The Final Proof of State-Organised Persecution

Since the draft of the book that I had submitted to AuthorhouseUK, Olympia Publishers and my sister for publishing by Gyanajuga Publications of Bhubaneswar Inda, the State was aggravated and launched a complete cover up by Kent Police of the criminalities that I had suffered as a victim with the following letter on 10 November 2015, quoting CO/00212/15:

Dear Dr Panigrahi

This letter is about your appeal against the outcome and process of the Local Resolution of your complaint, which we received on 9 September 2015.

My decision on your appeal has been made based on the requirements set out in Section 13 of the Independent Police Complaints Commission Statutory Guidance. My role is not to investigate your complaint, but to review whether the outcome was a proper outcome and appropriate to the complaint and not simply on the process followed to reach that outcome. My decision will be made on the basis of the available evidence.

I have taken the following points into consideration:

Was the complaint suitable for local resolution?

A complaint must meet both of the following conditions to be suitable for local resolution:

- The appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct that is being complained about (even if it were proved) would not justifify bringing criminal of disciplinary proceedings against the person whose conduct is complained about?


- The appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct complained about (even if it were proved) would not involve the infringement of a person’s right under Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights?

I consider that the complaint was suitable for local resolution as it was assessed as meeting the above requirements.

There is no longer a requirement for the complainant’s consent to locally resolve a complaint; however the complainant must be given an opportunity to make comments about the complaint and any proposed actions.

Was the complainant given opportunity to make comment?

Yes the complainant was given the opportunity to make comment, which is evidenced within the complaint form. However, it is clear that the complainant ‘hung up’ on Inspector Shambler when he tried to make contact in this regard.

Was an action plan drawn up and agreed with the complainant setting out the steps to be taken?

No there was no such action plan drawn up and agreed with the complainant as the complainant ‘hung up’ when an attempt was made to discuss the action plan.

Was the outcome of the local resolution a clear consequence of the actions agreed?

No the outcome was not of a clear consequence of the agreed actions as as no such actions were agreed.

If relevant was any explanation given sufficient, clear and comprehensive to address the complainant’s concerns?

An additional attempt was made by Inspector Shambler to contact the complainant via email. Although a response was received the papers reveal that the complainant did not accept the explanation given.

Have any lessons learnt been identified from the complaint and whether this has been identified and communicated to the complainant?

No there have not been any lessons learnt identified.

I have now taken all the above into consideration alongside your letter of appeal, and made my decision in respect of your appeal:

It is clear to me that the original advice that you were given by the operator when you telephoned Kent Police on 2 April 2015 remains valid. There is no evidence of information to believe that a crime has taken place.

You ought to challenge the decision of the judicial process (EAT) via the recognised routes, i.e.your legal representative. The papers that I have read indicate that you are trying to usurp the proper means of appeal by making criminal allegations. This appears to be an abuse of the process. I respectfully suggest you contact your solicitor to discuss how best to challenge what you believe to be an unjust outcome.

I have considered the second element of your appeal insofar as you state that Inspector Shambler is harassing you. Quite the contrary, he was trying to engage with you to better understand your complaint and how to resolve it. The advice that you were given by Inspector Shambler, to contact the tribunal authorities, was correct in my assessment. I shall be recording no such complaint against him, less so investigating one.

I consider that local resolution was the appropriate method of resolving your complaint.

The fact that you did not consent to the local resolution does not mean it was not suitable and appropriate. The conduct complained of would not justify any disciplinary action being sought against any officer. Your rights under Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights were not infringed. I consider that local resolution was the most appropriate method of resolving your complaint. You were given a right of appeal against both the process and the outcome.

Your appeal is therefore not upheld and no further action will be taken.

My decision in respect of your appeal is final and there is no further right of appeal, should you still be dissatisfied you may seek to challenge the decision through judicial review. Should you wish to seek a judicial review, you will need to obtain independent legal advice or contact your local Citizens Advice Bureau for further information.

Yours sincerely


Mr Lee J. Catling

Head of Professional Standards Department.

I replied by email as follows:

Your letter dated 10 Nov 2015: CO\00212\15

Shan Panigrahi <>


PSD General Enquiries Kent

Nov 14 at 8:13 AM


Mr Lee J Catling

Head of Pofessional Standardsl Department

Kent Police

Dear Sir

1. Your letter that I received yesterday concerning the investigation and prosecution of criminals who have terrorised me in the four cases that I reported to Kent Police (Greenwich Legalities, Internet Complaint, UKIP Proceedings and Shell Tribunal) is a deliberate act of covering up the criminalities that I reported to the Police.

