RESTRICTED - PERSONAL

Office for Judicial Complaints

10th Floor, The Tower
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
DX 152380 Westminster 8

RESTRICTED - PERSONAL
Dr R Pal
Dr.ritapal@googlemail.com

T 020 3334 2516

F 020 3334 2541
E Pamela.Herron@ojc.gsi.gov.uk
Minicom VII 020 3334 2668
(Helpline for the deaf and hard of
hearing)
www.judicialcomplaints.gov.uk

Our ref: 8321/2010

30 July 2010
Dear Dr Pal
Complaint about Sir Scott Baker
I am writing on behalf of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to inform you
of the decision they have taken in relation to your complaint about the conduct
of Sir Scott Baker.
After careful consideration your complaint to the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC)
has been dismissed for the reasons detailed below. I appreciate that you will be
disappointed with this outcome, but I hope this letter fully explains how and why this
decision was made.
The remit of the OJC
As you may be aware, my role as a caseworker in the OJC is to support the Lord
Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice in their joint responsibilities for judicial conduct
and discipline. These responsibilities are set out in the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed
Procedures) Regulations 2006 (as amended) and cover matters relating to
allegations of misconduct in the way that a judicial office holder has behaved,
whether inside or outside the courtroom.
Your complaint
You set out the details of your complaint about Sir Scott Baker in your e mails dated
1, 25 and 26 May 2010. You also provided documentation in support of your
complaint, including the Judicial Studies Board publication Fairness in courts and
tribunals and the Equal Treatment Bench Book.
In your email of 1 May, you alleged that Sir Scott Baker referred to you throughout
the hearing as Dr Patel. In doing so, you allege that he showed an indifference to
your ethnicity and your background. You expressed concern that his demeanour

RESTRICTED - PERSONAL

indicated that he felt all Asian doctors were termed Dr Patel by default and,
consequently, you consider him to be in breach of the Race Relations Act 1976.
Decision on your complaint
In reaching their decision on this matter, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief
Justice have considered most carefully the full details of your complaint, the
response from Sir Scott Baker, the evidence of the court recording and the advice of
the Nominated Judge. The latter has a statutory role to advise the Lord Chancellor
and the Lord Chief Justice on matters of conduct from a judicial perspective.
I must inform you that the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have
determined that your complaint as set out above is unsubstantiated and should be
dismissed in accordance with their powers under Regulation 26 (1) (a) of the Judicial
Discipline Regulations.
Reasons for dismissal
There is no dispute that Sir Scott Baker referred to you as Dr Patel. When he was
contacted for permission for officials to request the court recording (an entirely
routine courtesy) he immediately gave permission, but also took the opportunity to
say that, without at that stage having recourse to the transcript, if he had referred to
you as Dr Patel, then he was extremely sorry for his oversight and he gave his
assurance that he had intended no offence. He observed that he would have
expected your counsel to bring this to his attention at the time. If this had been done
it would have afforded him an immediate opportunity to correct the court record and
apologise directly to you.
It is clearly a sensitive matter to refer to anyone by the wrong name and perhaps
particularly so if there can be racial or other associations. It is understood why you
took offence and Sir Scott Baker has apologised for his inadvertent mistake.
There is no evidence that in referring to you as Dr Patel for a short time on four
occasions Sir Scott Baker was deliberately seeking to offend. For the remainder of
the hearing he referred to you by your correct name. On the evidence available, Sir
Scott Baker made an unfortunate mistake of the sort almost every judge, however
conscientious, occasionally makes. When drawn to his attention he has immediately
apologised.
There is no evidence to substantiate your charge of a breach of the Race Relations
Act. It is an unfortunate and regrettable slip. If you or your counsel had brought his
mistake to his attention at the time he would have been able to apologise to you
directly. He has now done so. It is not, however, a matter of judicial misconduct.
Consequently, your allegation is assessed as unsubstantiated and your complaint
dismissed.
You had also raised concerns that throughout the court hearing Sir Scott Baker was
not aware that the General Medical Council (GMC) is run on a database and that he
did not pay due attention to what you refer to as the ongoing discrimination through
the court process. This was illustrated, in your view, by his allegedly failing to note
that there were two conflicting definitions of misconduct running parallel through the
courts, namely a favourable decision related to a Caucasian (R v GMC Ex Parte

RESTRICTED - PERSONAL

Remedy UK) and unfavourable to you, a British Indian (R v GMC Ex Parte Pal). I
must advise you that these are issues concerning judicial decisions and judicial case
management and are not matters that the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice
and officials in the OJC can, or will, involve themselves with. Such issues can only be
challenged through the court process.
I trust that I have explained clearly the decision making process and the reasons for
dismissing your complaint. You are, of course, welcome to seek further information if
anything in this letter is unclear. As you know, I can be contacted on 020 3334 2516
or by email at Pamela.herron@ojc.gsi.gov.uk.
The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
Finally, I must advise you that if you feel that the Office for Judicial Complaints has
not handled your complaint properly, you can complain to the Judicial Appointments
and Conduct Ombudsman, Sir John Brigstocke KCB. Please note, however, that the
Ombudsman can only consider a complaint about our handling of your complaint. He
has no power to investigate your original complaint about the judges concerned.
The Ombudsman will be able to investigate your complaint if you write to him within
28 days of notification of our decision. After that period, he will consider whether it is
appropriate to investigate it. Further information about the Ombudsman and his remit
for investigations can be found at www.judicialombudsman.gov.uk. The Office of the
Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman can be contacted in writing at 9 th
Floor, The Tower, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ. (telephone number: 020
3334 2900) (E-mail: headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk).
I have copied this letter to Sir Scott Baker.
Yours sincerely,

Pamela Herron
Senior Caseworker - Office for Judicial Complaints