Restoration of Application Notice presided over by District Judge Wilkinson: ME010463 Dr Shantanu Pa
Restoration of Application Notice presided over by District Judge Wilkinson: ME010463 Dr Shantanu Panigrahi vs University of Greenwich and co-responde
4 July 2016 at 9:27
The Court Manager
Medway County Court
1. I have taken legal advice on the attached report (that I have retyped in a document entitled FromJACO15-2359) from Sir John Birgstocke KCB, the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman and am led to believe that my Application Notice that was dismissed by District Judge Wilkinson (and on which I have had correspondence with you on how it might be appealed in view of the lack of full written reasons to identify the grounds for appeal) should be restored by the Court for another Hearing and a different judge appointed to process this Case.
2. Restoration of the Application Notice is required to minimise my costs in attempting to resolve this Claim through the appropriate judicial procedures.
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
3 Hoath Lane
Kent ME8 0SL
The JACO15-2359 Report was as follows:
From: Sir John Brigstocke KCB
Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
Postal Area 9.53
9 Floor,The Tower
108 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ
21 July 2015
Dear Dr Panigrahi
Thank you for your correspondence with my officers setting out your concerns about the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office’s handling of your complaint about District Judge Wilkinson.
I have now completed a preliminary investigation into your complaint and I enclose a copy of my report. I do not believe a review is necessary as there is no prospect of any finding of maladministration.
I realise that this will be a disappointment to you, but would like to assure you that I considered both the handling of your complaint and the points that you raised most carefully.
Sir John Brigstocke KCB
Complaint by Dr Shantanu Panigrahi Ombudsman’s Investigation Report
Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman’s Report
Complaint by Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
Dr Panigrahi wrote to me on 27 May, 12 June and on 2, 3, 7 and 9 July 2015 and asked me to review the investigation carried our by the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office (JCIO) in relation to the complaint she had raised about District Judge (DJ) Wilkinson at Medway County Court.
In accordance with Section 110(2) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, I am required to review a complaint where 3 conditions have been met, the first of which is that I consider a review to be necessary. My remit specifically precludes me from reviewing decisions taken by those considering conduct complaints; I can look only at the process by which those complaints were handled. I enclose a copy of the relevant part of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
Dr Panigrahi’s complaint to me
Dr Panigrahi raised concerns that;
. The JCIO had not considered the matter correctly, by ignoring the contents of Case Number 21647/2015, which specifically related to his correspondence, dated 19 May 2015, to the Ministry of Justice which was passed to the JCIO for consideration.
. The JCIO stated in their reply to her complaint, ‘’I note from your email that 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’’. This is unsatisfactory because it is the duty of the JCIO to make this referral based on the evidence she submitted.
Dr Panigrahi also wanted ‘’the restoration of his claim at Medway County Court, without the need for the payment of any Court fees, or procedures for permission to appeal out of time or the permission to appeal itself’’.
I have decided that Dr Panigrahi’s complaint does not warrant a full investigation. In reaching this conclusion, I am commenting solely on the process by which the JCIO considered the complaint. I cannot comment on the merits of the JCIO’s decision or on Dr Panigrahi’s case before DJ Wilkinson.
Factors taken into account
I have taken the following factors into account in reaching my decision;
. Dr Panigrahi’s views, as expressed in his correspondence with my office and previously with the JCIO; and
. The JCIO’s papers regarding the handling of the complaint.
Dr Panigrahi’s complaint to the JCIO
Dr Panigrahi wrote to the JCIO on 13 May 2014 to complain that ~
. It was not acceptable to him that DJ Wilkinson could decide not to provide the full written reasons for why his application for full medical retirement from the University of Greenwich was not approved for implementation by the Court following his Application Notice and the submission of the bundle, with full details of all the factors relevant to the case.
. In the absence of a defence from the University of Greenwich, the decision of the judge prevented the appeal against the dismissal of the Application Notice from taking place, and therefore was a gross violation of natural justice.
Dr Panigrahi also wanted an immediate decision on his complaint, the restoration of his Application Notice at Medway County Court and a different judge to preside over the case, as he considered there was a matter for the police to consider whether there had been a criminal conspiracy to deny him his employment rights.
The JCIO replied on 26 May 2015 and explained that they were unable to accept his complaint for consideration because the issues raised related entirely to judicial decision-making. They summarised the issues raised by Dr Panigrahi and explained that allegations raised did not constitute a case of personal conduct on the part of DJ Wilkinson. The JCIO explained that they did not have the remit to investigate, challenge or question a judge’s decision or management of a case and, although Dr Panigrahi found it unacceptable that the judge did not provide him with full written reasons, her decision to do so did not amount to personal misconduct on her part. The JCIO also advised Dr Panigrahi that the appropriate way to challenge a judicial decision was through the appeal process.
The JCIO noted that Dr Panigrahi wanted them to remove DJ Wilkinson from any future hearings, but they explained that they could not personally involve themselves with his litigation and he would have to make an application to the Court, setting out the reasons why the Judge should be removed from the case. The JCIO also explained that they could not restore his application within Medway County Court.
The JCIO explained that, in light of the reference to criminal matters, they could not investigate matters of a criminal nature and, should Dr Panigrahi wish to further the allegations of a criminal conspiracy against DJ Wilkinson, it should be reported to the police, as they can investigate criminal matters. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed and Dr Panigrahi was advised to write to my office if unhappy with the handling of his complaint.
Dr Panigrahi replied on 3 June 2015 and claimed that DJ Wilkinson was guilty of a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and this was gross misconduct based on a malicious denial of his rights. He claimed that the JCIO had not investigated this issue by interviewing the judge and determining whether the decision was based on racial prejudice against him. He asserted that, until this had been done, the investigation was incomplete. The JCIO replied on 10 June 2015 and reiterated that the fact that DJ Wilkinson did not provide written reasons did not amount to misconduct, as it was a judicial decision, and was outside the remit of the JCIO to investigate. They also advised that the JCIO cannot investigate matters of a criminal nature and these allegations should be referred to the police. The JCIO also advised Dr Panigrahi to write to my office if unhappy with the handling of his complaint.
I have considered the points Dr Panigrahi raised in order to determine whether his complaint falls within my remit to investigate and my view is that the JCIO handled Dr Panigrahi’s complaint properly and correctly and the decision was consistent with the legislation and guidance as set in the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014.
. The JCIO’s view that the issues raised by Dr Panigrahi related to DJ Wilkinson’s judicial decision-making and case management and not the personal conduct was consistent with its guidance. Leaflet JCIO1 on the JCIO website states that:
‘’A Judge’s role in court is to make independent decisions about cases and their management. These are often tough decisions, and Judges have to be firm and direct in the management of their cases. Examples of Judge’s decisions include the length or type of sentence, whether a claim can proceed to trial, whether or not a claimant succeeds in their claim, what costs should be awarded and what evidence should be heard’’.
‘’This sort of decision cannot form the subject of a complaint. If you are unhappy with such a decision you are advised to seek legal advice from a solicitor, local law centre, Citizens Advice Bureau or the Community Legal Service to discuss whether you have a right of appeal.’’
‘’If your complaint is not about a Judge’s decision but about the Judge’s personal conduct you have the right to complain to the JCIO. Examples of potential personal misconduct would be the use of insulting, racist or sexist language’.
. The JCIO clearly explained why DJ Wilkinson’s decision not to provide written reasons did not relate to her judicial conduct and appropriately advised Dr Panigrahi that his concerns could only be addressed via the appeal process.
. The JCIO correctly advised Dr Panigrahi that they could not investigate allegations of a criminal nature and advised him to refer his complaint to the police. This was the appropriate advice to provide Dr Panigrahi and, despite his assertions to the contrary, it is not for the JCIO to refer his complaints to the police on his behalf.
. It is not within my or the JCIO’s remit to assist with Dr Panigrahi’s request for his claim to be restored at Medway County Court or to advise on how to progress his legal proceedings.
I do not believe that Dr Panigrahi has provided me with any examples of maladministration in respect of how the JCIO failed to investigate his complaint properly and, in accordance with Section 110(3) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 I do not consider that a review is necessary.
Sir John Brigstocke KCB
21 July 2015
2 Comments »
1. I would suggest you cease trying to get the government to fund your parasitic, delusional campaigns. Instead, get a paying job and hire legal counsel as you’ve been advised numerous times.
Comment by egregious_c | July 4, 2016 | Reply
o In civil proceedings a lot of money is at stake. When a Judge hides his or her criminality in the disposal of these proceedings by unfairly siding with one side under the cover of merely executing his judicial functions so as to make out that he is not being wilfully malicious in his or her bias which would thereby constitute gross misconduct under British law in the eyes of an investigator called upon to examine the matter he is in effect getting away with it. The way to unravel this criminality is to ask him/her for full written reasons for his or her decisions so that there is nowhere left for him/her to hide. The Judicial Conduct Investigation Office (JCIO) and the Judical Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) were therefore required to interview the Judge concerned to get to these facts without which the investigation was incomplete thereby representing either a systems failure of a failure on the part of the investigator to consider the complaint properly.
When Medway County Court was confronted by email at 9.27 am this morning with the JACO report that that I have referred to submitted to the Court in full, by 5.00 pm there was no reply from the Court showing that the racisim in the Court Service that I have complained about is endemic and coordinated.
You are a white person and will therefore have not a clue of what it is like to be the victim of racial prejudice on such a scale in the law and order system of the United Kingdom. That is why you have been continually denigrating my efforts at securing truth and justice in this regard. Or why else would you wish to prevent the government from considering this blog post to examine Mr Michael Gove’s role in the disposal of these proceedings?
1. 1.) You are being blatantly racist yourself. This is uncalled for.
2.) Demonstrating such racism makes taking your claims of racial discrimination impossible to take seriously.
3.) You have never, ever offered any sort of compelling evidence of racial discrimination against your person. You offer incomplete attempts at communication with unreasonable expections regarding response and then claim, weakly, this is discrimination.
4.) You have been reapetedly advised to seek legal counsel, but you stubbornly refuse.
5.) You have no money and no real knowledge of your legal sytem, but require the government to underwrite and accomodate your delusional conduct.
6.) You need both legal and medical help.
Comment by egregious_c | July 4, 2016 | Reply
o My response was absolutely what was called for: you have been acting for a long time as a stooge and cohort of the British State.
2. So, you can make and justify racist comments while decrying racial discrimination against yourself.
I think that makes you a hypocrite.
Comment by egregious_c | July 5, 2016 | Reply
o Aah, you seem to be backtracking now from calling me a ‘blatant racist’ to being a person who has simply passed some ‘racist comments’ directed at you (?) – presumably because I called you a white man by which I had meant that you were of European stock unable to fathom what it is like for an Indian to cope with racism in the United Kingdom. You must have been aware that I did not say anything at any time that would convey the impression that I had something against white people in general to make me a racist. I know a good many very decent white human beings like Jeremy Corbyn. You forget that I am a biologist who celebrates Nature and all its diversity.
No, your idea was to annoy me into making a mistake in my legal proceedings by commenting on the other ridiculous statements that you made, and especially advising me repeatedly to seek legal counsel and of course medical help when I have no reason for seeking legal counsel as I have all my legal proceedings well under control, and I have no psychiatric issues as evidenced by the fact that the High Court has not passed a Court Order in relation to my application; see here: https://shantanup.wordpress.com/2016/06/11/proceedings-against-the-national-health-service-at-the-queens-bench-division-of-the-high-court/. I am therefore entitled to think that the High Court has accepted my arguments and I am consequently now living freely in the United Kingdom without further harassment by the National Health Service. This is the legal process by which this Kingdom operates. Unless you live here and go through the experience that I have you will not be able to understand.