2 I am therefore planning to renew my referral of this criminal act by you to the Administrative Court of the High Court despite the fact that the Court criminally harassed me when I last approached it about your persecuting officers at various levels and positions.

3. You should accordingly subject yourself to the Crown Prosecution Service for the issue of this letter at this time so as to be prosecuted for your roles in the criminality.

4. Please note that failure of the Crown Prosecution Service to charge you may lead to my having no alternative to issuing private prosecution proceedings against you personally.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3Hoath Lane



Kent ME8 0SL

After waiting several days for a reply and with none coming, I decided that I would have to go down the route of a private prosecution of the Police and to prepare for it sent the following email again to PSD Kent Police:

Freedom of Information Act Requirements (7)


Shan Panigrahi <>


PSD General Enquiries Kent

Nov 19 at 8:28 AM


Professional Standards Department

Kent Police

Dear Sir\Madam

1. I refer to my emailed letter to you 14 November 2015, 8.13 am, in which I requested Mt Lee J. Catlng, Head of Professional Standards Department of Kent Police to avail himself to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for its consideration of its charges that I have sought for prosecution.

2. Your silence in this matter is unacceptable. I need to know whether Mr Catlin voluntarily or through the processes of policing has brought this Case to the CPS. If the referral was not made I need the full written reasons. If the referral was made I need to know if this was a voluntary decision by Mr Catlin or a decision of the Police Force responsible.

3. If the referral to the CPS was made I need the full arguments presented to the CPS, and the written decision of the CPS with reasons.

4.Please note that the information I am seeking will be rightly required by the Magistrate or Judge presiding over the private prosecution that I have to consider in due course so that it is in the interest of justice through due process that I am informed now of the decisions that have been taken.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane



Kent ME8 OSL

When no email acknowledgement came I decided to seek legal assistance to take this action and emailed a local Solicitor Fosters Law by forwarding my Freedom of Information Act email. It said that it did not undertake such actions but gave me the details of Hodge Jones and Allen Solicitors who specialised in taking actions against the Police. I asked Fosters Law to forward my email to this Firm but it would not respond to this request and I said to that that I considered this to be wrong and appropriate for investigation by the Legal Ombudsman. It did not reply. That evening I deposited a message in the contact point website of Hodge Jones and Allen giving details of Fosters Law and asking if it had referred the Case to this firm. It would not answer the question, but indicated that it was willing to examine whether it could help me with legal assistance. Email correspondence followed but it seemed to be getting nowehere so that on 23 November 2015 I lodged a formal complaint at Legal Ombudsman for the lack of progress. The Legal Ombudsman did not reply but Hodge Jones and Allen resumed correspondence with me by email. I provided details of what I required comprehensively as follows:

(a)The Shell Tribunal matter.

Shan Panigrahi <>


Natalie Crabbe

Nov 23 at 4:41 PM

Dear Ms Crabbe

1. With regard to the Shell Tribunal matter, on 20 November 2015 I received a letter (dated 19 November 2015) in the post delivered to my house from Employment Tribunals (Montague Court, 101 London Rd, West Croydon, Surrey, CR0 2RF) citing Case No 2302960/2014 C, as follows:

Dear Sir/Madam, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013; Regional Employment Judge Hildebrand has instructed me to write to the claimant. This case is closed and no further correspondence can be entertained. Signed: Zionah Jaldo, For Secretary of Employment Tribunals.

2. I do not know what this letter was issued to me in response to.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

(b) The £5 million Claim that I lodged earlier in the summer at at Medway County Court against Kent Police that I wished the firm to activate on a No Win No Fee basis:

From: Shan Panigrahi [] Sent: 24 November 2015 15:09 To: Natalie Crabbe <> Subject: Re: Enquiry at Hodge Jones & Allen solicitors

Dear Natalie

1 The pamphlet given to me by Fosters Law following my enquiry when I was referred to your Firm stated the following:



Hodge Jones & Allen Solicitors are running free advice clinics on the first Friday of the month covering:-

Assault and battery

False imprisonment

Malicious/wrongful prosecution

Misfeasance in public office

Abuse of Police Powers

Human Rights

Harassment or discrimination by Police

Immigration detention

Inquests following deaths in custody or following police contact

Medway Citizens Advice Bureau clinic 10.00am - 1200 pm; Maidstone Citizens Advice Bureau Clinic between 2.00 pm and 4.00 pm

A free 20 minute initial appointment is available....To book an appointment Telephone ....

