judicial conduct complaint – redact

7/24/2019 Judicial Conduct Complaint Redact

1/12

Judicial ConductInvestigations Office

___________

Complaint form

Thank you for sending us details of your complaint.

Below is a copy of the details you supplied, please keep this form for your records.

When we reply you we will provide you with a unique case reference number. In the meantime, if you

need to contact us, please quote the reference number provided here.

Date form submitted 7 November 2015

Your details

Title Mr

First name Neil

Last name Gilliatt

Address x

y

z

Postcode

Daytime telephone

Email

Details about your case

Type of judicialoffice holder

District Judge (Magistrates Court)

Name of judicialoffice holder

Daniel Curtis

Name of the courtor tribunal

Grimsby Magistrates Court

Case number Not known Date of Hearing 30 October 2015

Is your case stillongoingNo

JCIO Complaint form (09.13)


2/12

Brief description of your complaint

Categoryof complaint

Miscellaneous

Description of your complaint

Background to case

North East Lincs Council (the 'Claimant') erroneously applied for a liability order for non-payment of council tax

due to misallocating monies to a sum that had arisen from a previous years summons costs, which were

disputed and appealed to the High Court. That sum was suspended pending the court's decision; therefore no

payments in respect of the current liability were ever overdue. The case (High Court) is yet to be determined so

the costs still suspended; therefore, under no circumstances was it a sum to which the Claimant could

legitimately allocate payment.

Myself (the "Defendant") submitted extensive evidence to support that i) the appeal (as alleged) had never

been withdrawn and so the suspension of costs from the account never lifted, ii) payments were in any event

inferred by the circumstances to be appropriated to the current liability, iii) it was inconceivable that the

summons costs as applied on making complaint could have been incurred by the claimant, as per the

Claimants breakdown.

The Claimant made a statement (material in the proceedings) which he knew to be false, to the effect that the

appeal challenging the costs had been withdrawn. Indisputable evidence was submitted to support why the

statement was untrue and why the Claimant could not have believed it to have been true. The Defendant'ssuspicion that the statement was made with deliberate intent to deceive the court was made clear in those

representations.

Professional Misconduct

The judge was unwilling to listen to, accept or understand any evidence which didn't fit in with the pre-

determined outcome (to accept the false statement to justify granting the order). It was sensed throughout the

hearing that the judge pretended to be out of his depth as a strategy for denying evidence that might, if

considered, defeat the Claimant's argument and make granting the order more difficult to justify. His ineptitude

was almost certainly put on for show; therefore a description far more accurate would be of 'ProfessionalMisconduct' than that of incompetence.

Criminal Allegations

The judge was so lacking in objectivity and obviously pro-prosecution that had an unsighted person walked into

the courtroom he would have almost certainly mistaken him as the Claimant's barrister, albeit one grasping at

straws, raising irrelevant matters with the intention of hoodwinking the bench. It can therefore be stated

unreservedly that there had been not even a hint of a fair hearing.

There seems no doubt that the judge had acted with intent to pervert the course of justice as he had before himindisputable evidence that a false and corrupt statement had been made. Granting an order therefore made

him complicit in the Claimant's criminal actions that sought to exploit a complaint to the court for the purposes

of defrauding the Defendant with an attached claim of costs.


3/12

Inappropriate Comments / Discrimination

His manner (the judge) was antagonistic and belittling and although there was no retaliation to speak of, the

provocation was such that a conflict could have easily arisen. It is easily seen how such an approach might be

used to distract attention from the case in order to discredit someone or simply to goad someone who the judge

took a personal dislike to. If such incidents have occurred, which is difficult to see how they could not have,

based upon my experience, I would fully support anyone who has fallen victim who might now, for example be

on a charge for contempt of court, as a consequence of the provocation.

His concluding comments in so far as they can be recalled were that hed listened for half an hour to an

outburst of political diatribe for which only 5 minutes made any sense. This can only be put down to his inability

(or demonstration thereof) to understand the representations which had in any event been submitted as

detailed written evidence. The diatribe referred to can only reasonably be put down to a couple of issues raised.

A reference to the misconduct of the Justices Clerk for the Humber and South Yorkshire which is considered so

serious as to warrant answering charges of misconduct in public office is one. Secondly, a matter which the

Claimant relied on was contended as being misleading evidence (additional to the false statement).

As for the political reference, it was merely pointed out that the issues were of general public importance as

they could detrimentally affect significant numbers and more so since government reforms introduced changes

to council tax benefits. These issues were material to the case and did not exceed a brief mention as the judge

made it plain that they were not matters worthy of consideration, presumably because they were not favourable

to the outcome that had obviously been pre-determined in the interest of the Claimant. Again everything

relevant to these points was set out in the written evidence.

His comments were far from the most tactful thing to say to someone, who whilst over the period of time that

the judge will have received over half a million pounds of taxpayer's money, has had no remuneration

whatsoever for consistently and voluntarily dedicating around 15 hours a day, 7 days a week to matters

concerning the wholesale fraud, which it has become obvious is endorsed by people appointed in a judicial

capacity.

The judge was acting beyond his authority when again in his belittling manner his interrogation turned to an

irrelevant matter concerning the number of payments, in what sum those payments were made and the method

chosen for paying council tax instalments. It irked him, so much so, that he enquired if a bank account was held

and why payments werent made by standing order like everyone else. It wasnt for the court to lay blame

elsewhere for the Claimant exploiting its council tax processing system as a means of defrauding taxpayers.

Unashamed bias was displayed again when the judge referred to previous maladministration, similarly in

respect of misallocated payments, for which 27 days was taken by the Claimant to respond and resolve the

matter, by which time reminders and a summons were wrongly issued. The facts were distorted out of all

recognition and portrayed in the courtroom to be the Defendants fault for the Claimants gross error. The judge

was again noticeably irked to the point that he was motivated to make a spurious statement which was that the

Claimant, as a consequence, had a right to demand subsequent years liability up-front thus removing the

statutory instalment entitlement.

Misuse of Judicial Powers

Not withstanding his reliance on a statement which he knew was false, the judge acted outside his powers by

granting the order. The regulations governing council tax liability do not give the court authority to make an

order when the defendant has proved that there is no outstanding debt. No discretion in such cases is given toimpose a penalty (especially not for ones own perverse gratification) which is what the judge did in this case by

allowing the application and granting costs, based on his own opinion differing from the Defendants about how,

and in what manner bills are paid.


4/12

Neither is the court allowed discretion in the amount of costs it orders. The regulations restrict the level so that

no more than the expenditure incurred by the applicant in respect of instituting the complaint is rechargeable to

the defendant. The breakdown contained indisputable evidence that the vast majority of the costs claimed were

not incurred by the Claimant in respect of instituting the complaint in the Defendants case. The judge approved

the level from a brief glance of the breakdown. It was then explained to him that the costs itemised referred

largely to council resources dealing with enquiries, rescheduling and monitoring payment plans etc. and

subsidising bad debt for which none could be attributable to the Defendants summons. A detailed analysis in

this regard had in any event been submitted in the written evidence.

The order was not made because there was a legal obligation, but for what appeared to be the assistance that

imposing a financial penalty might provide in coercing the Defendant into conceding and making payments in

line with the Claimant's preferred method.

There was a substantial amount of evidence before the court. Had due process followed and the

representations considered objectively it is inconceivable that the judge would have determined the case in the

way he did. He seemed to view his role as a disciplinarian rather than someone who was duty bound to deliver

a decision based on the legal arguments that were before him.

It is appreciated that a complaint cannot consider the judge's decision (that is now a police matter), but this is

not a complaint about that, rather it concerns the failure to carry out his duties in an unbiased way and for that

reason unfit to sit on the bench in a court of law and should no longer be allowed to for the sake of future

potential victims of the judicial system.

Annex A to C

The misconduct is of such a serious nature that should the concerns raised be misjudged and no action takenas a consequence, the justice systems reputation will be seriously at stake. That is why material has been

included in Annex A to C which demonstrates, for want of a better phrase, that it is beyond reasonable doubt,

that the Defendant has been stitched-up by what points to a criminal conspiracy between the Claimant and the

court.

Annex A

Contained here is an exhibit identified as NELC12. In its Witness Statement, the Claimant refers to the letters

in that exhibit to justify having no further reason to believe that the costs were being disputed because the

Defendant had withdrawn his application for the Judicial review of the costs.

It is not only clear from the content of the Defendants letter dated 20 November 2013 that the application to

state a case regarding costs had not been withdrawn (only the claim for a mandatory order), but the letter was

not a copy of the original. It is beyond all reasonable doubt that the Claimant had sourced those letters from a

public forum, the same forum which it had sourced the contents of another of its exhibits (NELC11).

Annex B

The letters contained in Annex A had been redacted and matched the entries that were posted on the public

forum as seen in Annex B. The forum is the only place from which those letters could be sourced in thatredacted form. The characteristics of the letters which the Claimant submitted to the court were identical to the

forum posts.


5/12

Clearly the Claimant had not sought the original letters and had presumably for convenience consulted the

public forum on which all letters connected with the matter (albeit redacted) where conveniently in one place. It

is a reasonably assumption that if on this occasion the Claimant consulted the forum to produce its exhibit, it

would have done so subsequently where further updates on that forum continued providing evidence that the

case stated was still very much being pursued. That would only reinforce the established fact and so does notmatter whether the Claimant did or did not continued monitoring the forum, as the crux of the matter is that the

post (Annex A) from which the content was sourced was accompanied with some commentary which reinforced

the matter in itself. Crucially the commentary ended with this sentence: the next move will be to arrange to

appear before the Magistrates' Court to agree terms of a recognizance.

