. The first concerned the crime of internet stalking harassment by a person called ‘phands’, and the second concerned a malicious internet communication from a person apparently pretending to be the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Nick Clegg. My complaint to you is that Mr Nitin Dodhia of the Adminstrative Court has blocked these issues from being adjudicated upon by a Judge thereby preventing the determination of the law of the United Kingdom on these matters. This is a serious denial of justice and I ask you therefore to consider charging Mr Nitin Dodhia with ‘misfeasance in public office’.

In bringing this complaint I should draw your attention to my view that it was wrong of Kent Police to say that the fraudulent malicious communication from a person pretending to be the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Nick Clegg did not result in any ‘gain’ for the person sending the material and did not constitute fraud. The gain was in political capital in that he/she was countering my criticisms of Liberal Democrats policies thereby affecting the electoral fortunes of Party members and that of Mr Nick Clegg himself. As such the person responsible needs to be identified by the Police with a view to prosecuting him/her for impersonating as well as violating my rights in breach of the Harassment Act as well as the Telecommunications Act. The Administrative Court had a responsibility to pass judgement on the legality of the decision taken by Kent Police (and the IPCC) that it was under no statutory obligation to identify and interview the culprit for the crime of fraudulent malicious internet communication. Further, as things stand I have only Gordon Seeking’s (a Liberal Democrats official) view that an imposter was responsible. The Police should have interviewed Mr Nick Clegg to confirm that this was the case. It failed in that simple all important task (just like it failed to interview phands). The Court was under obligation to establish the truth. If it turns out that Mr Nick Clegg did write or authorise the comments he should face court action for setting out to maliciously denigrate my website in an unjustified attack by describing the contents as abhorrent and suggesting further that taking advice from the author of website that the Party should promote a referendum on UK’s membership of the European Union would lead to the disintegration of the Liberal Democrats Party. It is the Police’s responsibility to identify unknown criminals. Mr Dodhia’s refusal to proceed with permission for judicial review of my case prevented these matters from being considered by the due process of Her Majesty’s Court Service.

Please therefore consider this matter urgently and let me have your decision on whether to press charges against Mr Nitin Dodhia for misfeasance in public office, or let me know which institution is responsible for considering this matter.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would not make any comment on whether there had been a criminal offence in this case, stating that it did not investigate anything but only prosecuted crimes that have been previously investigated by other government departments, which would include the police. The CPS refused to forward the application to the appropriate government department for investigation as I had requested in a follow-up email, and returned all the papers that I received in the post this morning (1st February 2014), including the envelope with the recorded delivery sticker and stamped that I had sent my application in.

When I saw that the CPS was not acting on the application I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister at the Contact the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office as follows:

Dear Deputy Prime Minister

I am writing to you concerning my view the that ‘Misfeasance in Public Office’ should be made a criminal offence when perpetrated by an official of Her Majesty’s Court Service and that this matter should be investigated by the Crown Prosecution Service taking submissions directly from the members of the public. Alternatively, a special body be established that would investigate such cases and make recommendations to the Crown Prosecution Service for the appropriate disposal of a complaint.

This suggestion comes from my recent experience in which the Crown Prosecution Service was asked to consider charging Mr Nitin Dodhia of the Administrative Court of the Royal Courts of Justice but refused to consider on the grounds that the complaint had not come from another institution of the State, such as the Police or the Home Office or some other government body. The CPS was unable to tell me who to send my complaint to.

Anticipating a quick reply

Shantanu Sent at 13.53 hours 30 Jan 2014; repeated 13.56 hrs.

When I did not receive an acknowledgement I sent the following email to Mr Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister:

On Thursday, 30 January 2014, 17:48, Shan Panigrahi wrote: To Right Hon Mr Nick Clegg Parliament: House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA Tel: 020 7219 3000 Departmental: Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall, London, SW1A 2AS Tel: 020 7276 1234

30 January 2014

Dear Mr Clegg


Earlier this afternoon I sent the attached letter online to you as the Deputy Prime Minister through your ‘Contact the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office’ website point but then reading the small print on the site realised that I might not receive an acknowledgement of the letter and the course you are pursuing on the issues raised by my email. I very much need your office’s acknowledgement of my letter for legal reasons and am therefore sending you this reminder to your official addresses (whichever one is applicable) in order that you will request your staff to expedite my complaint and to let me know the decision that is taken.

I hope to receive your reply within 7 days.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

There was still no acknoweldgement and since I had by now received a final reply from the Crown Prosecution Service, I wrote again to Mr Nick Clegg, as follows:

On Friday, 31 January 2014, 10:48, Shan Panigrahi wrote: Dear Deputy Prime Minister

1. I have just received a letter from Mr Kevin Molony, District Crown Prosecutor, CPS, Eastern District, Canterbury Team, Riding Gate House, 37 Old Dover Road, Canterbury Kent CT1 3JG, dated 29 January 2014 (but post marked 30 January 2014), which reads as follows:

”Dear Doctor Panigrahi

Thank you for your email of 28 January, which has been referred to me for a response. Your attached letter indicates that you wish to make an allegation of Misfeasance in Public Office against a member of staff at Her Majesty’s Court Service. The role of the Crown Prosecution Service is to conduct prosecutions, but not investigations. Any such allegation would need to be investigated fully before it could be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service. Normally the police conduct investigations and only if they are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence do they refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Accordingly, I regret to inform you that the Crown Prosecution Service cannot assist you with your enquiry.

Yours sincerely”

2. I attach my full application made to the Crown Prosecution Service in order to demonstrate that since the Police itself is the subject of the court proceedings that should have been dealt with by Mr Nitin Dodhia of the Adminstration Court of the Royal Court of Justice in this case, the Police is not the appropriate body to investigate my complaint his Misfeasance in Public Office, and therefore, the complaint should be passed to some other government Department for investigation. In the past I had emailed Mrs Theresa May to inform the Home Office of earlier developments in this case before it reached the court but I did not receive any reply from her (please see attached).

3. In light of the above please consider who should deal with my complaint and let me know your decision.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

The letter that I had referred to as having sent to the Home Secretary earlier was the following:

Wed, 17 Jul 2013 at 10:54 Subject: Independent Police Complaints Commission 1 From Shan Panigrahi To • 1 Attachment • 11.6KB • Save to • doc ‎ToIPCC11July2013.docx 11KB Save

To Rt Hon Theresa May MP House of Commons London SW1A 0AA Tel: 020 7219 5206 Fax: 020 7219 1145 17 July 2013

Dear Home Secretary

On the basis of the attached letter of 11 July 2013 signed by me you should now consider through the appropriate Parliamentary process that the Independent Police Complaints Commission is not fit for purpose.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

There was still no reply from Mr Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister or any of his staff and the only course left open to me in this pursuit of justice was to forward my emails that I had sent to the Deputy Prime Minister to the Prime Minister with a remark as follows:

Me To 31 January 2014 at 5:19 PM

To David Cameron Prime Minister House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA Departmental 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA Tel: 020 7276 4433

Dear David

I am forwarding this matter to you as Prime Minister for your kind attention and action as appropriate.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

17 April 2014 Update: On 8 April 2014, the Criminal and Civil Law Policy Unit of the Ministry of Justice (Post Point 6.25, 6th Floor Petty France London, SW1H9AJ) sent me the following letter under Reference No: TO14/147:

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.

26 August 2014 Update: To my knowledge, despite my reminders no further actions have been taken on this matter by the Cabinet Office (under its Reference No. TO615415) or by the Ministry of Justice to whom it had supposedly referred the matter.

6 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Final Internet Archive Uploads 26 May 2024

Final Internet Archive Uploads 26 May 2024 ____________________________________________________________________ 1.


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page