The clinics will be run by a solicitor from Hodge Jones and Allen LPP, who are ranked in Legal Publications Chambers & Partners UK and Legal 500.

Hodge Jones & Allen solicitors

2. Obviously, I would like the dispute to be resolved under Abuse of Police Powers, Human Rights and Harassment or discrimination by Police. Specifically, It was entirely improper conduct for Mr Nigel Shambler (PC) to telephone me one morning under false pretences and when I said that I did not wish to talk to the Police in view of their brutal treatment of my reports of crimes he sent me an email to manipulate the legal proceedings that I had undertaken. This was evident from the fact that when I followed up his email with pertinent and relevant questions on how Judge Kurrein got hold of a specific document of mine to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, he terminated the discussion which indicated that he was protecting the Tribunal officials from their criminal acts against me. This was covered up by Mr Catling in his letter to me of 10 November 2015, which I strongly protested about as Fosters law is aware.

3. The outcome I wish to achieve is for the Police to be prosecuted for these acts in their protection of the criminals in the Shell Tribunal, Greenwich Legalities, UKIP Proceedings and Internet Complaints issues and thereby leaving me vulnerable to legal problems arising from my protests.

4. I had therefore asked Medway County Court for £5 million in damages from Kent Police for what I suffered. This is the kind of financial outcome I would settle for on a No Win No Fee basis that your Firm could undertake on my behalf, as I made clear to Fosters Law in relation to my financial situation.

5. I am accordingly waiting for the telephone call that you indicate that I will now receive from your colleague Brenel.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

I further clarifying the Shell Tribunal matter with the following email:

Shan Panigrahi <>


Sebastian Del Monte

Nov 25 at 5:27 PM

Dear Mr Del Monte

I require a solicitor because Judge Hildebrand has seemingly issied a threat to me that I must not myself as claimant write to the Tribunal again to point out the unlawful nature of its interpretation and implementaion of TUPE regulations with the submitted evidence that I had stayed the Case against Shell in 2008 pending investigations of criminality in the workplace against me.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

Again Hodge Jones and Allen stalled me and with the Legal Ombudsman also taking no action I decided that the two of them were part of a concerted attempt by the judicial authorities of the State to deny me access to the justice that I was now in the process of seeking. Accordingly, I decided that this had to be a corporate private prosection for those so united to prevent me from pursuing my judicial attempts. I sent the following email to Hodge Jones and Allen and the Legal Ombudsman:

Legal Ombudsman's Final Opportunity to Discipline Hodge, Jones and Allen Solicitors: Corporate Private Prosecution to Follow (2)

Shan Panigrahi <>


27 Nov 2015 at 8:18 AM

Dear Sir/Madam

Please note the correction of date on my earlier email sent to the Legal Ombudsman, and inform Chatham Magistrates Court of your decisions in your replies - unfortunately I do not have the email address of this court.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Friday, 27 November 2015, 7:25, Shan Panigrahi <> wrote:


Legal Ombudsman

PO Box 6806,


West Midlands



Dear Sir

1. I write concerning my emailed letter of complaint sent to you at 10.34 am on 23 November 2015, to which I did not receive a reply following the autoresponse acknowledgement that was returned to me by email.

2. The Solicior Firm, Hodge Jones and Allen however sent me an email on 23 November 2015, 15.49 hours following which detailed submissions of my requirements were made by email.

3. After seemingly agreeing to activate my £5 million Claim at Medway County Court against Kent Police on a 'No Win No Fee' basis, the firm has not written to this Court with the urgency that was implicit, to my knowledge.

4. For these reasons, if I do not receive your reply to this complaint to discipline Hodge Jones and Solicitors by 3.00 pm today, corporate private prosecution should commence for criminal conspiracy against this company at Chatham Magistrates Court, as previously stated to you. I am therefore copying this email to this Court for action from this time if I do not receive any information on the compensation payment that I have demanded.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane



Kent ME8 0SL

cc Chatham Magistrates Court

Court House

The Brook

Chatham ME4 4TZ

Tel: 01634 830232

I also posted a copy of this letter to Chatham Magistrates Court, and in the afternoon sent the following email to Medway Magistrates on a forwarding of this email:

Legal Ombudsman's Final Opportunity to Discipline Hodge, Jones and Allen Solicitors: Corporate Private Prosecution to Follow (3)

Shan Panigrahi <>


27 Nov 2015 at 1:54 PM


Medway Magistrates

Medway Magistrates' Court and Family Court Hearing Centre The Court House The Brook Chatham Kent ME4 4JZ



Phone: Enquiries: 01634 830 232

Fax: 0870 324 0037

Dear Sir

1. I forward to you my latest communication to the Legal Ombudsman to brief you on the obstacles placed before me in accessing civil justice.

