Search

My Response to the Court on Summons issued on me by Kent Police to hear its Notice of Intended Prose

My Response to the Court on Summons issued on me by Kent Police to hear its Notice of Intended Prosecution

The following correspondence took place today after two months of correspondence with Kent Police and the Medway Magistrates Court:

Hearing of 23 February 2017, 14.00 hours concerning Summons received on Notice of Intended Prosecution for a speeding offence (3) Shan Panigrahi To nckentmc CC CPU Driver Diversion Camera Prosecutions Kent 21 Feb 2017 at 16:10

To Sonia Farrow Team Leader North Kent Magistrates Court Internal Tel: 81491235 External Tel: 01634 830232 Goldfax: 0870 324 0037

Dear Ms Farrow

Thank you for your email in which you state the Court’s view that the MG4E Postal Requisition sent to me by Kent Police is a bit misleading in quoting how to apply to the court for a representation order so that I can have a solicitor at the hearing. On this ruling from the Court, the Case cannot proceed until fresh Postal Requisition documents are sent to me with the corrections and amendments as required by law.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Tuesday, 21 February 2017, 14:49, nckentmc wrote:

Dear Dr. Panigrahi

Further to my colleague’s reply and to your email below, I am writing to confirm that the court does not appoint solicitors. The wording on the MG4E Postal Requisition is a bit misleading on quoting how to apply to the court for a representation order so that you can have a solicitor at the hearing, as the court does not process the Legal Aid applications.

I can only offer the same advise which Sarah has already given you – which is to obtain Legal Representation yourself, by contacting a local Solicitor of your choice, who will take you through the correct process.

Hopefully this assists you.

Regards

Sonia Farrow Team Leader North Kent Magistrates Court Internal Tel: 81491235 External Tel: 01634 830232 Goldfax: 0870 324 0037

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY I am not authorised to bind HMCTS contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means. This message and any attachment may contain confidential, privileged information for use only by the recipient named above. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect those of Her Majesty’s Courts Service. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying of this message (and attachment) is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your computer system. This email may be monitored or recorded by or on behalf of HMCTS and its content read at any time. This email and any attachments are believed to be virus free. However, the recipient is responsible for insuring it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage however so caused from the use of this email, attachments or contents.

________________________________________ From: nckentmc Sent: 21 February 2017 14:14 To: nckentmc Subject: FW: CPO Hearing of 23 February 2017, 14.00 hours concerning Summons received on Notice of Intended Prosecution for a speeding offence – CPO

________________________________________ From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 21 February 2017 10:26 To: nckentmc Subject: Re: CPO Hearing of 23 February 2017, 14.00 hours concerning Summons received on Notice of Intended Prosecution for a speeding offence Dear Ms Mason

The Postal Requisition documents that I received from Kent Police clearly states that it is for Medway Magistrates Court to make the Representation Order that I have applied for this morning so that I can have a solicitor at this hearing. Please attend to this requirement immediately.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Tuesday, 21 February 2017, 9:13, nckentmc wrote:

Good morning

The court wouldn’t appoint a solicitor for you. You will need to obtain legal representation yourself. If you contact a solicitor of your choice they will take you through the process.

regards,

Sarah Mason North & Central Kent Magistrates Court Team Leader Telephone: 01634 830232 – Internal 8149 1231 Fax: 0870 3240037

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

I am not authorised to bind HMCTS contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means.

This message and any attachment may contain confidential, privileged information for use only by the recipient named above. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect those of Her Majesty’s Courts Service. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying of this message (and attachment) is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your computer system.

This email may be monitored or recorded by or on behalf of HMCTS and its content read at any time. This email and any attachments are believed to be virus free. However, the recipient is responsible for insuring it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage however so caused from the use of this email, attachments or contents.

________________________________________ From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 21 February 2017 08:46 To: Mason, Sarah Subject: Hearing of 23 February 2017, 14.00 hours concerning Summons received on Notice of Intended Prosecution for a speeding offence To Sarah Mason North & Central Kent Magistrates Court Team Leader Telephone: 01634 830232 – Internal 8149 1231 Fax: 0870 3240037

Dear Ms Mason

1. I need the Medway Magistrates Court to appoint a State barrister to represent my interests to the Magistrates at the Hearing of 23 February 2017, 14.00 hours at Medway Magistrates Court, and all subsequent Hearings concerning this matter.