Annex C

The exhibit (NELC1) is the Defendants 2015/16 council tax bill (demand notice) which displays unambiguously

at the bottom of the document that an amount of 60.00 is a sum which is subject to Court Proceedings. The

same has been included on each of the Defendants demand notices ever since the appeal, by way of a casestated, was instituted.

Allegations of Judicial Misconduct

For the avoidance of doubt, this does not constitute an appeal of the courts decision, it is a complaint made in

accordance with the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014 about the judges conduct

on several counts which are set out in detail above and itemised as follows:

i) Professional Misconduct

ii) Criminal Allegations

iii) Inappropriate Comments / Discrimination

iv) Misuse of Judicial Powers

I confirm that the information I have provided is correct.

Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office, Royal Courts of Justice,

Queens Building, Strand, London WC2A 2LL

Enquiry Line: 020 7073 4719 Fax: 020 7073 4725

JCIO Complaint form (09.13)


6/12

Annex A


Claimant

North East Lincolnshire Council

V

Defendant

This is exhibit NELC12 as referred to in the

Application for Liability Order


7/12

Administrative Court Office at Leeds

Leeds Combined Court

1 Oxford Row

Leeds

Your ref: CO/7281/2013

20 November 2013

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: The Queen on the application of [.................................................. .......] v GRIMSBY MAGISTRATES COURT

I'm asked to advise the court whether I will be withdrawing this judicial review claim as it deems there

to be no longer a need for further action on the part of the High Court.

Representations have been made upon the draft case though I've neither entered into a recognizance

nor since been asked to. The purpose of the judicial review claim was, I believed, to mandate the

Justices to state the case without being subject to terms of a recognizance.

I had viewed that agreeing such terms would pose risks, potentially greater than subjecting myself to

forfeiture of the proposed sum if, for example, to avoid a penalty the appeal was prosecuted

knowing that the stated case omitted the points in law I was questioning. In terms of successfully

appealing the decision I would be disadvantaged from the outset and disproportionately exposed to

the financial risks of incurring costs. It could be argued that in these circumstances, requiring

recognizance would either be denying my access to justice or unduly burdening me financially, as

presently I'm in receipt of no income.

Although the claim prompted service of the draft case, it still remains that delivery of the final signed

case has, in accordance with CrimPR Part 64, rule 64.3(7), overrun by approximately two months.

Presumably then, the agreement detailed in the acknowledgement of service was only to serve the

draft case.

I am therefore in the same position now as I was before the claim for a mandatory order as it seems

the Justices will unlikely deliver the signed case unless recognizance is entered into.

However, where my queries with the Magistrates' court went unanswered, the judicial review process

succeeded in drawing from the Clerk that if I had appeared before the court to enter into a

recognizance, its appropriateness and/or the amount could have been considered. This is exactly the

information I was seeking and would never have obtained had I not proceeded with this claim for

judicial review.

Knowing as I do now, that a possibility exists to negotiate terms which are mutually acceptable, it

seems arranging to appear before the court to enter into a recognizance is now appropriate.


8/12

In light of the Justices expressing regard for the Administrative Court's time and public money, it

would also seem appropriate, if, whilst appearing before the Magistrates' Court to agree terms of a

recognizance, I also seek agreement to terms of an order that the court consider the matter on the

papers and that there be no order as to costs, as the case involves a matter of general publicimportance.

After considering the options that appear available to me now, please take this as formal notice that I

am withdrawing this judicial review claim.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service

Administrative Court Office at Leeds

Leeds Combined Court

1 Oxford Row

Leeds

West Yorkshire

LS1 3BG

25 November 2013

Our ref: CO/7281/2013

Your ref:

Dear Sir/Madam

Re The Queen on the application of [.................................................. .......] versus GRIMSBY MAGISTRATES

COURT

I am writing to inform you that your letter in the above case was received by this office on 22/11/2013.

Unless you hear from us within four weeks from the date of this letter, you can assume that your letter

to withdraw has been accepted and the Court file has been closed.

Please note that all copy documents in the above matter will be destroyed immediately following the

closure of the case, unless you have already notified the court that you would like them returned.

If you require any further information, please contact the Administrative Court Office General Office on

0113 306 2578.


9/12

Annex B


10/12


11/12

Annex C


Claimant

North East Lincolnshire Council

V

Defendant

This is exhibit NELC1 as referred to in the

Application for Liability Order


12/12

judicial conduct complaint – redact

Documents