2. Accordingly, I wish to undertake the private prosecution of this Legal Ombudsman for the reason that my complaints of criminal conspiracy that have resulted in loss of income and other judicially-accruing benefits have been ignored by him.

3. Please let me know if the Legal Ombudsman is immuned from such an action by virtue of the office he holds.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane



Kent ME8 0SL

Friday, 27 November 2015, 8:18, Shan Panigrahi <> wrote: (forwarding the Disciplining email).

On a chance finding of a Legal Firm specialising in private prosecutions according to its website, I emailed the company and blogged the letter sent for I wanted all suffering to be in the public domain.

Shan Panigrahi <>


28 Nov 2015 at 8:28 AM



10-12 Ely Place,


London EC1N 6RY

Tel: 020 7269 5120

By email:

28 November 2015

Dear Sir,

Booking a Private Prosecution Consultation with ELS Legal LLP I write with reference to your invitation in your website to ‘Book a Private Prosecution Consultation’ as follows: If you believe you have a case against an individual or company that is suitable for a Private Prosecution, or are the potential subject of a Private Prosecution then email or call 020 7269 5120.

Please consider the following submission noting the steps that I have already taken in this matter as I considered fit and proper and provide me with the possibilities that I may still have to pursue justice and the procedure or procedures that should be employed now.

Background Rationale:

The question is why is there a need for a facility that will enable a citizen to bring forth private prosecutions for criminal activity. The answer is one must never trust the State that one lives in that it will implement justice fairly. Private prosecutions are especially required to bring charges of criminal activity of those in authority. It is to prevent authoritarianism, and stop the State from becoming unanswerable to the citizen. Thus it is not public interest as you state that is the reason for the existence of a private prosecution facility but the interests of the individual citizens in terms of his human rights.

Private prosecution represents the means for the citizen to exert his judicial right to reply as a fundamental human right. It must exist to prevent corruption in the civil judicial processes in which Judges can either be bought or pronounce their rulings on prejudice rather than factual evidence. The aggrieved party must be able to prosecute the judge if he feels he has been victimised by a Judge. And the party so-victimised must be able to protest freely in the media on the competence or criminality of a Judge.

The reasons that I describe the United Kingdom as a nation of morons in a Police State that requires its citizens to live like morons is the experience I have had in bringing people to face the justice that is dispensed by the State. It would not let me have Mr Rehman Chishti (MP) be investigated by the Parliamentary Standards Commission, and nor would the Medway County Court entertain my suing him for damages for his failure in processing my complaints in Parliament. The State would also not let me pursue Kent Police at the Independent Police Complaints Commission, in the Administrative Court, or at County Court Money Claims Centre/Medway County Court for its deliberate negligence in the processing of my criminal allegations with regard to the four issues of Greenwich Legalities, Internet Complaint, UKIP Proceedings and Shell Tribunal. Further solicitors have shown that nothing can be done about Regional Employment Judge Hildebrand with regard to the issue of his letter to me dated 19 November 2015 by appeal or reversal of his decision. Further, the Administrative Court would not recognise the complaints I made of government actions on (a) inadequacies of the Judicial System relating to my civil proceedings; and (b) the unlawful nature of government decision on the international scene.

The rules surrounding who can be subjected to private prosecution for criminal activity in the United Kingdom is unclear. Further, the method to be employed in the process of bringing charges are nowhere to be found. All we know is that when the Crown Prosecution Service fails to bring charges against an individual or for corporate criminality, it is thought that the citizen can undertake the private prosecution himself or herself. It is not known precisely how the citizen needs to go through the process of bringing such a prosecution. Further, it is not known whether there are individuals or institutions and even Judges themselves who are above the law so that no such cases can be brought against them by a citizen. These matters need to be ascertained if we are not to live in a Police State that allows people in privileged positions to perpetrate criminal activity because they are certain that the Police are either not interested in the crimes that they commit or worse condone such activities.

When one lives to improving the society one lives in my view is that no one should be above the law so the facility to undertake private prosecution if the preliminaries show sufficient evidence should be used an option because the Crown Prosecution Service cannot be trusted with justice for the individual citizen as different from the consideration of the stability of the State that is prescribed by the Establishment. The aggrieved individual citizen must be permitted to submit his evidence to a Magistrate to assess his perceived criminality that he believes he has personally suffered with a view to the sentencing of the offenders responsible for crime. He or she should be entitled to State financial assistance in bringing a case to a criminal court as fulfilling a different need for society than is the case with civil proceedings where personal financial gain is the objective. Thus, for private prosecution of crimes the costs incurred by the Court must be borne by the Ministry of Justice through legal aid to enable a citizen bringing a case forward provided that a Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of criminality.