2. Please let me know the procedure for this legal representation.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi 3 Hoath Lane Wigmore Gillingham Kent ME8 0SL Tel: 01634 379604 Mobile: 07967789619

22 February 2017 Update:

The following correspondence took place since:

Hearing of 23 February 2017, 14.00 hours concerning Summons received on Notice of Intended Prosecution for a speeding offence (8)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Farrow, Sonia

CC

Civil Appeals – Listing

22 Feb 2017 at 18:01

Dear Ms Farrow

1. I would draw your attention to my email of 10.56 am sent for the attention of Ms Mcneil of Medway Magistrates Court, in which I have sought the permission of the Medway Magistrates Court to appeal its decision to proceed with the Hearing of 23 February 2017, 14.00 hours at the Court of Appeal which acknowledged receipt of my email.

2. Please provide me with your reasons not to give this permission to appeal in order that my Appeal papers can be appropriately drafted.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Wednesday, 22 February 2017, 17:37, “Farrow, Sonia” <sonia.farrow@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi

Further to your email below – I’ve been advised by my Legal Team that you can ask the court tomorrow for an adjournment for Legal Advise and the Bench (Magistrates) will consider if it merits this.

The Legal Adviser dealing with this tomorrow can explain this to you.

Regards

Sonia Farrow Team Leader North Kent Magistrates Court Internal Tel: 81491235 External Tel: 01634 830232 Goldfax: 0870 324 0037

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

I am not authorised to bind HMCTS contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means.

This message and any attachment may contain confidential, privileged information for use only by the recipient named above. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect those of Her Majesty’s Courts Service. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying of this message (and attachment) is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your computer system.

This email may be monitored or recorded by or on behalf of HMCTS and its content read at any time. This email and any attachments are believed to be virus free. However, the recipient is responsible for insuring it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage however so caused from the use of this email, attachments or contents.

From: Fothergill, Catherine On Behalf Of nckentmc Sent: 22 February 2017 09:33 To: Farrow, Sonia Subject: FW: Hearing of 23 February 2017, 14.00 hours concerning Summons received on Notice of Intended Prosecution for a speeding offence

FOR YOU

Catherine General Office/Legal Aid North Kent and Central Kent Magistrates Court 01634 830232 Ext no 81491224

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

I am not authorised to bind HMCTS contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means.

This message and any attachment may contain confidential, privileged information for use only by the recipient named above. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect those of Her Majesty’s Courts Service. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying of this message (and attachment) is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your computer system.

This email may be monitored or recorded by or on behalf of HMCTS and its content read at any time. This email and any attachments are believed to be virus free. However, the recipient is responsible for insuring it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage however so caused from the use of this email, attachments or contents.

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 21 February 2017 19:44 To: CPU Driver Diversion Camera Prosecutions Kent Cc: nckentmc Subject: Re: Hearing of 23 February 2017, 14.00 hours concerning Summons received on Notice of Intended Prosecution for a speeding offence

Dear Madam

The correction that I demand to the Postal Requisition contents is that you incorporate my 15 January 2017 emailed document that I brought to your attention this morning and then reissue the Postal Requisition, or else the Hearing of 23 February 2017 14.00 hours would become prejudiced against my interests. Your lack of appreciation of the law in this regard should be noted by the Magistrates for the counter prosecution that I have applied for to the Court.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Tuesday, 21 February 2017, 16:49, CPU Driver Diversion Camera Prosecutions Kent <cpu.driver.diversion.camera.prosecutions@kent.pnn.police.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr Panigrahi

I would advise that the MG4E Postal Requisition is a national document issued to lay out the charge made against an individual. It can be issued for a wide range of offences including the most serious.

The court should have advised you that representation orders are not always applicable. As your case relates to a minor traffic offence, you do not qualify for free representation.

As advised you should seek advice from a solicitor.

Yours sincerely

Janet Chipperfield

Prosecution Officer

Driver Diversion Team

Central Process Unit

Strategic Criminal Justice Department

Central Investigation Command

Kent Police

The Appeal Application email to the Court of Appeal was as follows:

Auto Reply (6)

Civil Appeals – Listing <civilappeals.listing@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

To

‘Shan Panigrahi’

22 Feb 2017 at 11:18

Please provide the Court of Appeal reference number or send your email onto the correct court

Miss A Billinge

Listing Office Staff Manager

Room E306

Civil Appeals Office

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2A 2LL

Tel: 0207 947 7288

Fax: 0207 947 6621

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 22 February 2017 10:57 To: nckentmc Cc: Civil Appeals – Listing Subject: Re: Auto Reply

Dear Ms Mcneil

1. I have given my reasons to the Court and to the Prosecutor as to why the Case brought against me by Kent Police cannot proceed to a Hearing on the 23 February 2017, 14.00 hours, namely that the Postal Requisition contained misleading comments concerning a Representation Order (by the Courts own ruling) and a deliberate major omission (my 15 January 2017-dated email to Kent Police) that together go to severely prejudice the Hearing of the Summons against me, so that the Postal Requisition must be reissued by Kent Police before it can be considered by the Court.

2. I will not be attending the Hearing of 23 February 2017, 14.00 hours on these grounds and nor will I be represented in Court.

3. The Magistrates therefore need to consider this submission immediately. Any decision of the Court to adjourn the Hearing to a new trial date will be appealed by me at the Court of Appeal on the technicality that the Summons papers were served on me unlawfully by Kent Police as described in paragraph 1. I am copying this email to the Court of Appeal so that it can advise me if this matter is within the remit of the Court to consider.

4. As regards to my private prosecution of Kent Police and associated legal institutions I am content to wait for the decision of the Independent Police Complaints Commission according to whom it could take up to 10 weeks for the Appeal to be allocated to an official for analysis. I will contact the Court again concerning if my complaint against Kent Police is upheld by the IPCC.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Wednesday, 22 February 2017, 9:50, nckentmc <nckentmc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Good Morning,

Having sought advise from our Legal Team.

Please be advised that if you require an adjournment of the case before this court pending the outcome of your complaint / appeal to the IPCC, you may apply to the court on the 23rd February 2017 to do so. Futhermore, the information you have provided to date is insufficient to commence a private prosecution and therefore it cannot be issued or considered in time for the hearing on the 23rd February. Again, you may wish to apply for an adjournment of the case on that date, if you wish to pursue your own prosecution.

Finally, please advised that a copy of this email will nevertheless be placed on file for the court’s information on the 23rd February.

Regards

Jane Mcneil

Ext 81491229

Medway Magistrates Court Tel:- 01634 830232 Fax:- 01634 847400 This email contains information intended to assist the accurate reporting of court proceedings. It is vital you ensure that you safeguard the personal information included and abide by reporting restrictions (for example on victims and children). HMCTS will stop sending the data if there is concern about how it will be used.

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

I am not authorised to bind HMCTS contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means.

This message and any attachment may contain confidential, privileged information for use only by the recipient named above. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect those of Her Majesty’s Courts Service. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying of this message (and attachment) is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your computer system.

This email may be monitored or recorded by or on behalf of HMCTS and its content read at any time. This email and any attachments are believed to be virus free. However, the recipient is responsible for insuring it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage however so caused from the use of this email, attachments or contents.

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.

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 17 February 2017 11:27 To: nckentmc Subject: Re: Auto Reply

To

Medway Magistrates

Dear Sir

1. Please find attached the details of my counter prosecution of Kent Police and associated legal institutions for the Hearing of 23 February 2017, 14.00 hours which I will attend to execute the prosecution in light of the fact that there has been no analytical reply from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (just an acknowledgement of receipt of the Appeal) nor an appeal review from the Professional Standards Department of Kent Police who have failed to acknowledge the communication sent. I wish to repeat that my counter prosecution has a compensation Claim value of £5 million to be secured from the perpetrators of this criminal harassment.

2. Please acknowledge that this counter prosecution will be enabled by the Magistrates, and let me know if any witnesses will be called on my behalf if required on the basis of my previous communications with Kent Police.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Thursday, 16 February 2017, 10:26, nckentmc <nckentmc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Please accept this as acknowledgement of your contact. This email is monitored daily, please allow 10 working days before further contact. Please do not send duplicate emails or letters.

If your email is regarding Maidstone Crown court case please re-direct your email to enquiries@maidstone.crowncourt.gsi.gov.uk

If the matter relates to county court proceedings please re-direct your email to enquiries@maidstone.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk

If the matter relates to family court proceedings please re-direct to family@medway.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk

Emails not for this office will not be forwarded on

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.

The email to the Independent Police Complaints Commission copied to Professional Standards Department of Kent Police referred to the court for counter prosecution was as follows:

IPCC Reference: 2017/078871

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

!enquiries

CC

PSD Complaints Kent

16 Feb 2017 at 16:09

To

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

16 February 2017

IPCC Reference: 2017/078871

PSD Kent Police Reference: IX/00040/17

Dear Sir

1. Please refer to the 19 January 2017 dated letter from Professional Standards Department (PSD) of Kent Police concerning the matter of the processing of the Notice of Intended Prosecution for a driving incident by Kent Police that I complained about to you. The decision of PSD Kent Police is that this is a misuse of the complaints system and should not have been made. I wish to challenge this assertion. This letter from PSD Kent Police allows me 28 days starting the date after the letter is dated in which to make my Appeal to you. I am therefore writing to you to appeal today.

2. The grounds on which this Appeal is made by me is that the letter from PSD Kent Police does not record the complaint because it is covering up the issue of the complaint, namely the manner in which the Notice of Intended Prosecution was processed by Kent Police. It is disputed by me that the matter should have proceeded through the Magistrates Court but once that decision was taken by Kent Police the correct procedures should have been followed taking into account the defendants evidence.

3. Specifically, my allegation is that my evidence was not brought to the attention of the Magistrates in a timely manner in order to force a Hearing that is totally unnecessary. This is to say that Kent Police obtained the listing of 23 February 2017, 14.00 hours at Medway Magistrates Court under false pretences and it would never have been granted by the Court had all my evidence been submitted to the Court. Even after pointing this out to Kent Police no steps have been taken to withdraw the Court proceedings. This is because Kent Police’s sole intention has been to criminally harass me through the entirety of this Notice of Intended Prosecution proceedings.

4. As such, my complaint is not an abuse of the procedures for dealing with complaints.

5. I should be grateful if you would provide me with your assessment of this complaint under Appeal before 23 February 2017 in order that I may bring it to the attention of the Magistrates.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL

Reply Reply to All Forward More

My 15 January 2017 emailed document sent to Kent Police that is the bone of contention in this Case is as follows:

Notice of Intended Prosecution No: 49350897

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

CPU Driver Diversion External Use Only Kent

15 Jan 2017 at 7:41

To

Kent Police

Driver Diversion Team

By email: Driver Diversion External Use Only Kent <driver.diversion@kent.pnn.police.uk

15 January 2017 Dear Sir

Notice of Intended Prosecution No: 49350897

1. I have not received any further information from you since I informed you on 12 January 2017, 15.33 hours by email in response to your email of 12 January 2017, 14:59 hours that I will pay for my Speed Awareness Course, or pay the penalty fine for speeding with the acceptance of the licence endorsement for penalty points if this option was no longer available), in August 2017 when I start receiving my Teacher’s pension. Was this not acceptable to Kent Police? Do you expect me to take out a loan from my wife or the Bank in order to pay you for the speeding offence that needs to be discharged in a civil way and not by way of a Magistrate because I admitted liability and it is my poverty situation that is the only matter under consideration?

2. In your email of 12 January 2017 you mentioned my mitigating circumstances that I have brought to your attention. I wish to clarify how this is related to the discharging of the speeding offence: I have provided evidence in my Blog (https://shantanup.wordpress.com/) of systematic conspiracy among legal participants to deny me access to justice that has rendered me to the state of poverty where I cannot even pay my financial dues. Kent Police has refused to do anything about this alleged conspiracy. In this regard, you should be aware that I still consider that the University of Greenwich owes me around £60,000 in employment redundancy pay from 1998 that the tribunal and courts have unjustly ignored which must be taken into account in the further processing of this matter.

3. As I have made you aware, I shall be overseas in India from 18 January 2017 to 12 February 2017 and it is therefore unfortunate that you were unable to resolve this matter before my departure. This is the reason that I am writing to you again today.

4. I would be grateful for a reply by email before I leave for India.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL

Reply Reply to All Forward More

26 February 2017 Update:

The following correspondence took place with the Court official concerned.

Hearing of 23 February 2017, 14.00 hours concerning Summons received on Notice of Intended Prosecution for a speeding offence (14)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Farrow, Sonia

25 Feb 2017 at 7:39

Dear Ms Farrow

1. Thank you for your email.

2. I do not wish to appeal to take this matter to the Crown Court on Appeal because that will waste even more of everyone’s time and resources.

3. Before sentence is passed however, I would like the court to take into account the following mitigating factors:

(a) I never applied for an adjournment of this Case as stated by the Legal Advisor; this judgement is therefore legally flawed.

(b) my application to the court for a counter prosecution of Kent Police on this matter still stands in view of the lack of reply from the Prosecutor to the following email that I sent her:

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

CPU Driver Diversion Camera Prosecutions Kent

23 Feb at 5:42 PM

Dear Ms Chipperfield

The prosecution in effect alleges that I did not take the correct steps to discharge the speeding that occurred, since the speeding was a fact that has never been disputed by me. The only question arising was when I should make the payment for the speed awareness course or the penalty fine. This was clearly spelt out in my 15 January 2017 email where I made a proposal. Kent Police to pay up but you did not reply to this email until 19 January 2017 and took no account of the contents. Further the delay in your response was in full knowledge that that I would be out of the country by then and so would not be able to respond to any Postal Requisition documents that I received while I was away in India. As such this document is material evidence that should have been included in the Postal Requisition. The reason Kent Police did not included it is because its sole intention was to terrorise me with this pointless prosecution.

I would therefore urge you to apologise or reissue the Postal Requisition with the amendment that I require.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi