Search

Proceedings with the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman of the United Kingdom


The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) oversees the complaints process against Judicial officials. I brought my complaint to JACO in a stage by stage process as follows:

1. Leave to take a JCIO’s decision to the Court of Appeal

Shan Panigrahi

To headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk

27 May 2015 at 1:20 PM

To Sir John Brigstocke, KCB

Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman

9thFloor 9.53, 102 Petty France

London SW1H 9AJ

By email: headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Sir John Brigstocke, KCB

1. Please investigate the handling of my complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) as conducted by Ms Gillian Huston (see attached report FRjcioRule8Panigrahi21606.docs) that she has not considered the matter correctly by ignoring the contents of Case No 21647/2015 which specifically relates to my correspondence dated 19 May 2015 to the Ministry of Justice that was passed on to JCIO to provide the legal consideration to.

2. By the absence of the required consideration it must be deduced that JCIO has endorsed the government’s view that there are already suitable offences available for the Shell Tribunal and Greenwich Legalities cases against court officials so that there is no need for any change in the law – despite the evidence that has emerged to the contrary; and as such this is a matter that you must refer to the Court of Appeal for adjudication to consider the governments response to my complaint.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

• 1 Attachment: FRjcioRule 8 Panigrahi 21606.doc

The attachment document related to the Greenwich Legalities issues with particular reference to the processing of Claim ME010463 by District Judge Wilkinson of Medway County Court.

2. Complaint (8)

Shan Panigrahi

To headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk

12 June 2015 at 7:06 PM

To Sir John Brigstocke, KCB

Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman

9th Floor 9.53,

102 Petty France

London SW1H 9AJ

By email: headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Sir John Brigstocke

1. I refer to my email to you sent at 1.20 pm on 27 May 2015 concerning the criminality of Judge Kurrein and District Judge Wilkinson as the officials who directed the proceedings in the Shell Tribunal and Greenwich Legalities cases. I wish to add to those names Judge Doyle and Judge Hildebrand as two other judges that need to be disciplined by you, for negation of their duties to act impartially in resolving my complaints, as will be clear from the attached letter that I have received from Judge Doyle today.

2. Please let me know what action you propose to take.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

Hide original message

On Friday, 12 June 2015, 13:37,

Presidents Office Employment E&W wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi,

On behalf of the President, I write to confirm safe receipt of your e-mail below. Please see attached the President’s response.

Yours sincerely,

Ms C Sanders Office of the President of Employment Tribunals (England & Wales)

HM Courts & Tribunals Service,

5th Floor, Victory House,

30-34 Kingsway,

London WC2B 6EX Tel: 020 7273 8650

I 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 ________________________________________

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 11 June 2015 19:26

To: Presidents Office Employment E&W Subject:

Complaint To Judge Brian Doyle President Employment Tribunals (England&Wales) President’s Support Office 4th Floor, Victory House 30-34 Kingsway London WC2B 6EX By Email: Presidents_Office_Employment_E&W@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Judge Doyle

1. Thank you for your letter dated 8 June 2015 (concerning the correspondence from Ms Gillian Huston of the Judicial Conducts Investigation Office) stating that the matters are in hand.

2. I would be grateful if you would now deliver your judgement on my complaint in the form of a sealed order as required by the Court of Appeal. Yours sincerely Dr Shantanu Panigrahi • 1 Attachment: DOC.pdf

The attachment document here was the report of Judge Doyle on my complaint about Judge Hildebrand’s processing of my complaint against the Tribunal officials on Shell Tribunal issue.

3. Complaints against Judicial Officials

Shan Panigrahi

To headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk

2 July 2015 at 8:37 AM

To Sir John Brigstocke, KCB

Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman

9th Floor 9.53, 102 Petty France

London SW1H 9AJ

By email: headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Sir John Brigstocke

1. Please refer to my two emails sent to you, the first on 27 May 2015 at 1.20 pm, and the second on 12 June 2015 at 7.06 pm with my complaints that constitute misconduct by judicial officials that border on criminality designed to block progress in the fair disposal of proceedings through the Tribunal process and at Medway County Court. I have not received any reply from you by email or in the post concerning this matter. Perhaps you are still considering my complaint.

2. In the meantime I am reporting to you that I have made no progress in having the Shell Tribunal Case appealed through the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) where the Registrar is simply sitting on the Case, and at the Court of Appeal which is ignoring my preliminary submissions.

3. The procedure for lodging a complaint against the Registrar at EAT is not clear as it is not governed by Judge Doyle as the President of the Tribunals as far as I am aware. Please advise if this would be a direct complaint to you.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

After three representations in this manner, I finally got a reply from JACO as follows:

On Thursday, 2 July 2015, 17:41, headofoffice wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi

Thank you for your emails of 27 May (with attachments), 12 June and 2 July. I apologise for the delay in acknowledging and responding to the first two emails.

I note from your email of 27 May that you are dissatisfied with the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office’s (JCIO) handling of your complaint, and in your second email you indicate that you also wish to make a complaint about Tribunal Judge Doyle and Regional Tribunal Judge Hildebrand. It may be helpful if I remind you of the role and remit of the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman and how he may be able to assist you. As you are aware the role of the Ombudsman is to conduct an investigation into the process by which the first tier investigating bodies handled the investigations into your complaints, and to consider whether the investigations were conducted fairly and appropriately in accordance with set procedures.

The Ombudsman is not an appeal mechanism and he cannot look into your original complaints, comment on any aspects of the Court or Tribunal proceedings nor the conclusions reached by either the JCIO or President Doyle and Regional Tribunal Judge Hildebrand in the investigations of your complaints. Please find attached a copy of the Ombudsman’s complaint booklet which sets out his role and remit in greater detail. Also attached is a complaint form; you will need to complete two separate forms, one in respect of your complaint about the JCIO and a further form in respect of your complaint about President Doyle and RTJ Hildebrand. You will see that the complaint form asks you to give your consent for the complaint to be disclosed to the first tier complaint bodies to enable the Ombudsman to see your complaint file. From this information the Ombudsman will be able to form a view on whether your complaint falls within his remit and whether he will be able to investigate your concerns.

The Ombudsman will not be able to consider your complaint unless you detail your concerns. It is therefore essential that you follow the suggested advice and support your complaint with specific examples of how the investigation into your complaint was not properly handled. Finally, in your email received today you enquire whether complaints against the Registrar of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) should be made directly to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman conducts a second tier investigation process and as such it is not within his remit to consider a complaint about the Registrar. I hope this information is of assistance to you. Should you wish to proceed with you complaints to the Ombudsman, please return your completed complaint forms by 16 July 2015.

Yours sincerely

Joan Wilson

Complaints Analysis Team Manager

Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman

9th Floor The Tower | 102 Petty France| London SW1H 9AJ

Tel: 020 3334 2900

Fax: 020 3334 2913

I replied to this as follows:

On Thursday, 2 July 2015, 18:12, Shan Panigrahi wrote:

To Joan Wilson

Complaints Analysis Team Manager

Judicial Appointments and Conducts Ombudsman

9 Floor, The Tower

102 Petty France

London SW1H 9AJ

1. Thank you for your email explaining the procedures involved. 2. I am unable to complete the Forms that you have requested by 16 July 2015 because of the need to have the Registrar of the Employment Appeal Tribunal first subjected to the first tier examination for its failure to complete the adjudication of Case UKEATPA/0461/15 without any paperwork due to the open and shut nature of this case based on the duplicitious nature of Judge Kurrein’s ruling and reasons.Please let me know who is responsible for conducting this first tier investigation by return email.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

There was no immediate reply, so I sent a JACO Complaint Form with my complaint against District Judge Wilkinson and the handling of this first tier complaint by the JCIO by first class post. It contained the following details (JAOC Form.docs): Conduct Complaint Form of Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman

The Name of the Judicial Office holder that I complained about: District Judge Wilkinson

The Person/Office that dealt with my Complaint: Gillian Huston, JCIO.

My name and address: Dr Shantanu Panigrahi, …. Signed: S.Panigrahi, Date: 3 July 2015

Particulars: The reply of Ms Gillian Huston received on 10 June 2015, at 1.45 pm that: ‘’I note from your email you have made criminal allegations against the Judge. The JCIO cannot investigate matters of a criminal nature and these allegations should be referred to the Police as they are the investigatory body for allegations of a criminal nature’’ is unsatisfactory because it is the duty of JCIO to make this referral based on the evidence I submitted.

Hoping to achieve: Restoration of my Claim at Medway County Court under Claim No ME010463 without the need for payment of any court fees or procedures for permission to Appeal out of time or the Permission to Appeal itself.

I then sent another email to Ms Wilson, as follows:

Complaints against Judicial Officials (4)

Shan Panigrahi

To headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk

3 July 2015 at 9:40 AM

To

Joan Wilson

Complaints Analysis Team Manager

Judicial Appointments and Conducts Ombudsman

9 Floor, The Tower 102 Petty France

London SW1H 9AJ

Dear Ms Wilson

1. Pending the resolution of my query concerning the processing of the Shell Tribunal Case-associated complaints against judicial officials as explained below, I have already posted to you, by first class post, the JACO Complaints Form concerning District Judge Wilkinson which is naturally of greater priority for me in view of my desire to have my scientific career (that was so cruelly terminated by the University of Greenwich) restored by the Medway County Court.

2. Please let me know how long it will take for the Ombudsman to assess the particulars and resolution sought (as summarised from the Form in the attached document titled JAOC Form.docs) to determine the validity of my complaint.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

Comment: There was no reply from JACO


25 July 2015 Update:

I received a comprehensive reply from Sir John Brigstock on 23 July 2015, but it is marked ‘Private and Confidential’ in addition to ‘Sensitive’, so am unable to reproduce it here or comment on the contents. It focussed on the Greenwich Legalities matter and there was no comment on the Shell Tribunal matter. I did not reply but brought a snapshot of the contents to the attention of the Court of Appeal, as an appeal against the decision of the Administrative Court that had terminated the correspondence on the proceedings there (https://shantanup.wordpress.com/2015/06/26/challenging-a-governmental-decision-through-the-courts-of-her-majestys-court-and-tribunal-service/ ). The Court of Appeal replied indicating that I would need to go through a ‘Permission to Appeal Stage’ costing £235 and if it got passed that stage, to the full Appeal costing another £465. I could not make such payments and also required legal aid to hire a barrister to study and argue the case for me. I therefore forwarded the email correspondence immediately to Mr Michael Gove, the Justice Minister, requesting him to institute a Public Interest Litigation scheme at the Royal Courts of Justice to help me resume this ‘stayed’ Case.

July 3, 2015 - Posted by shantanup | Uncategorized



0 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Information Received - Review Letter - OTP-CR-76/22 Inbox from: OTP InformationDesk <OTP.InformationDesk@icc-cpi.int> to: "shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com" <shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com> date:

Your Reference: 22/444/CM/PCC Yahoo / Sent Shantanu Panigrahi <shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.com> To: civil.claims@kent.pnn.police.uk Tue, 10 May at 20:22 To Civil Claim Officers Thank you for this morning'