Private Prosecution Case submission

The term corporate private prosecution has been employed by me to denote the allegation that the entire Law Enforcement System mobilised to victimise me on the Greenwich Legalities, Shell Tribunal, Internet Complaint and UKIP Proceedings incidents that were submitted to Kent Police for considerations of criminality. If the Police did not have the resources to take the allegations seriously it should have just written to me that its resources did not allow the investigation of these matters. Instead, it sought to pretend that the matters had been thoroughly investigated and no criminality found. It refused to reply to my 14 November 2015 and 19 November 2015 which prepared the way to private prosecution of the Police for covering up the criminalities. When the case was submitted to Medway County Court for a damages Claim of £5 million against the Police under the brief statement ‘Wilful negligence by Kent Police’, the court officials refused to recognise the Claim. When Hodge Jones and Allen was asked to use its judicial position to compel the court into implementing consideration of this Case, the solicitors went silent. Finally, Regional Judge Hildebrand took it upon himself on 19 November 2015 to issue a decision that the Shell Tribunal Case was closed and that no further correspondence could be entertained. As a Regional Judge he had no business in interfering in the process of the Employment Tribunal unless he was still writing to me as Complaints Officer to consider my allegation of victimisation by Judge Kurrein to whom I had submitted fresh new evidence on 24 October 2015 concerning TUPE [The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations] provisions. It is therefore clear that his decision to delay writing to me was related to Kent Police’s decision not to reply to my letters in response to its 10 November 2015 letter to me.

Thus, Judge Hildebrand, District Judge Wilkinson, Hodge Jones and Allen and the Legal Ombudsman must be subjected to a corporate private prosecution to be held accountable for the judicial victimisation of a citizen.

Legal Ombudsman

The remit of the Legal Ombudsman stretches to make him responsible for considering these ramifications when an application is made for him to consider whether solicitors and barristers have acted correctly to consider an application for legal assistance. Failure to do so amounts to lack of commitment to fulfil a judicial need for which his motives must be determined from pursuing the private prosecution against him.

I have had two sets of dealings with the Legal Ombudsman, the first in May 2014 (see here: ; ) and the other during the week 19-27 November 2015 with regard to two new firms of solicitors (Fosters Law and Hodge, Jones and Allen) whom I consulted to see if they would carry out some legal actions for me on on-going issues that I needed legal assistance with.

Enquiry lodged with Medway Magistrates on whether the Legal Ombudsman can be subjected to private prosecution proceedings

These two sets of proceedings with the Legal Ombudsman left a bitter taste in the mouth and on the afternoon of 27 November 2015 I had to ask Medway Magistrates by email whether the Legal Ombudsman can be privately prosecuted by me by forwarding the specific details of my concerns expressed to the Legal Ombudsman. My first email to the Magistrates at Medway Magistrates went to the following email address at 1.15 pm:<>; strangely however this email came back to me at 1.47 pm as undeliverable from an email address called, with the following accompanying message: ‘a problem occurred during the delivery of this message. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please try resending this message later, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. The following organization rejected your message: RECAPHUB1.civilappeals.local.’

I then tried sending the same email, at 1:54 pm, to which is the enquiries email address of North and Central Kent Magistrates Court addressing my email to Medway Magistrates, Medway Magistrates' Court and Family Court Hearing Centre, The Court House, The Brook, Chatham, Kent ME4 4JZ. This time I did receive an auto-acknowledgement of the email at 1.57 pm but there was no formal reply during the rest of the afternoon to the question that I had posed so that there is no certainty that my query is receiving consideration.

ELS Acting on my behalf to issue private prosecution proceedings

I would be grateful if you would digest the information that I have provided and issue the private prosecution that you say you have experience of. Please note however that I have no access to any finances so please clarify in your reply if I will be am entitled to any State financial provisions to proceed with this private prosecution. For any Fee Remission Form that you may need to complete on my behalf please note that for all intents and purposes I do not have a partner since the woman I am with wanted a divorce but has allowed me to live in her house as she says that while we have nothing in common she does not wish me to become a destitute/tramp roaming in the streets. I earn £84 per week basic and have no savings of my own.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane