Judicial Appointments & Conduct

Ombudsman
Postal Area 9.53
th
9 Floor, The Tower
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ

Our ref: 15-2489

DX 152380 Westminster 8
T 020 3334 2900
E headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk
www.judicialombudsman.gov.uk

Mr Xxxx Yyyyyy
yyyyyyyxxxx@mail.com

Dear Mr Yyyyyy

23 May 2016

Your complaint
Thank you for your correspondence with my officers setting out your concerns about your
complaint.
I asked Mr Rose to consider this matter; as you are aware his letter indicated that I would
conduct a full investigation, including referring my report to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord
Chief Justice. However I have since discussed the matter with him and concluded that your
complaint does not raise issues which could enable me to make a finding of
maladministration.
I am therefore afraid that I must refuse to accept your complaint for a full investigation. You
will see from the accompanying reports that I was content that the Humber Advisory
Committee properly considered and dismissed your complaint on 2 September 2014, in
accordance with the relevant legislation and guidance.
The fact that three letters did not reach you is surprising as they were properly addressed
except for a minor error in the postcode which should not have prevented delivery. I do not
consider that a finding of maladministration is possible for this error.
Concerns that you raise about the Court's response to your application for Judicial Review do
not fall within the scope of the disciplinary process and were properly dismissed by the
Humber Advisory Committee in accordance with legislation and guidance. The Court's
response to your application for Judicial Review is outside my remit and I cannot comment
further on that issue.
I appreciate that you will be disappointed that I have not been able to accept your complaint
for a full investigation, but I can assure you that I did consider the matter most carefully before
reaching my decision.
Yours sincerely,

Mr Paul Kernaghan CBE

Complaint by Mr Xxxx Yyyyyy - Ombudsmans Preliminary Investigation Report

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND CONDUCT OMBUDSMANS PRELIMINARY

INVESTIGATION REPORT
COMPLAINT BY MR XXXX YYYYYY
Introduction
1.

Mr Xxxx Yyyyyy asked me to review the investigation by the Humber Advisory

Committee (HAC) of his complaint against Mr J A ONions JP and Mr T A
Shepherdson JP.

The complaint
2.

Mr Yyyyyy complained to me on 8 August 2015. I have carried out a preliminary

investigation into his concerns that the HAC did not respond to his complaint: I
could not consider his complaint about the Courts failure to provide a case
stated response to his application for Judicial Review as this could not be dealt
with under the regulated disciplinary procedures and is therefore outside my
remit.

The background
3.

Mr Yyyyyy faced a summons to appear at Grimsby Magistrates Court on 2

November 2012 for non-payment of Council Tax. He paid the outstanding tax
plus part of the costs demanded in the summons prior to the hearing. He was
concerned that on the date of the hearing the court made him liable for the
outstanding costs. He subsequently applied to Judicially Review this decision
and the matter appears to have been settled with the Council at that point. On 2
September 2014 Mr Yyyyyy complained to the HAC about the magistrates
hearing his case. His complaint was dismissed on 16 September 2014 on the
grounds that he was complaining about a judicial decision which did not raise a
question of misconduct. Mr Yyyyyy did not receive the letter and subsequently
complained about this to the Judicial Office and the JCIO.

My decision
4.

I have not identified any issue arising in my preliminary investigation which could
lead to a finding of maladministration. I consider that the error in the post code
of the dismissal letter of 2 September 2015 should not have prevented it from
being delivered, as the whole of the postal address was correctly set out, and if it
was undelivered it should have been returned to the HAC for further action and
re-issue. This minor error could not in itself amount to maladministration. I note
that the HAC re-issued the dismissal letter on two further occasions but that

Complaint by Mr Xxxx Yyyyyy - Ombudsmans Preliminary Investigation Report

there is no proof of postage as the letter was sent by standard post. It is
unfortunate that the HAC did not email a copy to Mr Yyyyyy when it posted a
copy of the letter, but again this omission could not amount to maladministration.
I am content that Mr Yyyyyys complaint of 2 September 2014 was properly
dismissed in accordance with disciplinary legislation and guidance. For these
reasons I cannot accept this complaint for a full investigation

Paul Kernaghan CBE

23 May 2016