Complaint Handling and Enquiries Team - 102 Petty France

Complaints, Correspondence and Litigation Team
1st Floor, Post Point 1.4

102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
XX Xxxxxx Xxxx
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DNXX XXX
25 June 2016
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Failure responding to correspondence regarding delivery of case stated

I understand my complaint should in the first instance be made to the Court Manager; however, the
concerns I wish to raise have been ongoing since November 2012 and relate to the court failing to
reply, so consider it valid that it is escalated now to the Complaints Handling Team. The complaint
surrounds a disputed order made against me by Justices at Grimsby Magistrates court which led
to an application to the court to state a case for an appeal to the high court.
I have been unable to obtain the case stated, despite making numerous attempts. It is this failure
that has prevented the appeal that was instituted on 22 November 2012 from proceeding to the
High Court to this day.
The injustice caused extends far beyond that set out in this complaint and so consider it just
preliminary information to get an investigation underway. It is intended, on agreement with the
team to forward details of the issues that have arisen as a result of the gross failure to enable a
comprehensive investigation to be carried out.
Those issues predominantly concern North East Lincolnshire Council misallocating payment to the
sum subject to appeal when payment was clearly intended for the years council tax account which
was current when paid. As the council has been able to engineer payment arrears this has led to
recovery being taken through the court each year since with further costs added in the most recent
proceedings. That in turn has led to time consuming and fruitless disputes i.e., formal complaints,
escalation of issues to the LGO, police, police appeals and entering into a private prosecution
against the police for negligence by improperly exercising police powers under Section 26 of the
Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
The issues, as far as those directly relating to HMCTS are evident from the correspondence
compiled chronologically appended to this letter, which is referable to the draft document
(chronology) prepared for, and intended to be part of the High Court papers for the case stated
appeal.
It will be evident on reading the account that the cause of the gross injustice which has protracted
so far over roughly three and a half years has been the unwillingness and refusal of the court to
cooperate, which in some cases has involved more seriously lying.
Key points
Initial delay
There was no contact made when the Deputy Justices Clerk who was initially dealing with the
application left HMCTS toward the end of 2012. After several weeks having no update, enquiries
were made to find out why there was no progress being made and it was only on this prompt that I
was made aware that the Deputy Justices Clerk was no longer employed by HMCTS.
Unnecessary Claim for mandatory order
The failure to deal with queries about the recognizance which the Magistrates set at 500 resulted
in gross injustice as I had to research judicial review procedures (mandatory order) as it was not
reasonable that I appoint a legal professional. It was only by doing this and when the judicial
review claim was underway that the Magistrates' Court admitted in the Acknowledgement of
Service that the question of the appropriateness of the recognizance and/or the amount could
have been considered by the court. Simply answering my correspondence would have meant
making the claim for judicial review was not necessary.
Unanswered correspondence to obtain final case
Various correspondence going unanswered from 19 August 2013 when representations were
made on the draft case, up until the Justices' Clerk finally made contact on 6 March 2014 stating
that either that day or the following the position regarding the case (advising on the next steps)
would be set out in writing. Even with that undertaking there was no communication advising on
the next steps. Subsequent attempts to find out what was happening elicited no response.
A letter sent 22 April 2014 requested the production of a Certificate of refusal to state a case under
section 111(5) of the Magistrates Court's Act 1980 but was never answered, neither was an email
sent 9 July 2014 to enquire into whether HMCTS had any arrangements in place to restrict my
contact with the court.
Judicial complaint to Humber Advisory Committee
Having no response until 23 February 2016 to a judicial complaint dated 2 September 2014 to the
Advisory Committee which was obtained only after engaging the Judicial Conduct Ombudsman. It
is claimed that the matter was dealt with on 16 September 2014 and stated that a Certificate of
refusal to state a case was not issued by the Justices because the final case was sent to me.
Despite this, a copy which has been requested has not been sent nor has the Justices Clerks
undertaking to inform me of the matter by 15 April 2016 been acted on.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
HM Courts
& Tribunals
Service
__
.t
GRIMSBY
DN320QJ
Julie Collins
Courts and Tribunals Manager for
Humber & South Yorkshire
Alison Watts
Clerk to the Justices
Doncaster Magistrates' Court
PO Box 49
College Road
DONCASTER
DN13HT
OX 707680 GRIMSBY 5
T 01472 592408 (Mike Draper)
T 01472 592406 (Chris Houlden/Allison Wade)
F 01472 320440
E mike.draper@hmcts.gsLgov.uk
E chris.houlden@hmcts.gsLgov.uk
E allison.wade@hmcts.gsLgov.uk
www.justice.gov.uk/about/hmcts/index.htm
6 November 2012
Dear Mr
Our ref: G45G04/MD/AW
Council Tax Liability Order

I am writing in response to your email sent to Mr Houlden on 5 November and which
has been passed to me for a response as Mr Houlden recently left the HM Courts and
Tribunal Service.
I note your comments and in particular your intention to appeal the decision of the court
to make a Liability Order in proceedings brought against you by North East
Lincolnshire Council and determined on 2 November. To assist I ask you to note that a
Liability Order can only be challenged by an appeal to the High Court by way of either
a case stated on a point of law (which must be done within 21 days via the Magistrates
Court) or a judicial review (time limit of 3 months and via the High Court).
The procedure is quite technical and for that reason I would strongly suggest that
before proceeding you consider taking independent legal advice.
In relation to other matters referred to in your email I would ask that in the first instance
you forward any correspondence to me and I will ensure it is passed on as necessary
to appropriate members of staff.
If I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours truly,
;1.[. )~~
M L DRAPER
Deputy Justices' Clerk
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Xxx" <xxx.xxxxx@btopenworld.com>
<mike.draper@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
16 November 2012 17:42
Re: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW
Dear Mr Draper
Re: Council Tax Liability Order
Thank you for your 6 November 2012 letter, regarding my intention to appeal the court's decision of making a
liability order against me.
I've researched provisionally into appealing by way of a case stated. I realise I have only a week to make the
application and have discovered a number of forms which might be necessary to complete the
application. I fear there will be a requirement to include details I don't have, such as the Magistrates names
sitting on the bench and a case or liability order reference.
My concern at this point is the likelihood that all details will not be completed within the 21 day time limit. Is
there any way I can buy some time by lodging the appeal and then supplying further details afterwards?
I'm unemployed, receiving no benefits and have no income whatsoever, so you will appreciate seeking legal
advice is not a realistic option for me. It does seem however, from my provisional research that there maybe
concessions for applicants on low incomes. I wondered if such things could be looked into after the
application is made, to allow me time to concentrate on the point of law I wish to base the appeal on.
I suppose I'd need to disregard 95% of my original evidence and focus on the fact that no supporting evidence
was supplied by the authority to justify their costs were reasonable. And, that the liability order costs had been
front loaded to the summons penalty in breach of regulation 34 of the council tax regs.
A point demonstrating this would be that prior to 1 April 2012, summons and liability order costs were 56%
and 44% respectively of the total costs which would make the new costs (if they could be justified) only 39 for
the summons, not the 70 they're currently charging.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
20/06/2016
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Draper, Mike" <mike.draper@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

19 November 2012 15:19
RE: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW
Dear Mr Xxxxx
In reply to the points made in your email I would ask you to note the following information.
An application to state a case for the opinion of the High Court is governed by strict procedures. Unfortunately
it is not possible to give notice and then file additional particulars later this is because once lodged the appeal
triggers further procedures which are themselves governed by strict time limits.
As for the fee I can say that it is possible to apply for remission in certain circumstances. A copy of the
relevant application form and accompanying notes is available for collection from the court office or it can be
downloaded at http://www.justice.gov.uk/forms/hmcts, the booklet number is EX160A (the form is in
the booklet and is form EX160).
I hope that this information assists.
Regards
Mike Draper
Deputy Justices Clerk
Grimsby Magistrates Court
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
<mike.draper@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
20 November 2012 11:19
Dear Mr Draper
Thank you for yesterday's email.
I intend to deliver my completed application to the court in person so as to obtain a signature for its receipt,
hopefully on Thursday 22nd November.
However, I'm unsure whether the application will also need serving on the council as described as "other
party" in 64.2.(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012. I'm clearly appealing the decision of the court, but
if this is required I will ensure the application is also served on the council.
One other point in regards the Criminal Procedure Rules. I note the 2012 rules have been amended in
regards Part 64 (to appeal to the High Court by case stated).
With regards 64.1.(2) of previous editions, this no longer appears in the current 2012 Criminal Procedure
Rules:
(2) Where one of the questions on which the opinion of the High Court is sought is whether there
was evidence on which the magistrates court could come to its decision, the particular finding of
fact made by the magistrates court which it is claimed cannot be supported by the evidence
before the magistrates court shall be specified in such application.
Should this be disregarded even though apparently relevant to my case?
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
20/06/2016
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
21 November 2012 10:51
crim-pr-form-part64-appl-appeal-high-court.doc
Dear Mr Draper
Could you please fill in details and return the attached application form in respect of the hearing. Bearing in
mind I have no details of the liability order; no paperwork, no reference, no names etc.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:

21 November 2012 11:14
RE: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW
Dear Mr Xxxxx
Thank you for your email requesting assistance with your appeal. Unfortunately I am not able to do that
because of the potential conflict of interest that may arise having regard to my professional role as adviser to
the Magistrates whose decision you seek to challenge.
Regards
Mike Draper
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:

21 November 2012 16:36
crim-pr-form-part64-appl-appeal-high-court.doc
FW: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW
Hello Mr Xxxxx
You do not need to be concerned that you cannot add a court case reference number as no
individual numbers are allocated to applications of this kind. It will be sufficient for you to note that the matter
brought by the Council was for a liability order noting the council reference number from your summons will
then be sufficient. I hope this assists.
Regards
Mike Draper
20/06/2016
APPLICATION TO MAGISTRATES COURT OR CROWN COURT TO STATE A CASE

FOR AN APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT
(Criminal Procedure Rules, rule 64.2)
Case details
Name of defendant: Mr. xxxxxxxxxxx
Court: Grimsby Magistrates Court
Case reference number: Council Tax 5501xxxxxxx
Charge(s): Liability Order brought by North East Lincolnshire Council
This is an application by [Mr xxl xlxxxxxli (name of defendant)]

[the prosecutor]
for the court to state a case for the opinion of the High Court on an appeal on a question of
law or jurisdiction.
Use this form ONLY for an application to the court to state a case for the opinion of the High Court on a
question of law or jurisdiction, under Criminal Procedure Rule 64.2. There are different forms for appealing
from a magistrates court to the Crown Court under Criminal Procedure Rules Part 63, or from the Crown Court
to the Court of Appeal under Criminal Procedure Rules Part 68.
1. Complete the boxes above and give the details required in the boxes below. If you use an
1
electronic version of this form, the boxes will expand . If you use a paper version and need more space, you
may attach extra sheets.
2. Sign and date the completed form.
3. Send a copy of the completed form to:
(a) the court, and
(b) each other party to the case.
You must send this form so as to reach the recipients not more than 21 days after the decision about which
you want to appeal to the High Court. If that decision was by a magistrates court, the court has no power
to extend that time limit.
A party who wants to make representations about this application must serve those representations under
Criminal Procedure Rule 64.2(3) not more than 14 days after service of this application.
1) Decision under appeal. Give brief details of the decision about which you want to appeal to the High
Court (including the date of that decision).
The Magistrates sitting at the Grimsby Magistrates Court on the 2nd November 2012 granted a liability order,
brought about by North East Lincolnshire Council. The matter concerned Council Tax and the liability order was
made for a proportion (60) of the Councils 70 summons costs. The level of costs were disputed at the
hearing as unreasonable.
Forms for use with the Rules are at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/formspage.
2) Question(s) for the High Court. What question(s) of law or jurisdiction do you want the court to state
for the opinion of the High Court?
The questions focus on two principle points of law with regards regulation 34 of the Council Tax regulations (SI
1992/613).
Those points being, whether
i)
costs being disputed as unreasonable should have been awarded by the court without evidence
from the council to support them.
ii)
costs specifically incurred by the council for obtaining the liability order should have been charged
at the summons issuing stage.
3) Grounds of appeal. Explain briefly why you think the decision against which you want to appeal was
wrong, and how that decision depended on the question(s) specified in box 2 above.
i) The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 provide at regulation 34 for a billing
authority to recover its reasonably incurred costs in connection with liability order applications. The costs were
disputed on the grounds that hundreds of thousands of pounds awarded would not be reasonable in respect of
a single bulk liability order, especially considering the process is largely automated. Neither can costs be
quantified in advance as they are split between however many defendants are summonsed to the court.
The councils representative offered no evidence to support its costs claim and stated that the council had
never been required to do so. Consequently, the authority could not justify their incurred expenditure.
General costs were offered verbally by the prosecuting council, including Council Tax collection and recovery,
IT systems, employment of staff and HMCTS for the use of their facilities. It was argued costs were reasonable
by commenting that they were lower than national averages for unitary authorities.
It does not specify in SI 1992/613 that defendants should subsidy the Council tax department with imposed
charges; only compensate reasonable costs incurred in connection with obtaining the liability order.
There is no provision in the legislation for costs to provide a source of revenue, nor to act as a deterrent and
incentivise payment (encourage behaviour). These are generally advantages highlighted in costs reviews
(where documented).
For example NELCs April 2001 costs review:
5. The decision to charge more in respect of Non-Domestic Rates is one which other local authorities
are taking in increasing numbers. (There are two in this region currently, Bradford and Sheffield.) The
reasoning behind this is that it is believed that some businesses deliberately delay payment of Rates
as the penalty for late payment is so small in comparison to the amount that might be owed. The extra
cost is seen as a way of encouraging prompt payment.
6. If the proposal is accepted, then based on the number of Summonses issued and Liability Orders
obtained in the current year, an extra 38,000 of additional cost income would be generated bringing
the total to approximately 390,000.
2002 increase in summons:

The report identifies ways of funding additional resources to ensure the backlog of work that has arisen
due to changes in the IT system are addressed.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
that the Council Tax summons cost be increased from 10 to 15 with immediate effect.
2011 budget and medium term financial plan:

NELC detailed in its 2011 budget proposals it would raise a forecasted additional 752,000 over 4 years by
increasing the summons cost.
It proposed to "Increase summons cost" and was listed in their budget proposals under the heading "Income
Generation" and forecasted additional revenue of 188,000 for each of the following 4 years.
Income Generation
1.52 In relation to proposed areas for charging to be introduced, 81 per cent favoured increased
charges for summonses compared to 57 per cent who supported charging for replacement bins or
garden waste collections. Only 15 per cent were not in favour of any charges being introduced.
The decision to increase charges for the summons had not been brought about by additional costs incurred by
the council. It was intended simply to plug a hole in its finances, reinforced by the proposals being put to a vote.
ii) The regulation further provides for costs to be charged in proportion with the level of recovery work done,
i.e., theres a distinction made between the summons and liability order stage of recovery and consequently
penalties should be incurred incrementally.
If overall costs had been justified, the following suggests that imposing all these at the summons issuing stage
would not be in accordance with regulation 34 to SI 1992/613.
Before a review in April 2011, summons and liability order costs were 56% and 44% of total recovery costs
respectively, which would make costs after the review (if justified) only 39 for the summons, not the 70
they're currently charging.
To demonstrate this further; 22% of costs made up the summons charge in 2001. Based on the then costs ratio
and todays figures, the summons should be around 15, of the overall 70 costs.
This highlights both charges have been arbitrarily split to advantage maximum costs income. It has been done
progressively over a period of time until the present situation where all costs are loaded to the summons.
An amendment (SI 2011/528 (W 73) which came into force on 1st April 2011 made provisions for 70 to be the
maximum costs which could be charged for obtaining a Liability Order. It further specified that this was a total
maximum, including those of instituting the application. This was apparently only in respect of Welsh
authorities, but nevertheless amending the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, as
are relevant to English councils.
This maximum equals the amount NELC currently charge for issuing a summons. Statistics show, in certain
circumstances, Welsh authorities issue annually a very small fraction of NELCs total. This maximum charge
would be reasonable only for those Welsh authorities issuing relatively low numbers of summonses, the logic
being that costs are split between fewer defendants. This should be an indication that if English regulations
were ever subject to the same amendment, NELC would have no reasonable grounds to charge up to the
maximum permissible.
4) Other applications. I am also applying for:

an extension of time for asking the court to state a case for the High Court.
You can ONLY apply for an extension of the 21 day time limit if this is an application to the Crown
Court.
pending my appeal, the suspension of a disqualification.

For example, a disqualification from driving. You can ONLY apply for the suspension of a
disqualification which the court imposed in this case.
pending my appeal, bail.

You can only apply for bail pending appeal if the court sentenced you to imprisonment or detention.
Give reasons for any of these applications you are making:
Signed2:
Date:
[defendant / defendants solicitor]

[prosecutor]
22/11/2012
If you use an electronic version of this form, you may instead authenticate it electronically (e.g. by sending it from an
email address recognisable to the recipient). See Criminal Procedure Rules, rule 5.3.
HM Courts
& Tribunals
Service
GRIMSBY
DN320QJ
Julie Collins
Courts and Tribunals Manager for
Humber & South Yorkshire
Alison Watts
Clerk to the Justices
PO Box 49
College Road
DONCASTER
DN13HT
OX 707680 GRIMSBY 5
T 01472 592408 (Mike Draper)

T 01472 592406 (Chris Houlden/Allison Wade)
F 01472 320440
E mike.draper@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
E chris.houlden@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
E allison.wade@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
www.justice.gov.uklabout/hmcts/index.htm
22 November 2012
Our ref: G47G05/MD/AW
Dear Mr (------Case Stated.

I acknowledge receipt of your application for the Magistrates to state a case in the
matter of North East Lincolnshire Council v Yourself.
Once the documentation has been considered I will contact you further.
Yours sincerely
M L DRAPER
Deputy Justices' Clerk
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
28 December 2012 15:16
Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW
Dear Mr Draper
Are you able to up-date me with any developments in regards my application for the Magistrates' court to
state a case in an appeal to the High Court.
My application was submitted on 22 November 2012, and although I've received acknowledgement for this
there has been no other correspondence. Nothing for example informing me whether the court has agreed
to proceed, nor a certification stating that the application has been refused.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
<postmaster@civilappeals.local>
<xxx.xxxxx@btopenworld.com>
28 December 2012 15:16
ATT00495.dat; ATT00496.eml
Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Unable to deliver message to the following recipients, because the message was forwarded more than
the maximum allowed times. This could indicate a mail loop.
mike.draper@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Anderson, Karen" <karen.anderson@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

28 December 2012 15:25
Out of Office: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW
I have now left the magistrates' court and from Monday 26 November will commence training in
Hull. If you wish to contact the Justices' Clerk, Alison Watts, please telephone 01302 347303/4 thank you. If you have any queries please leave me a message by email. If your query is regarding
the magistrates' court please contact the main office on 01472 320444 - Thank you - Karen
20/06/2016
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"xxx" <xxx.Xxxxx@btopenworld.com>
<Alison.Watts@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
28 December 2012 15:31
Fw: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW
Dear Ms Watts
Could you please forward this message to Mr Draper. The email is not being delivered for some reason.
Thank you.
----- Original Message ----From: Xxx

To: Draper, Mike
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 2:16 PM
Subject: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW
Dear Mr Draper
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
20/06/2016
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
10 January 2013 16:12
Fw: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW
Can I please have acknowledgement of this email.

To: Alison.Watts@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Fw: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW
Dear Ms Watts
Could you please forward this message to Mr Draper. The email is not being delivered for some reason.
Thank you.

To: Draper, Mike
Subject: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW
Dear Mr Draper
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
20/06/2016
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Townell, Graeme" <graeme.townell@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

<xxx.Xxxxx@btopenworld.com>
14 January 2013 12:24
Application re liability order
Dear Mr Xxxxx,
I have recently been passed your email regarding the above matter.
Mr Draper left the service at the end of last year and his email account will now have been closed
down.
I shall try to find out what is happening with your application and update you as soon as I can.
Yours sincerely,
Graeme Townell
Legal Team Manager
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Xxx"<xxx.xxxxx@btopenworld.com>
25 January 2013 12:36
Re: Application re liability order
Dear Mr Townell
Thank you for your 14 January 2013 email. Could you please up-date me with
any further information you hold regarding my application. In addition,
could you supply the names of two Magistrates sitting on the Bench
(identifying the Chair) in respect of the council tax liability order
hearing on 2nd November 2012.
The information is required as I intend to submit two separate complaints;
one to HMCTS in respect of how these liability order hearings are conducted
and another to the local Advisory Committee, specifically in relation to the
Magistrate chairing the hearing.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
20/06/2016
HM Courts &
Tribunals
Service
Mrs xxxxxxxx
Justices' Clerk for Humber & South Yorkshire
PO Box 49
The Law Courts
College Road
DONCASTER ON13HT
DX 742840 (Doncaster 20)
When calling please ask for: xxxxxxxxxx Direct

Line: 01302347304
Our ref: AW/KEC
Your ref:
T: 01302 366711
F: 01302 327906
E:
Minicom VII: 01302 369066
www.justice.gov.uk
24 January 2013
Dear xxxxxxx
Re: North East Lincolnshire Council v Yourself
Grimsby Magistrates' Court
Application to State a Case
Thank you for your e mail correspondence in connection with this matter.
Mr xxxxx has now left the employment of HMCTS and your matter has been escalated to me. I shall be
grateful if all future correspondence in this matter is forwarded to me at my office in Doncaster to avoid
any unnecessary delays.
Further to your application to state a case I have now discussed the matter with the Justices who
adjudicated upon your case.
Further to section 114 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the Justices are not required to state a case
until the applicant has entered into a recognizance to prosecute the appeal without delay and to submit to
the judgment of the High Court.
Accordingly, the Justices require you to enter into a recognizance in the sum of 500.00. If entered into,
the recognizance would be subject to forfeiture if after delivery of the case stated the applicant failed to
prosecute the appeal.
Entering into a recognizance is in effect a promise to pay a sum of money (in your case 500.00) in the
event you decide not to pursue your appeal in the High Court. When you enter into the recognizance (ie
make the promise to pay) you are not required to pay any money, and provided you take your case to the
High Court you will not be liable to pay 500.00. However, in the event you decide not to take your appeal
to the High Court you may be required to pay some, or indeed all of the amount of the recognizance.
Until the recognizance is entered into, the Justices will not state a case for the consideration of the High
Court.
- 2 -
The recognizance must be entered into before the magistrates' court at Grimsby and I would be grateful if
you would make contact with my office at Doncaster in order to make the necessary arrangements for this
to take place.
Yours sincerely
Mrs xxxxxxx
Justices' Clerk
Page 2
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:

4 February 2013 16:30
RE: Application re liability order
Dear Mr Xxxxx,
I understand that by now you may have received correspondence from the Clerk to the Justices in
respect of your application.
In respect of your request for the names of the magistrates sitting on 2nd November 2012 I can
inform you that the chairman was Mr J O'Nions and his colleague was Mr T Shepherdson.
Yours sincerely,
Graeme Townell
Legal Team Manager
20/06/2016
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
<karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
"Robinson, Joanne" <Joanne.Robinson@Nelincs.gov.uk>; graeme.townell@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
06 February 2013 10:42
Magistrates court Doncaster 5 Feb 2013.pdf
Re: Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court
Dear Ms Crocken
Please forward the attached letter to Mrs Watts, Justices' Clerk for Humber & South Yorkshire.
Thank you
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dear Ms Robinson
Re: Section 82 of the Local Government Act 2003 Application to quash liability order
Account 5501XXXXXX
You will see from the attached that the justices dealing with my application to state a case to the High Court
are exercising their rights under section 114 of the Magistrates' court Act 1980 and requiring I enter into
recognizance in the sum of 500.
The supporting papers accompanying my application to state a case have provided evidence that my gross
annual income is substantially below the set level, and so qualified for full remission of the Magistrates court
fee (500). Consequently, setting an additional fee of 500 in these circumstances is effectively denying my
access to the Courts.
I have explained in the attached that I will be contacting the council to seek an alternative remedy, should
the recent obstacles put in the way of the application, not be overcome.
I'm therefore requesting that North East Lincolnshire council apply to the Magistrates court under section 82 of
the Local Government Act 2003 to either quash the liability order for 60 obtained on the 2nd November
2012, or apply for a lesser amount than that for which the original order was made. Perhaps the 10 already
paid, i.e., reasonable costs.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
P.S. I have had no contact from your bailiffs Rossendales since the council threatened in a letter dated 19
December 2012 to instruct them within 14 days. Do I take it that NELC have not and will not be instructing its
bailiff contractor to enforce the sum of 60 and the council consider the amount no longer owed.
06/06/2016

Doncaster Magistrates Court
PO Box 49
The Law Courts
College Road
Doncaster
DN1 3HT
05 February 2013
Dear Mrs xxxxx
Re: Application to State a Case Grimsby Magistrates Court
Thank you for outlining the next steps and clarifying that the agreement for the justices to state a
case is conditional on entering into recognizance. However, there are some points I would like
clarifying, one being the terms of the recognizance detailed in your letter appear not strictly in
accordance with section 114 of the MCA 1980.
Your letter implies the case would be delivered without payment as the recognizance would be
subject to forfeiture only upon failure to prosecute the appeal. This appears relevant only to a
criminal matter as Section 114 draws a distinction for such a case. In non-criminal matters a
justices' clerk shall not be required to deliver the case to the applicant until the applicant has paid
the fees payable for the case and for the recognizances to the designated officer for the court.
It is also conditioned under the same to pay any High Court costs which that Court may award,
whilst in your letter it is unclear whether the recognizance would include this.
On an application to state a case for the opinion of the High Court, the fees listed as payable
under schedule 1 of the Magistrates Courts Fees Order are 500. It also states that where this is
payable, no further fee is payable in respect of the preparation of a draft case by the justices clerk
for taking recognizance.
The justices once deciding that a recognizance is necessary must take the applicant's means
into account in setting the amount. A completed EX160 form accompanied my application to the
Magistrates court to state the case (22 November 2012). The supporting papers detailing my
gross annual income provided evidence that this was substantially below the set level, and so
qualified for full remission of the Magistrates court fee.
It is therefore illogical that by completing form EX160 (effectively means tested) I qualified for full
remission of the 500 Magistrates court fee, whilst the justices, after presumably taking my
means into account, concluded that the recognizance should be 500. Setting such a fee in these
circumstances could be seen as a denial of access to the Courts.
It is noted that since the appeal was lodged, the court has taken two months to make contact on
this issue. I was not notified that Mr xxxxxx had left the service and his email account closed
down, until Id prompted the court. I therefore have concerns that this application would have
been overlooked completely if the failure to correspond had not been queried.
I have further concerns about who would be landed the task of preparing the draft case as it was
Mr xxxxxx no longer in the employ of HMCTS who was in attendance and advisor to the
justices on the day of my hearing. It would also appear that an unusually high turn over, either
through reorganisation or redundancies has left the Grimsby Magistrates court lacking any staff to
fulfill the role of justices clerk.
Although the current Criminal Procedure Rules are unclear whether a time limit applies, 64.2 of the
2011 rules specifies that a draft case shall be sent to all parties within 21 days after receipt of an
application. That is of course unless the justices refuse to state a case under section 111(5) of the
MCA 1980. That has not happened, as requiring recognizance conditioned to prosecute the appeal,
does not constitute a refusal to state a case.
Aside from the above I have to assume that if not frivolous the justices consider the
application lacking in merit or have concerns that the appeal may not be pursued, and is why they
have made their agreement to state a case conditional on entering into a recognizance.
Regardless of whether justices agree to state the case, it still remains that the court issued a
liability order where there was no evidence on which the Magistrates could have found their
decision. Consequently North East Lincolnshire Council has threatened to recover, through their
bailiffs, the amount specified on the order, despite there being no supporting evidence put before
the magistrates.
I will therefore make a suggestion that the court considers the possibility of reopening the case
under the provision of Section 142 of the MCA 1980 to rectify the mistake and set aside the
liability order. Im aware Magistrates courts powers are purely statutory and s.142 applies only to
reopening criminal cases, however, I believe the authority to set aside liability orders has now
been established as a common law principle developed in case law.
There is also the possibility that the local authority apply under section 82 of the Local
Government Act 2003 to have the liability order quashed. I will put this to the council and suggest
they do this or apply for a lesser amount than that for which the original order was made. Perhaps
the amount already paid, i.e., reasonable costs.
Yours sincerely
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Crocken, karen" <karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

06 February 2013 18:32
Re: Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court
Hello Mr Xxxxx
Thank you for your correspondence which I will bring to the attention of Mrs Watts.
Regards
Karen
Karen Crocken
Legal Admin Team Leader - Humber & South Yorkshire Cluster
PO BOX 49, College Road
Doncaster, DN1 3HT
DX 742840 Doncaster 20
Tel: 01302 347304 Fax: 01302 327906
Help save paper - do you need to print this e-mail?
I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry of
Justice in any way via electronic means.
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
Robinson, Joanne" <Joanne.Robinson@Nelincs.gov.uk>

08 February 2013 13:32
20130208 X Xxxxx.doc
RE: Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court
Not Protectively Marked

Dear Mr Xxxxx
th
Attached response to your e mail of 6 February

Regards
Joanne Robinson,
Local Taxation & Benefits Shared Service Manager,
North & North East Lincolnshire Councils
Civic Offices, Knoll Street, Cleethorpes, DN35 8LN
01472 323761 / 07767246682
joanne.robinson@nelincs.gov.uk
joanne.robinson@nelincs.gcsx.gov.uk
jo.robinson@northlincs.gov.uk
Not Protectively Marked
07/06/2016
Strategic Director Resources

Liz Jones
www.nelincs.gov.uk
Mr X Xxxxx
By e mail
8th February 2013
Dear Mr Xxxxx
Council Tax Liability Order
Thank you for your e mail of 6th February 2012.
I am not prepared to apply to the Magistrates Court to quash the liability order
obtained on 2nd November 2012. The liability order was correctly obtained for the
outstanding balance due at that time.
No decision has been taken at the present time regarding further action to enforce
the debt.
Yours sincerely
Joanne Robinson
Local Taxation & Benefits Shared Service Manager
Local Taxation & Benefits Service, North East Lincolnshire Council, Civic Offices, Knoll Street, Cleethorpes. DN35 8LN.
Telephone (01472) 323761
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"Robinson, Joanne" <Joanne.Robinson@Nelincs.gov.uk>;
<karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
14 February 2013 22:17
T - S & L Order Feb 14 2013.pdf
Fw: Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court
Dear Ms Robinson
Re: Section 82 of the Local Government Act 2003 Application to quash liability order
Please find attached letter.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
19 February 2013 13:30
Magistrates court Doncaster 5 Feb 2013.pdf
Dear Ms Watts
Would you please acknowledge you have received my letter dated 5 February 2013.
For your reference, the file (letter) attached to my 6 February 2013 email was "Magistrates court Doncaster 5
Feb 2013.pdf".
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
07/06/2016
North East Lincolnshire Council

Finance Department
Civic Offices Knoll Street
Cleethorpes
DN35 8LN
xx Xxxxxxx Xxxxx
Grimsby
XX00 0XX
Ref: NG/CTR/12912
14 February 2013
Dear Ms Robinson
Re: Application to Magistrates Court to Quash Liability Order Acc 550xxxxxxx
Thank you for your 8 February 2013 letter clarifying your position with regards quashing the
liability order. Although you state that the liability order was correctly obtained, NELC has provided
no supporting evidence.
According to S.I. 1992/613, NELC should have ceased court action on 17 October 2012, the point
at which I paid the aggregate of the sum outstanding and an amount equal to the costs
reasonably incurred by the authority.
Application for liability order
34.(5) If, after a summons has been issued in accordance with paragraph (2) but before the
application is heard, there is paid or tendered to the authority an amount equal to the aggregate
of
(a) the sum specified in the summons as the sum outstanding or so much of it as
remains outstanding (as the case may be); and
(b) a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority in
connection with the application up to the time of the payment or tender,
the authority shall accept the amount and the application shall not be proceeded with.
This is reason enough to satisfy the council and Magistrates court that the liability order was
obtained incorrectly, but to reinforce this I refer you to my letters 17 and 18 September 2012,
highlighting the distinction between reasonably incurred costs in connection with the summons
and those for obtaining the order.
The summons should not, but does include liability order costs expenditure which has not been
incurred at the summons stage. This is not in accordance with regulation 34 which states these
are imposed once a liability order has been obtained.
According to NELC it makes a loss in liability order applications, i.e., its costs revenue is less than
the incurred expenditure in sending summonses (the councils unfounded claim). It would appear
then if that is the case thousands of pounds each year could be saved in recovery costs through a
basic process of monitoring cases progressed to recovery.
It seems the council has this flexibility as regulation 34 of S.I. 1992/613 states that the authority
has no legal obligation to bring about court proceedings only that it may apply to a Magistrates
court.
Application for liability order
34.(1) If an amount which has fallen due under regulation 23(3) or (4) is wholly or partly
unpaid, or (in a case where a final notice is required under regulation 33) the amount stated in
the final notice is wholly or partly unpaid at the expiry of the period of 7 days beginning with the
day on which the notice was issued, the billing authority may, in accordance with paragraph
(2), apply to a magistrates' court for an order against the person by whom it is payable
The council would substantially reduce the numbers taken to court if it followed some of its own
policies detailed in its Debt Recovery Strategy. For example, under section 5, Principles of
Enforcement it states at 5.2 that the potential loss of income should be weighed up against the
cost of enforcement:
5.2 Proportional - a balance will be struck between the potential loss of income to the Council
and the costs of the enforcement action.
Perhaps relevant to thousands of cases being unnecessarily processed through the court each year
are those who miss deadlines with instalments and have been subjected to this because of the
need to automate this kind of operation.
Cases for which enforcement is unnecessary could easily be identified. For example, payments
registering on a persons account, albeit subsequent to a final notice, would be a good indication
that enforcement would achieve nothing other than adding to the householders probable cash
flow problem. This, checked against the account payers payment history may justify a decision
against taking legal action and is also a consideration detailed at item 5.3 of the councils Debt
Recovery Strategy.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
<karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
26 February 2013 16:17
No Response to mail?
Dear Ms Crocken
Will you please update me with the situation regarding my correspondence and explain why I haven't yet
received acknowledgement.
If yourself and Alison Watts are intentionally ignoring mail please let me know so I can take the appropriate
action.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:

"Xxx" <Xxx.xxxxx@btopenworld.com>
27 February 2013 17:31
ATT00199.eml
RE: No Response to mail?
Good afternoon Mr Xxxxx

Thank you for your email. Please be advised that receipt of your correspondence was made on 6 February as
per the attachment.
I can confirm that your correspondence is receiving attention from Mrs Watts who will respond further in due
course.
Regards
Karen
Karen Crocken
Doncaster, DN1 3HT
Tel: 01302 347304 Fax: 01302 327906
07/06/2016
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
<administrativecourtoffice.generaloffice@hmcourts-service.x.gsi.gov.uk>
23 March 2013 19:47
Magistrates court letter 24 Jan 2013.pdf; Magistrates court Doncaster 5 Feb 2013.pdf; crim-prform-part64-appl-appeal-high-court.doc; Application mandamus 23 March 2013.pdf
Application for order of mandamus - section 111(6) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Application to Magistrates' Court to state a case for an appeal to the High Court
Please find attached letter dated 23 March 2013 and documents referred to in that letter.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Administrative Court Office, General Office"

25 March 2013 11:41
RE: Application for order of mandamus - section 111(6) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 * NOT
PROTECTIVELY MARKED *
Dear Sir,
I dont think this email was meant for the High Court.
Regards
Malgorzata Dymerska
Administrative Court Officer
Room C316
Tel. 0207 947 6655
Administrativecourtoffice.generaloffice@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk
*not protectively marked*
07/06/2016
Administrative Court Office

The Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
XX Xxxxx Xxxxx
Grimsby
DNXX XXX
23 March 2013
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Application to Magistrates' Court to state a case for an appeal to the High Court
In accordance with section 111(6) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, I apply to the High Court to
make an order of mandamus requiring the justices to state a case.
Background prompting this Application
An appeal notice was served on Grimsby Magistrates Court on 22 November 2012 in accordance
with the Criminal Procedure Rules, rule 64.2 (see attached). Written acknowledgement was
received dated the same.
No contact was made by the court until January 14, 2013, prompted by attempts to make contact
with the Deputy Justices' Clerk dealing with the appeal. At this point I was informed the Clerk had
left the service at the end of 2012.
The matter had been put in the hands of the Justices' Clerk for Humber & South Yorkshire, who on
24 January 2013 advised that the Justices require recognizance to be entered into in the sum of
500 (see attached).
In a letter 05 February 2013 (see attached) several queries were raised concerning the Justices'
Clerk letter, one of which being the recognizance set in my particular financial circumstances
would deny my access to the Courts.
I've heard nothing since, all but an email on 27 February 2013 confirming that the correspondence
is receiving attention from the Justices Clerk who will respond further in due course.
It seems as things are, there is no likelihood of this matter progressing, however, I consider the
point of law I'm contesting is in the public interest and ask the Administrative Court's opinion on
this.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxx
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Administrative Court Office, General Office"
25 March 2013 12:35
Re: Application for order of mandamus - section 111(6) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 * NOT
Dear Ms Dymerska
I can confirm the email you refer to was intended for the High Court's attention. Maybe you can supply me
with a more appropriate contact to send this correspondence to.
For your information the following is the contents of the letter attached to the earlier email.
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Harding, Glynn" <glynn.harding@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk>

26 March 2013 09:31
FW: Application for order of mandamus - section 111(6) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 * NOT
Good morning,
I have read the contents of your letter and believe that you will either need to submit a Case Stated Appeal
Application in the Admin Court or a Judicial Review.
It will be the former if the Justices stated the case.
This will need to submitted on a form N161, 235 fee, a copy of your case stated and any other supporting
correspondence including a memorandum of entry. If its a criminal matter then the court requires 3 copies
to keep. Any challenge via Case Stated would need to have been submitted within 10 days of you receiving
the case stated. If not, then you would need to complete section 8 of the N161 requesting an extension of
time.
If the Judge refused to state the case then the decision at the Magistrates Court may possibly be able to be
challenged via Judicial Review.
If possible please contact me via phone on the above number to discuss, just in case I have not read your email correctly.
Happy discuss the above.
Many thanks
Glynn Harding | Case Progression Officer | Administrative Court Office | Telephone:

020 7947 8295 | Fax: 020 7947 7845
If replying by email, please use the following address:
Administrativecourtoffice.generaloffice@courtservice.x.gsi.gov.uk
07/06/2016
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
26 March 2013 16:28
Magistrates court letter 24 Jan 2013.pdf; Magistrates court Doncaster 5 Feb 2013.pdf; crim-prform-part64-appl-appeal-high-court.doc; Application mandamus 23 March 2013.pdf
Fw: Application for order of mandamus - section 111(6) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980
Dear Mr Harding
Re: Your email this morning
Thank you for your response today. I am forwarding my original email in case the attachments didn't get
passed on to you in the hope they may clarify the position.
In summary, the Magistrates have neither stated the case nor refused. The question is whether they are
effectively denying me access to the court by conditioning recognizance is entered into to the sum of 500 to
prosecute the case without delay.
The attachments explain in more detailed but I suspect the Magistrates court are refusing to deal with me. My
correspondence (ref Magistrates court Doncaster 5 Feb 2013) has not been addressed and doubt it ever will,
despite my prompting them.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:

Xxx <xxx.xxxxx@btopenworld.com>
27 March 2013 11:36
RE: Application for order of mandamus - section 111(6) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 * NOT
Morning,
Please note that if you wish to apply for a mandatory order then this cannot be done by letter and must be
done by way of an application for judicial review. Please see our website as regards the appropriate forms
and guidance and fees (www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk) Please note that you should take independent legal
advice as to the merits of your claim and the possible costs consequences.
Please get back to me if you have any queries.
Regards
Glynn
Glynn Harding | Case Progression Officer | Administrative Court Office | Telephone:

020 7947 8295 | Fax: 020 7947 7845
If replying by email, please use the following address:
Administrativecourtoffice.generaloffice@courtservice.x.gsi.gov.uk
07/06/2016
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Crocken, Karen" <karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
27 March 2013 12:13
Re: No Response to mail?
Dear Ms Crocken,
It seems apparent that Mrs Watts has no intention of dealing with the issues I raised in my 5 February 2013
correspondence.
All I would like from you is to acknowledge this so I can take appropriate action.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:

27 March 2013 14:51
RE: No Response to mail?
Hello Mr Xxxxx
I hereby acknowledge receipt of your email, which is receiving attention.
Regards
Karen
Karen Crocken
Doncaster, DN1 3HT
Tel: 01302 347304 Fax: 01302 327906
07/06/2016
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
27 March 2013 14:59
Re: No Response to mail?
Dear Ms Crocken,
You appear to have misunderstood.
The acknowledgement I was seeking was that;
"Mrs Watts has no intention of dealing with the issues I raised in my 5 February 2013 correspondence".
Not as it seems, an acknowledgement of my last email asking for this acknowledgement.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
<Alison.Watts@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>; "Crocken, Karen" <karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
29 April 2013 18:41
Magistrates court Doncaster 29 April 2013.pdf
Certificate of refusal to state a case
Dear Ms Watts/Crocken,
Please find letter attached for the attention of Alison Watts.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
07/06/2016
Justices' Clerk for Humber & South

Yorkshire
PO Box 49
The Law Courts
College Road
Doncaster
DN1 3HT
XX Xxxxx Xxxx
Grimsby
DNXX XXX
29 April 2013
Dear Mrs Watts

Re: Application to State a Case Grimsby Magistrates Court
In the absence of a response to my 5 February 2013 letter I request consideration be given to
issuing a certificate under section 111(5) of the MCA 1980, documenting the reasons why the
justices have refused to state the case. This will enable further investigation to the merits of my
case by seeking the High Courts permission to proceed with a claim for a mandatory order.
I have sought legal advice and understand that in a straight forward case, a justices clerks refusal
to state the case until a recognizance has been entered into, does not constitute a refusal, and
would not ordinarily be obliged to supply the applicant with a certificate stating that the application
has been refused.
However, this is not straight forward as the justices have exercised their discretion to require a
recognizance, knowing I qualify for fee remission. This would signal that in the unlikely event, all
or part of the 500 became payable, it would cause financial hardship. In any event, not setting a
recognizance fee would not prejudice the Magistrates courts position.
It can therefore be argued that my means have not been taken into account in considering the
amount set for the recognizance, something the magistrates must do.
Presumably the sum is set at a level that would commit the applicant to the case, but bearing in
mind magistrates must take into account a persons means, if decided necessary, a recognizance
should be set at a level that does not deny that person access to justice. Of course if the case is
considered to lack merit, this would also factor into any consideration.
From a perspective of commitment and having a valid case arguable in law, neither of these give
rise to warrant recognizance. The following, is a record of the correspondence which you have (or
can access) and supports claims that an argument has been prepared to be put before the High
Court.
Twelve letters in total sent as attachments in an email (22 October 2012) to Grimsby
Magistrates' courts listing Manager, comprising evidence that costs claimed and awarded
were not reasonable (Re: Council Tax Liability order Hearing - 2nd November 2012).
Letters were dated 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 of September and 1 October
2012, all with reference NG/CTR/12912.
Another email (28 October 2012) sent to the same Manager had two further
correspondence attached, comprising a summary, additional information and a claim for
costs. Letters were dated 26 and 28 October 2012, again with reference NG/CTR/12912.
The above are the relevant documents sent to Grimsby Magistrates court in respect of the
November 2, 2012 liability order hearing. Additional evidence has been compiled in the interim and
will contribute further in support of an argument to be put before the High Court.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and provide either a response addressing the issues Ive
raised or certificate stating that my application has been refused explaining the reason.
If a response is not forthcoming within 14 days I will take it that the justices are both refusing to
state the case and to give a certificate and will apply for permission to bring judicial review
proceedings for a mandatory order requiring the Court to state a case. In these circumstances
magistrates can be required to pay the costs for the various fees involved in applying to the High
Court for this order.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxxx
Notes for guidance are available which explain

how to complete the judicial review claim
form. Please read them carefully before you
complete the form.
:
<
>
<
>
&
'DWHOHG
SECTION 1 Details of the claimant(s) and defendant(s)

&
'
name
name
redacted
address
4
redacted
'
'
name
address
Fax no.
Telephone no.
redacted
Victoria Street
Grimsby
DX 707680 Grimsby 5
E-mail address
redacted@xxx.com
&
'
'
'
'
Fax no.
Telephone no.
01472 320444
name
01472 320440
E-mail address
address
R
name
Fax no.
Telephone no.
'
'
E-mail address
name
&
'
&
'
'
address
name
address
Telephone no.
Fax no.
E-mail address
Fax no.
Telephone no.
E-mail address
"
SECTION 2 Details of other interested parties

S
'
'
'
name
'
name

address
address

Civic Offices Knoll Street
Cleethorpes
DN35 8LN
Doncaster Magistrates' Court, PO Box 49

The Law Courts
College Road
Doncaster
DN1 3HT
Fax no.
Telephone no.
Fax no.
Telephone no.
01472 313131
01302 366711
E-mail address
01302 327906
E-mail address
SECTION 3 Details of the decision to be judicially reviewed

Decision:
Magistrates requiring recognizance is entered into in the sum of 500 to state a case for an appeal to the High Court.
Date of decision:
24 January 2013
K
'
name
address
Victoria Street
Grimsby
DX 707680 Grimsby 5
SECTION 4 Permission to proceed with a claim for judicial review

(
'
'
&
'
'
'
&
'
'
'
'
'
&
'
FHUWLFDWH"
E
'
'
'
'
1
]
OHWKLVZLWK\RXUDSSOLFDWLRQ
(
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
SECTION 5 Detailed statement of grounds

.
'
The matter concerns a case stated appeal against an order granted for Council Tax in the Magistrates' court.
Recognizance has been set at a level denying my access to justice. The 500 sum has been set despite my qualifying for
remission of the Magistrates court fee. This was raised with the justices' Clerk and has gone to date unaddressed as has
a Pre-Action letter sent on 29 April 2013. Even highlighting this, no apparent consideration has been made to take my
means into account, and suggestion to reopen the case under the provision of S.142 of the MCA 1980 to rectify the
mistake and set aside the liability order has similarly gone unanswered. It has also been suggested that the local
authority apply under section 82 of the Local Government Act 2003 to have the liability order quashed. The Clerk to the
justices failed to respond and the Council stated it would not be applying to the court to have the liability order quashed.
SECTION 6 Aarhus Convention claim

m
SECTION 7 Details of remedy (including any interim remedy) being sought

Mandatory order under Section 111(6) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 requiring the justices to state a case.
SECTION 8 Other applications

S
'
Extending the time limit for filing the claim form.

The claim is being filed out of time because I was led to believe the Magistrates' court were addressing my queries
(including suggestions of alternative remedies). However, it became apparent after several prompts that I was
unlikely to get a response other than acknowledgement of my correspondence.
j
SECTION 9 Statement of facts relied on

1) Notice to state a case for an appeal to the High Court, served on Grimsby Magistrates' Court on 22 November 2012 in
accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules, rule 64.2 (see enclosed), in relation to 2 November 2012 hearing.
2) Written acknowledgement received from Deputy Justices' Clerk of Grimsby Magistrates' Court, dated 22 November
2012.
3) No further contact was made by the court until January 14, 2013. Attempts to make contact with the Deputy Justices'
Clerk dealing with the appeal prompted this contact. At this point it transpired that Deputy Justices' Clerk had left the
service at the end of 2012. The Legal Team Manager stated he would try to find out what was happening with the
application and update as soon as possible.
4) The matter had been put in the hands of the Justices' Clerk for Humber & South Yorkshire (Doncaster Magistrates'
court), who on 24 January 2013 advised that the Justices require recognizance to be entered into in the sum of 500 and
outlining conditions of recognizance (letter ref; 24 January 2013).
5) Email to Doncaster Magistrates' court (Grimsby's Legal Team Manager and Council Copied in) to raise queries
concerning the Justices' Clerk's correspondence. Highlighted that recognizance set in my particular financial
circumstances would deny access to justice. Suggested alternative remedies, i.e., reopen the case under S.142 of the
Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to set aside the liability order, or for the council, under section 82 of the Local Government
Act 2003, to apply to have the order quashed (letter ref; 5 February, email, 6 February 2013)
6) Reply from Council stating it was not prepared to apply to the Magistrates Court to quash the liability order as it was
correctly obtained for the outstanding balance due at that time (letter ref; 8 February 2013)
7) Letter to council explaining that according to the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, the
liability order was not correctly obtained as the application should have ceased at the point where the aggregate of the
sum outstanding and an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority was paid (ref; letter 14 February
2013).
8) Administrative Court Office contacted to make enquiries about an order of mandamus requiring justices to state a
case for an appeal to the High Court (letter ref; 23 March 2013)
9) Pre-Action letter sent. (letter ref; 29 April 2013)
Detail included:
".....Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and provide either a response addressing the issues Ive raised or
certificate stating that my application has been refused explaining the reason.
If a response is not forthcoming within 14 days I will take it that the justices are both refusing to state the case and to
give a certificate and will apply for permission to bring judicial review proceedings for a mandatory order requiring the
Court to state a case...."
10) To date, there has been no response from the Justices' Clerk in relation to 5 February or 29 April 2013 letters.
Similarly, there has been no response from the council to the 14 February 2013 letter.
'
'
'
'
'
'
1DPHRIFODLPDQWVVROLFLWRUVUP
6LJQHG
3RVLWLRQRURIFHKHOG
LIVLJQLQJRQEHKDOIRIUPRUFRPSDQ\
SECTION 10 Supporting documents

5
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
3OHDVHWLFNWKHSDSHUV\RXDUHOLQJZLWKWKLVFODLPIRUPDQGDQ\\RXZLOOEHOLQJODWHU
^
'
$SSOLFDWLRQWRH[WHQGWKHWLPHOLPLWIRUOLQJWKHFODLPIRUP
U
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
<
<
'
$FRS\RIWKHOHJDODLGRU&6/)FHUWLFDWH
&
'
'
'
&
'
<
<
<
>
'
'
'
'
OLQJZLWKWKLVFODLPIRUP
(
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
HM Courts &
Tribunals Service
PROTECT
Administrative Court Office at Leeds

Leeds Combined Court
1 Oxford Row
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS1 3BG
DX 703016 Leeds 6
T: 0113 306 2578
F: 0113 306 2581
E: administrativecourtoffice.leeds
@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk
www.justice.gov.uk
04 June 2013
Our ref:
Your ref:
Dear Sir
Re: Application for Judicial Review
Thank you for your application for permission to apply for Judicial Review received in this
office on 3 June 2013.
You application has been returned as it cannot be issued for the following reason(s):
o As your application has been lodged out of time beyond the time period set out
in the Civil Procedure Rules (see CPR 54.5 promptly; and in any event not
later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose) it will be
necessary for you to make an application seeking an extension of time to lodge
your application. This application must be made in section 8 of the claim form
setting out the reasons in support of your application. It seems that you are
challenging the Courts letter dated 24 January 2013, therefore this should have
been filed by 24 April 2013.
o Your fee remission cannot be approved yet as the court requires more evidence to
prove your entitlement. Page 8 of the guidance booklet Court Fees Do I have to
pay them? explains exactly what evidence is required by the court when applying
under remission 2 or 3.
Please attend to the above matters before returning your application and
accompanying documents which we have enclosed with this letter. Please note, we
have not retained any copies of your documents, so you will need to re-submit your
entire application. I am very sorry for any inconvenience this may cause you.
Yours sincerely,
Miss G Downing
For Court Manager
.,

1 Oxford Row
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS13BG
HM Courts &
Tribunals Service
OX 703016 Leeds 6
T 0113 306 2578
F 0113 306 2581
E administrativecourtoffice.leeds
@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk
PROTECT
www.justice.gov.uk
13 June 2013
Our ref: CO/7281/2013

Your ref: In Person
Dear Sir / Madam,
Re. The Queen on the application of I
MAGISTRATES COURT
versus
GRIMSBY
Your claim for judicial review has been issued this day.
You will need to serve all documents on the Defendant [and Interested Party/ies]. Please
note that service must be effected within 7 days of the date this letter, and a Certificate of
Service lodged with the Court. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the
file in these proceedings being closed.
When serving the claim on the Defendant [and any interested
ensure you enclose a copy of attached notice.
Please also note our Case Reference number
whenever you communicate with the Court.
party(ies)],
please
CO/7281/2013 which should be quoted
Your attention is drawn to Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules and its accompanying
Practice Directions, which give guidance on future procedural matters.
*** IMPORTANT INFORMATION - PLEASE READ ***
Please note that it is the Court's practice to destroy all copy documentation and any
bundles immediately following the conclusion of these proceedings, and to retain original
documentation on the Court file. We therefore strongly advise you to keep copies of
any documents that you submit to the Court.
If you wish to have your copy documentation or bundles returned to you, you must notify
the Court, in writing, at your earliest convenience, and prior to the conclusion of
these proceedings, specifying whether you intend to come to the Court and collect your
documentation, or whether you would like the Court to return it to you by post or by DX.
Please note that for reasons of cost, the Court will not return documentation by Recorded
Delivery or Registered post.
If we do not receive such notification, the Court will assume that you do not wish to have
your copy documentation or bundles returned, and they will be destroyed as confidential
waste.
The Administrative Court Office will not accept service via email. When using the above email address it should be
noted that mail sent after 4.30 p.m. may not be opened until 9.00 a.m. on the following working day. Court users should
not send confidential or restricted information over the public Internet.
Please be aware that if you request copies of documentation kept on the Court file, a fee
is applicable under paragraph 4.1 (a) and (b) of the Civil Proceedings Fees (Amendment)
Order 2009 (5.00 for first 10 pages, and 0.50 for each further page).
('
.i
Yours\...fJ'ai .fUIIY,
Miss G Downing
For Court Manager
Page 2
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
18 June 2013 14:50
Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court / Judicial Review (Mandatory order to
state a case)
Dear Ms Crocken
In relation to an application for Judicial Review for a Mandatory Order to state a case for an appeal to the High
Court I wish to serve the sealed copy claim form and accompanying documents.
I therefore ask if the court are willing to accept service by email, and if so, require it specifying the address to
which it must be sent and whether there are any limitations to accept service, for example, format or maximum
size of attachments that may be received.
If service by e-mail is acceptable please indicate whether it would be a requirement to also serve a hard copy.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
18 June 2013 15:09
Notice of service.pdf; N461 - Judicial Review - Sealed.pdf; n462-eng.pdf; Paginated bundle A.pdf
Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court / Judicial Review (Mandatory order to
state a case)
Dear Ms Crocken
In anticipation of the courts approval to accept service by e-mail, please find attached a sealed copy of
Judicial Review claim form and accompanying documents.
Documents include:
Notice of service.pdf
N461 - Judicial Review - Sealed.pdf
n462-eng.pdf (Acknowledgement of Service - Form)
Paginated bundle A.pdf
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
07/06/2016
HM Courts &
Tribunals Service
PROTECT
NOTE TO DEFENDANT AND

1 Oxford Row
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS13BG
OX 703016 Leeds 6
T 0113 306 2578
F 0113 306 2581
@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk
www.justice.gov.uk
INTERESTED PARTY(IES)
Our ref: CO/7281/2013
13 June 2013
A claim before the Administrative Court may be started, administered and determined at
one of the following venues:
Royal Courts of Justice - Room C315, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A
2LL;
Birmingham Civil Justice Centre - Priory Courts, 33 Bull Street, Birmingham, B4 60S;
Cardiff Civil Justice Centre - 2 Park Street, Cardiff, CF10 1ET;
Leeds Combined Court Centre - 1 Oxford Row, Leeds, LS1 3B8;
Manchester Civil Justice Centre -1 Bridge Street West, Manchester, M60 9DJ
This matter is currently proceeding at the Leeds Combined Court Centre. Should you
wish to seek a direction that any hearings in this matter be heard at one of the other
venues listed above, you should complete, lodge with the Administrative Court in Leeds
and serve on all parties to this claim, a Form N464, Application for Directions as to venue
for administration and determination, within 21 days of service of the claim form upon you.
There is a fee payable for such application; namely 80.00 or 45.00 if all parties named
in the claim form consent to the change of venue and their signed consent is lodged with
your Form N464.
Form N464 can be obtained from any of the Administrative Court Offices or down load
from
the
Ministry
of
Justice
website
at
www.justice.gov.uk/aboutlhmcts/
index.htm.
For Regional Manager
The Administrative Court Office will not accept service via emai!. When using the above email address it should be
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:

19 June 2013 09:23
RE: Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court / Judicial Review (Mandatory order
to state a case)
Good morning Mr Xxxxx

I shall need to seek Legal Advice as to whether or not service can be accepted via email. I will be back in
touch with you as soon as possible with an updated response
Regards
Karen
Karen Crocken
Doncaster, DN1 3HT
Tel: 01302 347304 Fax: 01302 327906
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
19 June 2013 09:52
Re: Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court / Judicial Review (Mandatory order
to state a case)
Dear Ms Crocken
I decided to post them first class yesterday.
The claim form and accompanying documents have also been delivered in person at the premises of Grimsby
Magistrates' court and North East Lincolnshire Council (18/06/2013).
I need to lodge a Certificate of Service (Form N215) in the Administrative Court Office and will be doing so
today. Due to the unusual staffing arrangements for Grimsby, I'm unsure whether the Certificate of Service
should be lodged in respect of documents the served at Grimsby Magistrates' court or Doncaster. I anticipate
this information may not be disclosed, and will lodge the Certificate of Service in respect of documents the
served at Grimsby Magistrates' court unless I receive advice before 3:00pm.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
07/06/2016
Certificate of service
Name of court
Claim No.
Administrative Court Leeds
CO/7281/2013
Name of Claimant
Xxxxx Xxxxxx
On what day did

you serve?
1 8 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 3
The date of service is
1 8 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 3
Name of Defendant
What documents did you serve?

Please attach copies of the documents you
have not already filed with the court.
On whom did you serve?

(If appropriate include their position
e.g. partner, director).
Judicial Review claim form (N461), Acknowledgement of Service (N462),

Paginated accompanying documents, Notice to Defendant and Interested Parties
Reception desk (Justices' Clerks Office) Grimsby Magistrates' Court
How did you serve the documents?

(please tick the appropriate box)
by first class post or other service which provides for
delivery on the next business day
Give the address where service effected, include fax or DX

number, e-mail address or other electronic identification
Grimsby Magistrates' Court, Victoria Street, Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire, DN31 1NH, DX 707680, Grimsby 5
by delivering to or leaving at a permitted place

by personally handing it to or leaving it with
(.................time
12:00
left, where document is other than a
claim form) (please specify)
Being the
claimant's
defendants
solicitor's
litigation friend
usual residence
last known residence
by other means permitted by the court
(please specify)
place of business
principal place of business
last known place of business
by Document Exchange
by fax machine (.................time sent, where document
is other than a claim form) (you may want to enclose a copy
of the transmission sheet)
by other electronic means (.................time sent, where

document is other than a claim form) (please specify)
last known principal place of business

principal office of the partnership
principal office of the corporation
principal office of the company
place of business of the partnership/company/
corporation within the jurisdiction with a connection
to claim
other (please specify)
I believe that the facts stated in this certificate are true.

Full name Xxxxx Xxxxxx
Signed
Position or
office held
(Claimant) (Defendant) ('s solicitor) ('s friend)
Date
(If signing on behalf of firm or company)
1 9 / 0 6/ 2 0 1 3
N215 Certificate of service (09.11)
Crown copyright 2011
Rules relating to the service of documents are contained in Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (www.justice.gov.uk)
and you should refer to the rules for information.
Calculation of deemed day of service of a claim
A claim form served within the UK in accordance with Part 6 of the Civil Procedure rules is deemed to be served on
the second business day after the claimant has completed the steps required by CPR 7.5(1).
Calculation of the deemed day of service of documents other than the claim form (CPR 6.26)
Method of service
Deemed day of service
First class post or other service which The second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the
provides for delivery on the next
relevant service provider provided that day is a business day; or if not, the next
business day
business day after that day
The second day after it was left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant
Document exchange
service provider provided that day is a business day; or if not, the next business
day after that day
Delivering the document to or
If it is delivered to or left at the permitted address on a business day before
leaving it at a permitted address
4.30pm, on that day; or in any other case, on the next business day after that day
If the transmission of the fax is completed on a business day before 4.30pm, on
Fax
that day; or in any other case, on the next business day after the day on which
it was transmitted
If the email or other electronic transmission is sent on a business day before
Other electronic method
4.30pm, on that day; or in any other case, on the next business day after the
day on which it was sent
If the document is served personally before 4.30pm on a business day, it is
Personal service
served on that day; or in any other case, on the next business day after that day
In this context 'business day' means any day except Saturday, Sunday or a bank holiday; (under the Banking and Financial
Dealings Act 1971 in the part of the UK where service is to take place) includes Good Friday and Christmas Day.
'
'
'
'
'
'
CO/7281/2013
name
Redacted

Redacted
address
Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates'

Court
Redacted


SECTION A
!
"
&
'
"
'
"
'
'
"
'
'
&
&
"
&
'
'
"
"
"
'
'
'
'
&
"
<
'
'
'
"
'
'
'
"
'
'
'
"
'
'
'
"
'
'
'
"
"
"
'
>
"
'
'
'
&
'
&
'
'
<
"
&
"
"
'
'
>
&
"
'
&
"
'
"
'
"
&
'
'
'
"
&
&
"
"
'
'
"
&
"
"
"
'
"
Note:
&
'
"
"
'
'
"
"
'
"
'
&
'
'
"
"
"
&
'
"
'
'
"
'
&
'
"
"
"
'
"
&
&
'
"
'
'
"
&
'
'
"
"
&
'
&
'
"
"
"
'
'
"
"
"
"
SECTION B
0
'
&
'
'
'
'
"
'
&
'
name
name
address
address
Fax no.
Telephone no.
'
Telephone no.
E-mail address
"
'
'
'
Fax no.
E-mail address
o
u
SECTION C
|
'
"
&
'
"
'
'
"
&
'
"
'
&
"
&
'
'
JLYH\RXUJURXQGVIRUFRQWHVWLQJLW,I\RXDUHDFRXUWRUWULEXQDOOLQJDVXEPLVVLRQSOHDVHLQGLFDWHWKDWWKLVLVWKHFDVH
The defendant to this matter is a magistrates' court.
The claimant has made an application to the Justices in relation to proceedings commenced against him by North East Lincolnshire
Council (the interested party in this application for Judicial Review) for them to state a case in relation to their decision to make a
liability order in respect of costs arising from the proceedings for non-payment of council tax.
In connection with that application the claimant was requested by the defendant magistrates' court in accordance with section 114 of
the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to enter into a recognizance to prosecute his appeal in the High Court without delay. Statute makes
provision for this step to be taken by the court and therefore the court is perfectly entitled to seek a recognizance prior to stating a
case. In seeking a recognizance the defendant court was by definition prepared to state a case as this is implicit in the statutory
provision allowing for a recognizance to be required. That remains the position of the defendant court.
A recognizance does not require any money to be paid 'up front' unlike court fees which are required to be paid before work on an
application is undertaken. Indeed a recognizance is but a promise that the individual who enters into the recognizance makes to pay
some or all of a sum of money determined by the court in the event that he/she fails to prosecute his/her case in the High Court
without delay. Accordingly no money need ever be paid if the matter is pursued by the appellant in the High Court and even if the
appeal were not pursued in the High Court, there would still need to be a hearing to determine whether in the fact some or all of the
recognizance should be forfeit.
To date the claimant has not appeared before the defendant court to enter into a recognizance. Had he done so the question of the
appropriateness of the recognizance and/or the amount could have been considered by the court.
Rather than formally responding to the claim for permission to apply for a judicial review, even though the Justices do not agree with
the claim that has been made by the claimant, in the interests of saving the Administrative Court time and public money on a matter
that is likely to reach the Administrative Court via the route of an appeal by way of case stated, the defendant court gives an
undertaking that the draft case will be served upon the defendant within fourteen days of the date of this acknowledgement of
service.
SECTION D
~
"
'
'
"
"
'
"
"
'
"
&
'
'
"
&
'
"
"
'
&
'
'
"
"
"
'
"
'
&
'
'
'
"
"
'
"
&
&
"
'
'
&
'
"
"
"
'
'
'
&
'
&
&
&
"
&
&
"
"
"
'
&
'
'
'
'
'
&
'
"
'
"
&
&
"
'
'
'
"
'
SECTION E
'
'
'
&
'
&
"
&
'
"
"
'
"
&
&
&
'
'
"
"
"
"
&
"
O
'
'
'
'
'
'
"
"
&
'
'
SECTION F
h
&
'
"
"
'
'
<
&
'
'
'
'
'
'
"
'
'
<
&
&
'
'
"
&
"
'
&
'
'
'
"
&
"
'
'
"
'
3RVLWLRQRURIFHKHOG
Justices' Clerk for Humber and

South Yorkshire
EHKDOIRIUP
b
Signed
Date
8. 7. 13
'
&
"
&
"
'
&
"
'
'
&
'
"
'
'
'
'
'
"
'
&
'
"
'
'
'
'
"
name
name
Redacted
address
address

The Law Courts
College Road
Doncaster
DN13HT
Fax no.
Telephone no.
Telephone no.
Fax no.
01302 347303
01302 327906
E-mail address
E-mail address
redacted@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Completed forms, WRJHWKHUZLWKDFRS\VKRXOGEHORGJHGZLWKWKH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH&RXUW2IFH
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Subject:
16 July 2013 12:58
Acknowledgement of Service - Judicial Review (CO/781/2013)
Dear Mrs Watts
I have today received the Acknowledgement of Service in respect of Judicial Review claim ref, CO/781/2013
today (16 July 2013).
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:

17 July 2013 12:30
RE: Acknowledgement of Service - Judicial Review (CO/781/2013)
Good afternoon Mr Xxxxx

Thank you for your email. I will advise Mrs Watts.
Regards
Karen
Karen Crocken
Doncaster, DN1 3HT
Tel: 01302 347304 Fax: 01302 327906
07/06/2016
Mrs A Watts
PO Box 49
The Law Courts
College Road
DONCASTER DN1 3HT
DX 742840 (Doncaster 20)
When calling please ask for: Karen

Crocken Direct Line: 01302347304
T: 01302 366711
F: 01302 327906
E: celine.allerton@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Our ref: AW/KEC

Your ref:
Minicom VII: 01302 369066

www.justice.gov.uk
24 July 2013
Mr X Xxxxxx
XX Xxxx Xxxxxx
Grimsby
DNXX XXX
Dear Mr Xxxxx
Re: North East Lincolnshire Council V Xxxx Xxxxx
Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates' Court - 2 November 2012
Application to State a Case
I refer to your request for the Justices to state a case for the opinion of the High Court in respect of the
above-mentioned proceedings.
Enclosed herewith is the draft case that has been prepared, together with a statement of the delay for
production of same.
May I respectfully draw to your attention that in accordance with rule 77 (2) of the Magistrates' Courts
Rules 1981 you have 21 days from receipt of the draft case to submit any written representations that you
may have upon its content.
I shall be grateful if you kindly acknowledge receipt of this correspondence.
Yours sincerely
Mrs A Watts
Justices' Clerk
Enc
In the High Court of Justice

Administrative Court
Between
Xxx Xxxxx
Appellant
and
Respondent
Case Stated by Justices in the County of Lincolnshire, acting in

and for the Local Justice Area of Grimsby and Cleethorpes in
respect of their adjudication as a Magistrates' Court sitting at
Grimsby.
CASE
1. On 10 October 2012 a complaint was laid against the appellant

on behalf of the respondent that for the period 1 April 2012 to 31
March 2013 at Grimsby in the County of Lincolnshire he was a
person who was liable to pay the sum of 437.52, the balance of
council tax he owed arising from his occupation of XX Xxxxxxx
Xxxxxxx, Grimsby, and application was therefore made to the
court for a liability order to secure payment of that sum in
accordance with regulation 34 of the Council Tax (Administration
and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.
2. The court heard the complaint on 2 November 2012. The court
did not hear evidence in the matter as the appellant admitted the
following facts:a) The appellant was liable for the amount of council tax, namely
437.52, claimed against him by the respondent for the period 1
April 2012 to 31 March 2013.
b) The appellant had by the time of the court hearing paid the
sum due to the respondent in respect of the outstanding council
tax that was claimed by the respondent.
c) The appellant was liable to pay an amount in respect of the

costs of the respondent in bringing proceedings before the court
d) The claim for costs in respect of the proceedings made by the
respondent on the face of the summons served upon the appellant
was in the sum of 70.00.
e) The appellant had by the time of the hearing paid 10.00 to the
respondent in respect of the costs.
f) The appellant had not paid the full amount of the costs
requested by the respondent and did not intend so to do so.
3. The following is a short statement of the representations made

to us by the parties:a) The respondent stated that the amount of the claim for costs
was the same as that sought in all similar proceedings
commenced by the respondent, a sum which had previously been
notified to the Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates' Court under
cover of correspondence dated 4 March 2011 for cases arising on
or after 1 April 2011.
b) The level of costs sought by the respondent did not exceed the
prescribed amount described in regulation 34(8) of the Council Tax
(Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.
c) The level of costs sought by the respondent in the proceedings
was within the range of costs sought by other local authorities in
similar proceedings for unpaid council tax
d) The level of costs sought had been calculated to reflect both
administrative and legal costs in bringing the proceedings to court,
including the court fees.
e) The appellant referred to correspondence he had had with the
respondent in which he asserted that the level of costs claimed by
the council was a means of raising additional revenue from the
respondent.
f) The appellant referred to the respondent's 2011 budget and

financial plan in which a majority was stated to be in favour of
increased charges for summonses rather than charging for other

council services such as replacement bins or garden waste
collections.
4. It was contended by the appellant that:a) The level of costs requested by the respondent in the
proceedings was disproportionate to and not commensurate with
the true cost of bringing the proceedings before the court in that it
was much higher than the actual cost.
b) The reason the respondent sought such a high level of costs in
the proceedings was as a means for the respondent to raise
additional revenue for the respondent.
5. It was contended by the respondent that:a) The level of costs sought in the proceedings was an amount
that had previously been advised by the respondent to the court
that would be sought by the respondent in each case in
proceedings to recover unpaid council tax. This amount had been
claimed in all cases before the court since that notification.
b) The sum requested was not a means to raise additional revenue
for the respondent but a reflection of the broad average costs of
bringing any individual case for unpaid council tax before the court.
6. We were not referred to any case authority.
7. We were of the following opinion:a) We recognise that in all cases where costs are claimed we
always have a discretion as to whether to order them, and if so, in
what sum. Although the appellant admitted the matter of complaint
and costs would therefore normally follow the event, the fact that
the respondent asked for the normal amount of amount of costs in
this case did not prevent us from reducing the amount or refusing
to make an order for costs at all.
3
b) The respondent, as with other council tax billing authorities, has

taken a broad approach to the question of requests for costs and
has sought a similar amount in this case as with all others in the in
the same court list. In normal circumstances this is appropriate,
although we accept we must look at each case individually. This
means that the respondent could in principle have sought a greater
amount of costs in an individual case where more costs were
incurred, subject to any limitations set by regulations, had it
chosen to do so.
c) The amount of costs requested in all cases before us for nonpayment of council tax was a sum advised to the court in writing by
the respondent well over a year before the current proceedings
against the appellant were commenced, and the court in other
such proceedings in the intervening period has considered that
level of costs to be appropriate by making orders in favour of the
respondent in that sum. That fact of course did not prevent us from
considering the level of costs requested in the proceedings against
the appellant.
d) The respondent had to pay a court fee in respect of every
application for a liability order as well as cover the other
administrative and legal costs of bringing the proceedings, and we
therefore considered 70.00 was an amount reasonably incurred
by the respondent in making the application before the court and
obtaining the liability order.
e) On the basis of the information presented to us by both the
appellant and the respondent, the contention that the amount
claimed by the respondent was in the nature of general revenue
raising by the respondent did not succeed and we were satisfied
that it was instead an amount to cover the cost of bringing council
tax enforcement proceedings to court.
f) This case had no features to distinguish it significantly from other
cases in our list to suggest to us that a different level of costs
should be considered in this case.
g) The appellant should pay the full amount of the costs sought.
We could not see that it was just to order the appellant to pay less
or we would have so ordered.
8. We ordered that 60.00 costs requested by the respondent

should be paid by the appellant in the proceedings and made a
liability order against him to enable that sum to be recovered by
the respondent.
QUESTION
9. The question for the opinion of the High Court is:Were we entitled in the circumstances of this case to order
payment of the full amount of the costs requested by the
respondent and make the liability order which followed as a
consequence thereof?
Dated the 22 day of July 2013
Mr J A O'Nions JP
Mr T A Shepherdson JP
Justices' Clerk
for and on behalf of the Justices adjudicating.
STATEMENT IN ACORDANCE WITH RULE 79(1) OF THE MAGISTRATES'

COURTS RULES 1981
APPLICATION TO STATE A CASE MADE BY XXX XXXXX
It was not possible to comply with rule 77(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981
for the following reasons:
1.
The application to state a case was made on 22 November 2012. This

was shortly before the Deputy Justices' Clerk who advised the Justices at
Mr Xxxxx's hearing on 2 November 2012 and the person who would
ordinarily have advised the Justices in connection with the application to
state a case left the service of Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals
Service.
2.
The matter was escalated to the Justices' Clerk. This caused a delay as
the Justices' Clerk had then to review the case papers and discuss the
matter with the Justices to seek their views on whether it was it would be
appropriate to state a case or to refuse to state a case on the grounds
that the application was frivolous. The Justices decided that they would
state a case but required a recognizance from Mr Xxxxx before doing so.
3.
On 24 January 2013 correspondence was sent to Mr Xxxxx indicating that

in accordance with section 114 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, that
before stating a case the Justices required a recognizance from to
prosecute the appeal without delay. To date Mr Xxxxx has not entered
into such a recognizance.
4.
On 29 April 2013 Mr Xxxxx corresponded with the court indicating

concern with the request for a recognizance and asking for a certificate of
refusal to state a case, and that if the latter were declined, that he would
seek permission for a Judicial Review.
5.
On June 2013 Mr Xxxxx made an application to the Administrative Court

for permission to seek a Judicial Review of the court not to supply him
with the draft case and to seek a mandatory order that the Justices state a
case.
6.
On 8 July 2013 the Court responded to the application for a Judicial

Review by indicating it was still awaiting Mr Xxxxx to enter into a
recognizance before stating a case and had not refused to state a case at
all. However, in the interests of avoiding any further delay in the case, and
in an endeavour to save the costs of hearings in the Administrative Court
of both an application for Judicial Review and an appeal by way of case
stated, the Justices have decided to proceed to produce and deliver a
draft case to Mr Xxxxx.
Dated the 22nd day of July 2013
Justices' Clerk
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Subject:
30 July 2013 21:53
Acknowledgement of draft Case Stated (re, North East Lincolnshire Council)
Dear Mrs Watts

I have today received the draft in respect of an appeal by way of a case stated (30 July 2013).
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
19 August 2013 22:39
Doncaster CrimPR 64.3(6) 19 August 2013.pdf; Case stated Draft representation.pdf
Representations on Draft Case - Rule 77 (2)
Dear Mrs Watts
Please find attached, hard copies in the post tomorrow.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
<eve.richardson-smith@nelincs.gov.uk>
19 August 2013 22:45
Case stated Draft representation.pdf; NELC CrimPR 64.3(6) 19 August 2013.pdf
Representations on Draft Case - CrimPR 64.3 (6)
Dear Ms Richardson
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
08/06/2016
REPRESENTATIONS MADE ON THE DRAFT CASE

IN ACCORDANCE WITH CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES
PART 64.3 (6)
(Rule 77 (2) of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981)
19 August 2013
Note: Representations (where made) are indented to draft content with

contrasting typeface.
X. Xxxxx

Administrative Court
Between
Xxx Xxxxx
Appellant
and
Respondent
Case Stated by Justices in the County of Lincolnshire, acting in

and for the Local Justice Area of Grimsby and Cleethorpes in
respect of their adjudication as a Magistrates' Court sitting at
Grimsby.
CASE
1. On 10 October 2012 a complaint was laid against the appellant

on behalf of the respondent that for the period 1 April 2012 to 31
March 2013 at Grimsby in the County of Lincolnshire he was a
person who was liable to pay the sum of 437.52, the balance of
council tax he owed arising from his occupation of Xx Xxxxxxx
Xxxxxxx, Grimsby, and application was therefore made to the
court for a liability order to secure payment of that sum in
accordance with regulation 34 of the Council Tax (Administration
and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.
2. The court heard the complaint on 2 November 2012. The court
did not hear evidence in the matter as the appellant admitted the
following facts:Evidence was submitted to the court challenging both the
reasonableness of costs and the apparent breach of law
imposing them.
Outlining briefly:
In accordance with the procedure described in the Council
Tax Regulations, costs imposed (before review) had been
applied incrementally. They were proportioned so that
56% were incurred on issue of a summons whilst full
costs were incurred only on the complaint being heard and
on order of the court. The ratio of liability orders to the
number of accounts summonsed meant only around 75%
of householders issued a summons incurred full costs.
Those settling liability before the hearing paid only an
amount incurred by the council up until the summons
issue.
All costs are now front loaded so each householder issued
a summons incurs full costs whether the complaint is
heard by the court or not. The change in composition and
a 23% raise overall, increased the cost of the summons by
120%.
a) The appellant was liable for the amount of council tax, namely
437.52, claimed against him by the respondent for the period 1
April 2012 to 31 March 2013.
b) The appellant had by the time of the court hearing paid the
sum due to the respondent in respect of the outstanding council
tax that was claimed by the respondent.
2
A letter notifying the respondent, the day payment was

made, stated the importance of it being made known in
advance of the hearing whether a liability order would be
requested for the shortfall of the stated amount payable on
the summons.
The assumption conveyed to the respondent, was that no
reply would mean attending the hearing was required if
wishing to dispute costs.
The respondent was reminded that it had been unable to
determine, when previously requested, how the costs had
been calculated, and so the court would have had no basis
to assess the reasonableness of the claim.
There was no offer of a breakdown showing how the costs
were calculated. If there had been, it may have justified
they exceeded the amount already paid.
The respondent did not reply, so was assumed attending
the hearing was required.
c) The appellant was liable to pay an amount in respect of the
costs of the respondent in bringing proceedings before the court
d) The claim for costs in respect of the proceedings made by the
respondent on the face of the summons served upon the appellant
was in the sum of 70.00.
e) The appellant had by the time of the hearing paid 10.00 to the
respondent in respect of the costs.
f) The appellant had not paid the full amount of the costs
requested by the respondent and did not intend so to do so.
The case had not been heard at this point so no costs had
been ordered by the court.
The 70.00 sum demanded was merely the standard
amount requested at the hearing so if the defendant
wished to contend the level, it was open to the respondent
to provide a breakdown showing that it was justified.
There was no offer of a breakdown. Had an agreement on
the level of costs been reached it would not have been
necessary for the respondent to have proceeded with the
3
application for a liability order.

3. The following is a short statement of the representations made
to us by the parties:a) The respondent stated that the amount of the claim for costs
was the same as that sought in all similar proceedings
commenced by the respondent, a sum which had previously been
notified to the Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates' Court under
cover of correspondence dated 4 March 2011 for cases arising on
or after 1 April 2011.
Though the council had notified the court that the costs
would be increased, it could not have meant they were
agreed in advance.
When making an order for costs, the court must be
satisfied that the sum it orders has been reasonably
incurred by the council. Notifying the Court merely made
it aware of the level of costs that the Council would
request at the hearing. The decision therefore, as to
whether costs are awarded and to the level, is always the
Courts.
The March 4, 2011 correspondence detailed that the
increased costs charged for a Council Tax summons
would apply similarly to Business Rates, despite the laws
governing costs differing. It is apparent that the court,
without evidence supporting the 120% hike, approved the
costs and had not contested procedural errors in liability
order applications for Business Rates.
Unlike Council Tax, nothing in the regulations governing
Business Rates provides that a defaulter may halt
proceedings, if payment is made of the outstanding
liability plus incurred summons costs, before the case is
heard.
The law states that in the case of Business Rates
applications, an order for costs must be made by the court.
However, North East Lincolnshire council instructs
defaulters that on receiving a summons, if they pay the
full amount owing including all costs before the date of
the hearing no further action will be required.
It appears in those circumstances, the council does not
apply to the court for an order of costs; in the year 20114
12, statistics reveal out of 932 business ratepayers

summonsed, 33% of those incurred 70 costs where no
liability order had been granted.
b) The level of costs sought by the respondent did not exceed the
prescribed amount described in regulation 34(8) of the Council Tax
(Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.
It is unclear whether a prescribed amount refers to a set
figure in regulation 34(8). If so, none is specified only
costs reasonably incurred.
An accurate transcript of the hearing is essential to verify
that regulation 34(8) was in fact referred to by the
respondent. This is crucial to the appeal because one
question in law focuses on the composition of costs in this
area.
Costs would have been awarded in accordance with
Regulation 34(8) had the outstanding liability alone (no
costs element) been paid after the order was applied for
but before it was made. The appeal is concerned in
circumstances where a reasonable sum of costs had also
been paid. Regulation 34(8) was not relevant; the council
took the option to pursue a liability order after liability
had been settled including payment for reasonable costs.
The council proceeded without providing a breakdown to
show how its costs exceeded the amount tendered. As no
sum is prescribed in the council tax regulations, nor had
costs been ordered by the court, the onus (as they were
disputed) was on the authority to justify that its standard
sum had been incurred as opposed to the amount already
paid.
In the circumstances, the relevant costs in dispute were
those described in Regulation 34(5) an indeterminate
sum in respect of incurred costs to issue a summons.
This has relevance to the point in law questioned which
raises the matter that all costs are now front loaded,
meaning in terms of law, costs described at 34(7) in
respect of obtaining the order, are incurred where only an
amount has been incurred in connection with issuing the
summons; those which are described at 34(5).
c) The level of costs sought by the respondent in the proceedings

was within the range of costs sought by other local authorities in
similar proceedings for unpaid council tax
The respondent had not supplied the Magistrates Court

with a breakdown of the 120% increase in summons costs,
neither did it hold a breakdown for the calculation of the
70 fee. It was based on comparisons with neighbouring
authorities, then compared against national averages, and
checked to ensure that the monies raised from costs would
not be greater than the cost of the service.
Comparing with another authority would be appropriate
only if applications were made under exactly the same
circumstances and if the authority in comparison had
produced a breakdown showing precisely how theyd
been calculated.
Monies raised from costs must not be greater than those
incurred in connection with the application; not as stated,
checked to ensure that they would not be greater than the
cost of the service.
A 1992 publication by the DoE, (the Council tax practice
note 9: Recovery and Enforcement), stated under liability
orders, that it should be recognised that the Court may
wish to be satisfied that the amount claimed by way of
costs in any individual case is no more than that
This was reiterated recently in a publication by the
Department of Communities and Local Government on
good practice in the collection of Council Tax arrears:
Local Authorities are reminded that they are only
permitted to charge reasonable costs for the court
summons and liability order. In the interests of
transparency, Local Authorities should be able to
provide a breakdown, on request, showing how
these costs are calculated....it should be recognised
that the Court may wish to be satisfied that the
amount claimed by way of costs in any individual
case is no more than that reasonably incurred by
the authority.
d) The level of costs sought had been calculated to reflect both

administrative and legal costs in bringing the proceedings to court,
including the court fees.
There was no calculation.

A 1992 publication by the DoE, (the Council tax practice
note 9: Recovery and Enforcement), stated under liability
orders, that it should be recognised that the Court may
wish to be satisfied that the amount claimed by way of
costs in any individual case is no more than that
This was reiterated recently in a publication by the
Department of Communities and Local Government on
good practice in the collection of Council Tax arrears:
Local Authorities are reminded that they are only
permitted to charge reasonable costs for the court
summons and liability order. In the interests of
transparency, Local Authorities should be able to
provide a breakdown, on request, showing how
these costs are calculated....it should be recognised
that the Court may wish to be satisfied that the
amount claimed by way of costs in any individual
case is no more than that reasonably incurred by
the authority.
e) The appellant referred to correspondence he had had with the

respondent in which he asserted that the level of costs claimed by
the council was a means of raising additional revenue from the
respondent.
f) The appellant referred to the respondent's 2011 budget and

financial plan in which a majority was stated to be in favour of
increased charges for summonses rather than charging for other
council services such as replacement bins or garden waste
collections.
The increase was to meet budget requirements and
involved consulting the views of residents, businesses
and scrutiny [panel] on areas from which they favoured
boosting revenue.
7
The decision then to increase summons costs was not

because incurred costs had risen but geared to preferences
of the respondents to the consultation.
The increase was a budgetary measure as proposals being
put to a vote testifies. Costs, according to law must be
reasonably incurred. The decision to increase them on the
strength of a ballot suggests it was done simply to
generate income rather than a measure to compensate for
additional incurred costs.
Statement made by Respondent:
The decision to increase the summons charge and
make no subsequent charge for a liability order
was agreed by members following public
consultation in relation to the budget proposals.
4. It was contended by the appellant that:Costs reviews were undertaken for purposes other than to
reflect the level of expenditure incurred in court
applications.
Cabinet documents revealed that increases were used as
an instrument to generate income and/or to encourage
behaviour.
ooOoo
A review in 2001 disclosed that if the respondent were to
follow the trend of other councils by charging more in
respect of Business Rates than for Council Tax (three
times), the extra cost would encourage prompt payment.
Intended to improve cash flow for the authority, the
overall benefit from the review would potentially generate
additional extra income of 38k per annum.
ooOoo
The following year a cabinet document identified ways of
funding additional resources to ensure the backlog of
work that had arisen due to changes in the IT system were
addressed.
Recommendations were that the Council Tax summons
8
cost be increased by 50% with immediate effect. The

forecasted additional revenue would easily produce the
30k per annum costed to pay for additional staff.
ooOoo
Historical changes in the composition of the summons and
liability order costs, highlights that these have been
determined arbitrarily.
The gradual shift in weight from the liability order cost to
the summons is more likely to have been manipulated to
encourage behaviour and/or to maximise revenue from
shifting the greater cost into a bracket where the majority
of debtors fall.
Several costs reviews have revealed since 2000-01 that the
composition has changed progressively from 78% of the
total being attributed to the liability order, to the present,
where all cost has been front loaded to the summons.
If the same ratio of liability order to summons costs from
2000-01 still applied, the overall cost would be split so the
present 70 summons costs would only be 15.
a) The level of costs requested by the respondent in the
proceedings was disproportionate to and not commensurate with
the true cost of bringing the proceedings before the court in that it
was much higher than the actual cost.
The respondent described the 120% increase in summons
costs as a saving that can be made in the cost of the
delivery of the service.
It was found that the service did not relate to the cost of
issuing summonses but the costs reasonably incurred for
Council Tax collection and recovery.
The law doesnt provide for the inclusion of costs that
relate to general council tax administration.
b) The reason the respondent sought such a high level of costs in
the proceedings was as a means for the respondent to raise
additional revenue for the respondent.
5. It was contended by the respondent that:a) The level of costs sought in the proceedings was an amount
that had previously been advised by the respondent to the court
that would be sought by the respondent in each case in
proceedings to recover unpaid council tax. This amount had been
claimed in all cases before the court since that notification.
b) The sum requested was not a means to raise additional revenue
for the respondent but a reflection of the broad average costs of
bringing any individual case for unpaid council tax before the court.
6. We were not referred to any case authority.
Regina v Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin [1975] QB
455 was referred to in an item of evidence disputing the
level of expenditure attributed to monitoring and control.
It was argued that over a five year period, a total 3,528
Liability Orders had been issued for initial debt of 50 or
less despite being policy for the council to pass accounts
to enforcement for amounts over 50. This along with
summonses containing incorrect and out of date
information issued on 3,361 accounts for a hearing of 2
June 2011 pointed to neither the Magistrates court nor
more crucially the local authority incurring costs in
respect of monitoring liability order applications.
...before a summons or warrant is issued the
information must be laid before a magistrate and
he must go through the judicial exercise of deciding
whether a summons or warrant ought to be issued
or not. If a magistrate authorises the issue of a
summons without having applied his mind to the
information then he is guilty of dereliction of
duty...
7. We were of the following opinion:a) We recognise that in all cases where costs are claimed we
always have a discretion as to whether to order them, and if so, in
what sum. Although the appellant admitted the matter of complaint
and costs would therefore normally follow the event, the fact that
the respondent asked for the normal amount of amount of costs in
this case did not prevent us from reducing the amount or refusing
to make an order for costs at all.
10
b) The respondent, as with other council tax billing authorities, has

taken a broad approach to the question of requests for costs and
has sought a similar amount in this case as with all others in the in
the same court list. In normal circumstances this is appropriate,
although we accept we must look at each case individually. This
means that the respondent could in principle have sought a greater
amount of costs in an individual case where more costs were
incurred, subject to any limitations set by regulations, had it
chosen to do so.
Costs, when considered in a broad sense, include an
amount to cover Council Tax collection and recovery.
The law doesnt provide for costs income to fund the
running of council tax departments, only to cover
expenditure in connection with the application. As this
would be seen as inappropriate profit, it would be
expected that the element relating to general
administration would be discounted.
The challenge was not to the costs incurred by the council
in obtaining the order, but specifically the amount it
incurred up to payment being made. With that in mind,
any logical deviation to the standard sum would be a
lesser amount.
c) The amount of costs requested in all cases before us for nonpayment of council tax was a sum advised to the court in writing by
the respondent well over a year before the current proceedings
against the appellant were commenced, and the court in other
such proceedings in the intervening period has considered that
level of costs to be appropriate by making orders in favour of the
respondent in that sum. That fact of course did not prevent us from
considering the level of costs requested in the proceedings against
the appellant.
Costs should vary in line with application numbers.
Higher volumes, in theory should lower costs as the
councils incurred expenditure must be divided between a
greater number. With typically fewer applications than for
Council Tax, this is the logic behind councils charging
higher levels to Business Ratepayers.
It follows if the court was mindful of factors influencing
costs, the amount awarded would need adjusting
downwards where numbers on the complaint list exceeded
11
certain levels. Overlooking the bulk nature of the process

gives councils the opportunity to significantly profit from
costs.
Numbers of householders receiving council tax
summonses has substantially increased since changes
were introduced to the benefit system. It has been reported
that one City Council has issued double the number of
summonses compared with last year. If due diligence was
given to determining costs, it would be evident with lower
amounts awarded since the reforms.
d) The respondent had to pay a court fee in respect of every
application for a liability order as well as cover the other
administrative and legal costs of bringing the proceedings, and we
therefore considered 70.00 was an amount reasonably incurred
by the respondent in making the application before the court and
obtaining the liability order.
The court fee paid in respect of each application,
according to the Magistrates Courts fee schedule is 3.
It is understood when challenging the reasonableness of
costs the individual case must be considered. However, it
would be unrepresentative to assess costs as if the
application was made independently from other
complaints. Summonses are processed in bulk (not
individually) in line with parameters set in the systems
software. Having met required criteria, recovery is
triggered with evidently no manual filtering carried out to
avoid unnecessary cases being sent for recovery.
With human involvement at a minimum and through
economies of scale, the bulk applications pose the risk of
councils being awarded costs far exceeding expenditure.
Figures obtained show that in respect of a single bulk
application, North East Lincolnshire council issued
summonses to 2,602 households with costs valued of over
182k. Typically, bulk applications are made monthly.
e) On the basis of the information presented to us by both the
appellant and the respondent, the contention that the amount
claimed by the respondent was in the nature of general revenue
raising by the respondent did not succeed and we were satisfied
that it was instead an amount to cover the cost of bringing council
12
tax enforcement proceedings to court.

f) This case had no features to distinguish it significantly from other
cases in our list to suggest to us that a different level of costs
should be considered in this case.
g) The appellant should pay the full amount of the costs sought.
We could not see that it was just to order the appellant to pay less
or we would have so ordered.
8. We ordered that 60.00 costs requested by the respondent

should be paid by the appellant in the proceedings and made a
liability order against him to enable that sum to be recovered by
the respondent.
QUESTION
9. The question for the opinion of the High Court is:Were we entitled in the circumstances of this case to order
payment of the full amount of the costs requested by the
respondent and make the liability order which followed as a
consequence thereof?
Dated the 22 day of July 2013
Mr J A O'Nions JP
Mr T A Shepherdson JP
Justices' Clerk
for and on behalf of the Justices adjudicating.
13

Yorkshire
PO Box 49
The Law Courts
College Road
Doncaster DN1 3HT
XX Xxxxxx Xxxxx
Grimsby
DNXX XXX
19 August 2013
Dear Mrs Watts

Re: North East Lincolnshire Council V Xxxx Xxxx
Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates' Court - 2 November
2012 Application to State a Case
In accordance with Rule 77 (2) of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981, there is enclosed,
representations made on the content of the draft case.
May I respectfully draw to your attention that in accordance with rule 78 of the Magistrates' Courts
Rules 1981 you have within 21 days after the latest day on which representations may be made
under rule 77 to state and sign the case.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx

Municipal Offices
Town Hall Square
Grimsby
DN31 1HU
XX Xxxxx Xxxxx
Grimsby
DNXX XXX
19 August 2013
Dear Ms Richardson
In accordance with Criminal Procedure Rules Part 64.3 (6), there is enclosed, representations
made on the content of the draft case.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Subject:
30 July 2013 21:53
Acknowledgement of draft Case Stated (re, North East Lincolnshire Council)
Dear Mrs Watts

I have today received the draft in respect of an appeal by way of a case stated (30 July 2013).
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
19 August 2013 22:39
Doncaster CrimPR 64.3(6) 19 August 2013.pdf; Case stated Draft representation.pdf
Representations on Draft Case - Rule 77 (2)
Dear Mrs Watts
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
<eve.richardson-smith@nelincs.gov.uk>
19 August 2013 22:45
Case stated Draft representation.pdf; NELC CrimPR 64.3(6) 19 August 2013.pdf
Representations on Draft Case - CrimPR 64.3 (6)
Dear Ms Richardson
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
08/06/2016

Queen's Bench Division
Administrative Court at Leeds
CO Ref: CO/7281/2013
In the matter of an application for Judicial Review

The Queen on the application of a.-=~-
-.--T--
versus
GRIMSBY MAGISTRATES' COURT (Defendant)
NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE COUNCIL (Interested Party)
On the application by the claimant for judicial review
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the parties
Order by His Honour Judge Roger Kaye QC sitting as a judge of the High Court
The defendant undertook to serve a draft of a Case
14 days of the Acknowledgment of Service (8 Jul
asked for a case stated by letter 29 Apr 13 under
would accordingly wish to know what has happened.
expired ..
stated on the claimant within

13). It is noted the claimant
s 111 MCA 1980. The court
The fourteen days have now
Reasons
As indicated.
Signed
14 Aug 13
Sent to the claimant, defendant and any interested party / the claimants, defendants, and any
interested party's solicitors on (date): 03.09.13
FORM MPA

1 Oxford Row
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS1 3BG
XX Xxxxx Xxxxx
Grimsby
DNXX XXX
06 September 2013
Ref: CO/7281/2013
In the matter of an application for Judicial Review

The Queen on the application of XXXX XXXXX
Versus
GRIMSBY MAGISTRATES COURT (Defendant)
NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE COUNCIL (Interested Party)
The defendant has served the draft Case on the claimant, received July 30, 2013.
Representations were made on the draft case in accordance with Rule 77 (2) of the Magistrates'
Courts Rules 1981 (Criminal Procedure Rules Part 64.3 (6)), and served on the defendant and
interested party 19 August 2013.
In accordance with rule 78 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981 the defendant has within 21 days
after the latest day on which representations may be made under rule 77 to state and sign the
case.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxx
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"Raven, Mike (Gov Connect)" <Mike.Raven@Nelincs.gcsx.gov.uk>

<alison.watts@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>; <xxx.xxxxx@btopenworld.com>
09 September 2013 16:27
North East Lincolnshire council Liability order costs.docx
Xxxxx and Grimsby Magistrates and North East Lincs Council CO Ref: CO7281/2013
Dear Sir/Madam
I have been instructed to forward to you the attached comments , received from our Local Taxation and Benefits
Service in respect of this matter.
Mike Raven, Assistant Legal Officer, Resources - Legal, North East Lincolnshire Council, Municipal Offices, Town Hall
Square, Grimsby DN31 1HU | DX13536 Grimsby 1| : 01472 324048 | : mailto:mike.raven@nelincs.gov.uk
The information included in this message including any attachments may be confidential or privileged and is
for the use of the named recipient only. If you are not the named or intended recipient you may not copy,
distribute, or deliver this message to any-one or take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this message
in error please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system.
This transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only and may contain
sensitive or protectively marked material and should be handled accordingly.
Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive it for the
addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have
received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately and
delete it from your system. All GCSX traffic may be subject to recording and/or
monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the
named recipient(s) only.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager or the sender immediately and do
not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
*** eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals, and malicious content. ***
08/06/2016
North East Lincolnshire council Liability order costs
North East Lincolnshire council(NELC), an interested party in this action, fully supports HMCTS
submission. The costs are raised under the Local Government finance Act 1992 which allows for
costs reasonably incurred by the applicant billing authority in obtaining that order.
NELC is currently in talks with the district auditor to justify the reasonable level of costs that it incurs
in bringing cases to liability order. NELC contends that 70 is a reasonable figure to cover the
expense of brining an account to court for a liability order. The figure is in line with other local
authorities in the area and lower than many Nationally. The Grimsby Magistrates Court has also
agreed that these costs are reasonable given the work required to obtain a Liability order.
Administrative
Court Office at Leeds
Leeds Combined
1 Oxford Row
Leeds
West Yorkshire
HM Courts &
Tribunals Service
Court
LS13BG
OX 703016
Leeds 6
T 0113 306 2578

F 0113 306 2581
PROTECT
@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk
www.justice.gov.uk
Our ref: CO/7281/2013

Your ref: <none>
12/11/2013
Dear Sir 1 Madam,

Re The Queen on the application of
----------COURT
---------
____
.-11c-v-GRIMSBY MAGISTRATES
Further to your letter dated 06/09/2013 it appears that you have now received a draft
case stated and have made your response upon that draft. In the light of the response
filed by the magistrates' court, I also assume (rightly or not) that you have now entered
into the required recognizance in accordance with the rules.
As your judicial review claim was against what was claimed to be the refusal to state a
case without entering into a recognizance, it appears that this outcome has now been
achieved.
I would be obliged if you would contact the court by return to advise whether you are
now withdrawing this judicial review claim as there no longer appears to be a need for
further action on the part of the High Court, the process of stating a case now being
underway (if not completed).
Please note: it remains a requirement that an appellant lodges with the High Court any
final "case stated" within 10 days of receipt (which can be extended on application if
necessary). There is a fee of 235 (or an application for fee remission). This is a
separate matter from the judicial review claim.
Yours faithfully
Administrative Court lawyer

for Court Manager
The Administrative Court Office will not accept service via email. When using the above email address it should be

1 Oxford Row
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS1 3BG
Your ref: CO/7281/2013
XX Xxxxx Xxxxx
Grimsby
DNXX XXX
20 November 2013
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: The Queen on the application of XXXX XXXXXX 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.
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 public
importance.
After considering the options that appear available to me now, please take this as formal notice
that I am withdrawing this judicial review claim.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
<Alison.Watts@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>; <eve.richardson-smith@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Raven, Mike (Gov
Connect)" <Mike.Raven@Nelincs.gcsx.gov.uk>
21 November 2013 16:55
Admin Leeds 20 Nov 2013.pdf
The Queen on the application of XXXX XXXXXX v GRIMSBY MAGISTRATES COURT
(withdrawal of judicial review claim)
Dear Sir/Madam
Please find attached letter to Administrative Court (Leeds) in regards withdrawal of claim for judicial review
(mandatory order).
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
<eve.richardson-smith@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Crocken, Karen" <karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>;
10 January 2014 16:09
Doncaster CrimPR 64.3(6) 10 January 2014.pdf
Re: Representations on Draft Case - CrimPR 64.3 (6)
Dear Mrs Watts

Please find attached letter in regards the application to state a case.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"Xxx" <xxx.Xxxxx@btopenworld.com>
13 February 2014 17:18
Recognizance 13 February 2014.pdf
Case Stated - Recognizance (re, North East Lincolnshire Council)
Dear Mrs Watts

Please find attached letter in regards arranging recognizance.
Yours sincerely
N. Xxxxx
08/06/2016

Yorkshire
PO Box 49
The Law Courts
College Road
Doncaster DN1 3HT
XX Xxxxxx Xxxxxx
Grimsby
DNXX XXX
10 January 2014
Dear Mrs Watts

Re: North East Lincolnshire Council V Xxxx Xxxxxx
I refer to the draft case received 30 July 2013 and the 21 day time limit from receipt of the draft
case to submit any written representations upon its content.
May I bring it to your attention that on 19 August 2013, representations were served together with
letter advising the Court it had (from the latest day on which representations may be made) 21
days to state and sign the case in accordance with rule 78 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981.
Accordingly, the final signed case was expected on or before 10 September 2013 (overrun by 4
months). I would therefore like to know why the justices have decided against complying with the
relevant rules.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx

Yorkshire
PO Box 49
The Law Courts
College Road
Doncaster DN1 3HT
XX Xxxxx Xxxxx
Grimsby
DNXX XXX
13 February 2014
Dear Mrs Watts

Re: North East Lincolnshire Council V Xxxx Xxxxxxx
Further to there being no response to my letter of 10.1.14, I am left not knowing why the justices
did not state the case in accordance with rule 78 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981.
It must be assumed that the court only gave an undertaking to serve the draft case, re
acknowledgement of service (Judicial Review 8.7.13) and not intended delivering the case stated
until recognizance had been agreed.
As a consequence of the judicial review claim, I understand that despite a sum (500) being
stated in your letter (24.1.13), the appropriateness and/or the amount may be considered on
agreeing recognizance. It would appear that if this appeal is to be progressed it will be conditional
on entering into recognizance. I therefore ask that arrangements are made for this to take place
and await your response.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
Watts, Alison <alison.watts@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

06 March 2014 10:06
Case Stated
Good Morning Mr Xxxxx

I am sorry that I have not been available to speak with you when you have called my office.
I understand that it is not possible for me to contact you by telephone and that you would prefer me to contact
you by e mail.
I am due to be in meetings all day today but I will have written communication with you either later today or
first thing tomorrow setting out the position with your case and advising you on next steps.
Yours sincerely
Alison Watts (Mrs)
Justices' Clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire
P O Box 49
College Road
Doncaster
DN1 3HT
Tel: 01302 347303
Fax: 01302 327906
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning
service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal
purposes.
08/06/2016

Yorkshire
PO Box 49
The Law Courts
College Road
Doncaster DN1 3HT
XX Xxxxx Xxxxx
Grimsby
DNXX XXX
22 April 2014
Dear Mrs Watts

Thank you for your email of 6 March 2014 in which you stated:
I will have written communication with you either later today or first thing tomorrow
setting out the position with your case and advising you on next steps.
I did not receive the aforementioned communication, neither have subsequent calls to your office
made 19 and 28 March prompted a response. The net result being that the case, for which the
Magistrates owe a legal duty to state for the opinion of the High Court, has not been stated.
As no contact has been made regarding my 13 February 2014 letter to agree recognizance and
every attempt to proceed with the appeal has drawn a blank, it appears the court is refusing to
state the case.
Pursuant to section 111(5) of the MCA 1980, a magistrate can refuse to state a case, but must
consider the application 'frivolous'. The meaning of the term was considered by the Civil Division of
the Court of Appeal in (R v Mildenhall Magistrates' Court, ex p Forest District Council). The then
Lord Chief Justice in considering the meaning of 'frivolous' was of the view that in the context, the
Court should consider the application to be futile, misconceived, hopeless or academic. He went on
to say that such a conclusion was not one to which the justices can properly come simply because
they consider their decision to be right or immune from challenge.
Presuming the application is not considered 'frivolous' (a draft has been produced) there is no
obvious reason why the court has not stated the case as legally required. However, as the court
may only refuse on these grounds then I require a certificate stating that the application has been
refused (section 111(5) MCA 1980) setting out the reasons why, so I may under section 111(6)
seek a second mandatory order from the Administrative Court requiring the case to be stated.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
22 April 2014 14:48
Cert - refusal to state case 22 April 2014.pdf
Re: Certificate of Refusal to state a case - s.111(5) MCA 1980 (re, North East Lincolnshire
Council)
Dear Mrs Watts

Please find attached letter for your attention requiring the production of a Certificate of refusal to state a case
under section 111(5) of the Magistrates Court's Act 1980.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Xxx" <xxxxxxx@gmail.com>
Watts, Alison" <Alison.Watts@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
09 July 2014 11:18
Restricted Contact - Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court
Dear Mrs Watts

Restricted Contact - Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court
With regards communication with Humber and South Yorkshire, I would like informing whether Her Majestys
Courts and Tribunals Service has any arrangements in place to restrict my contact.
If so, I wish to know in what/which way(s) the organisation has restricted contact. For example, this may be by
telephone, email, letter etc., or a combination of these. It may be that the organisation has blocked emails
without telling me and would like to know if this is the case.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
15/06/2016
Central Secretariat Office

P O Box 49
The Law Courts, College Road
Doncaster
DN1 3HT
02 September 2014
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Complaint into conduct of Mr J A O'Nions JP and Mr T A Shepherdson JP

I have concerns arising from a Council Tax Liability Order hearing on 2nd November 2012 for
which both Mr O'Nions and Mr Shepherdson adjudicated and granted an order enabling the Local
Authority to enforce payment of an unpaid element of court summons costs which the council
claimed it had incurred.
An application was subsequently submitted to the Magistrates court to state a case for an appeal to
the High Court regarding the order. The events leading on from this are what I believe is evidence
that the Magistrates conduct has been such to pervert the course of justice.
At ANNEX A is a draft chronology of events (intended for the case bundle) which I regard as being
sufficient to initially investigate this matter. As and when any letters and emails referred to in the
chronology become relevant, those details of course can be forwarded to you.
Yours sincerely
X. Yyyyy
ANNEX A
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CO Ref: CO/
/2014
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
BETWEEN:
Xxxxx Yyyyy
Appellant
and
NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE COUNCIL
Respondent
CHRONOLOGY
1.
The billing authority sent a Council Tax reminder dated 12.9.12 in respect of a
missed instalment which was due on 1.9.13. It warned that instalments would be
withdrawn if the account not brought up to date, and if following that the balance
was not paid immediately, a summons would be issued (incurring costs) without
further notice.
2.
Neither demand was met so on 17.10.12 a summons was served on the Appellant to
appear before the Magistrates Court on 2.11.12 to answer the said complaint. It was
stated alternatively that all further proceedings would be stopped if the amount
outstanding including summons costs was paid before the date of the hearing.
3.
Payment was made on 17.10.12 which included the outstanding Council Tax liability
and an amount in respect of reasonable costs incurred (albeit a lesser sum than was
stated on the summons as the costs element). The authority was notified by letter
under cover of an email and sought whether it would proceed to obtain a court order
to enable enforcement of the element of costs which the council may have
considered was unpaid.
4.
On 17.10.12 the billing authority acknowledge receipt of the letter, and advised that
it had been forwarded to its Court Enforcement Officers to deal with. There was no
further response in relation to the issues raised so assumed it would proceed to
obtain a liability order.
5.
On 26.10.12 the Magistrates Court was notified that the liability had been settled
and advised that unless the application for a liability order was withdrawn the
complaint would be defended at the hearing of 2.11.12. A summary accompanied the
letter to support several documents asserting that the sum sought by the billing
authority was an unreasonable claim for costs.
6.
On 28.10.12 an assessment of costs incurred in pursuance of the defence was

submitted to the Magistrates Court.
7.
The complaint was heard in the Magistrates Court on 2.11.12 where the bench
granted a liability order in respect of the costs which the billing authority claimed
were incurred.
8.
Contacted the Magistrates Court by email on 5.11.12 expressing the wish to appeal
the courts decision to grant a liability order and request to have details forwarded of
the relevant person to correspond with on the matter.
9.
The court responded in a letter dated 6.11.12 advising that a Liability Order could
only be challenged by an appeal to the High Court by way of either a case stated on
a point of law or a judicial review and strongly suggested taking legal advice.
10.
On 16.11.12 the court was contacted by email in regards appealing by way of a case
stated and to advise that seeking legal advice was not viable because of
unemployment and having no entitlement to benefit.
11.
The court responded by email on 19.11.12 and clarified some points raised and
advised that in certain circumstances it is possible to apply for fee remission.
12.
On 20.11.12 the court was contacted by email querying the relevant Criminal
Procedure Rules and again on the 21.11.12 to obtain particulars of the Liability
Order hearing as were required to complete the prescribed form to state a case.
13.
The court responded in two separate emails on 21.11.12. The first advised it could
not provide assistance with the appeal and the second, advising that case references
were not allocated in Council Tax cases.
14.
On 22.11.12 the application to state a case for an appeal to the high court was served
on both parties, that is, the billing authority and Magistrates' Court, within the time
limits laid out in the Criminal Procedure Rules.
15.
The Deputy Justices Clerk acknowledged receipt of the application in a letter dated
22.11.12 and advised that once the documentation had been considered further
contact would be made.
16.
There was no communication and on 28.12.12 an attempt to contact the Deputy

Justices Clerk was made by email, however, a 'delivery failure' notice was
generated and returned. An attempt was made under advice to contact the Justices'
Clerk for Humber & South Yorkshire for which there was no response. Further
attempts to make contact on 10.1.13 were also unsuccessful in both cases.
17.
The court made contact on 14.1.13 where it transpired that the Deputy Justices'
Clerk who had been dealing with the appeal had left HMCTS at the end of 2012. The
Legal Team Manager stated in his email that he would make enquiries into what was
happening with the application and update as soon as possible.
18.
The matter had been put in the hands of the Justices' Clerk for Humber & South
Yorkshire, who in a letter dated 24.1.13 advised that the Justices require
recognizance to be entered into in the sum of 500 and outlined the conditions of
recognizance.
19.
The Justices' Clerk was contacted on 6.2.13 by email with the billing authority and
Grimsby Magistrates Courts Legal Team Manager copied in. An attached letter to
the Justices Clerk dated 5.2.13 highlighted that the recognizance should be set at a
level which does not deny a person access to justice and that the proposed sum
effectively would. Alternative remedies were suggested, which in the case of the
court, was to set aside the liability order, and for the billing authority, to apply for
the order to be quashed.
20.
On 8.2.13 the billing authority replied stating it was not prepared to apply to the
Magistrates Court to quash the liability order as it was correctly obtained. This was
disputed in a letter dated 14.2.13, on the grounds that the application should have
ceased when the aggregate of the sum outstanding and an amount equal to the costs
reasonably incurred by the authority was paid.
21.
The Justices' Clerk was contacted twice by email in February 2013, once on the 19th
and again on the 26th to prompt a response to the letter dated 5.2.13.
22.
There was no communication from the Justices Clerk and on 23.3.13 the
Administrative Court Office was contacted by letter to make preliminary enquiries
about a mandatory order requiring the Justices to state a case for an appeal to the
High Court.
23.
The Justices' Clerk was again contacted by email on 27.3.13 to prompt a response to
the letter dated 5.2.13, but the concerns raised regarding the recognizance were
never addressed.
24.
A Pre-Action letter dated 29.4.13 was sent to the Justices Clerk advising that it was
intended that an application would be made for permission to bring judicial review
proceedings for a mandatory order requiring the Justices to state a case.
25.
The application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings was submitted
on 31.5.13 as a consequence of there being no response from the Justices Clerk in
relation to the 5.2.13 and 29.4.13 letters. Similarly, there had been no response from
the billing authority to the 14.2.13 letter.
26.
Sealed copies of the judicial review application (seal date 12.6.13) were received on
17.6.13, along with directions to proceed with the claim.
27.
The Justices' Clerk was contacted by email on 18.6.13 to establish whether the
court was willing to accept service by email and if so, to specify the address to
which it must be sent.
28.
On 18.6.13, sealed copies of the judicial review claim forms and accompanying
documents were served on the defendant and interested parties in accordance with
the relevant Civil Procedure Rules. In the absence of confirmation from the Justices'
Clerk, a hard copy was posted in addition to that sent electronically in anticipation of
the court accepting service by e-mail.
29.
Justices' Clerk contacted by email on 19.6.13 to confirm whether the Certificate of

Service should be lodged in respect of documents served at Grimsby Magistrates'
court or those served at Doncaster Magistrates' court (where the Justices Clerk for
Humber & South Yorkshire was based).
30.
There was no confirmation from the Justices Clerk in regards the location, so on
19.6.13, the Certificate of Service was lodged in the Administrative Court in respect
of documents served at Grimsby Magistrates' court.
31.
Confirmation received on 16.7.13 that the Magistrates' Court had lodged the
Acknowledgement of Service (dated 8.7.13) with the Administrative Court, in
regards the claim for judicial review. The defendant Court gave an undertaking that
it would serve the draft case within fourteen days of the date of the
acknowledgement of service.
Note: It was not until this document was lodged that it was made known by the
Clerk that the question of the appropriateness of the recognizance and/or the
amount could have been considered by the court had an arrangement been made to
appear before the defendant court to enter into a recognizance.
32.
A letter sent by the billing authority dated 19.7.13 advised that the disputed court
costs were suspended, and dependent on the outcome of the proceedings, would
either be withdrawn or remain outstanding with the council.
33.
The draft case, together with a statement of the delay for its production, both dated
22.7.13, were received on 30.7.13. These were accompanied with a covering letter
dated 24.7.13, advising that any written representations upon its content, would, in
accordance with rule 77(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981, require submitting
within 21 days from receipt of the draft case.
34.
On 19.8.13, representations upon the content of the draft case were served together
with letter advising that the Court had (from the latest day on which representations
may be made) 21 days to state and sign the case in accordance with rule 78 of the
Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981. At the same time, a copy was served on the billing
authority.
35.
The Justices' Clerk was contacted by email on 3.9.13 and a request made for a copy
to be sent of the liability order (as supporting document), stamped by the court, for
the purposes of complying with the Civil Procedure Rules.
Note: Practice Direction 52E requires that within 10 days of the court serving the
Case Stated (anticipated on or before 10.9.13) the appellant's notice along with
supporting documents require lodging with the appeal court.
36.
An order from the High Court in the matter of the application for judicial review was
received on 6.9.13. The administrative court required updating with what had
happened after the defendant court undertook to serve a draft of a Case stated within
14 days of the Acknowledgement of service. A reply was sent the same day and
copies sent to the interested parties stating that the draft Case had been served and
representations made on the draft case.
37.
On 9.9.13, the billing authority as "interested party" to the judicial review claim
submitted representations expressing that it fully supported the defendant courts
submission.
38.
The administrative court wrote on 12.11.13 proposing that the judicial review claim
be withdrawn because there no longer appeared a need for further action on the part
of the High Court as the draft Case had been served.
39.
On 20.11.13, the administrative court was notified of the wish to withdraw the
judicial review claim.
Note: The final signed Case anticipated on or before 10.9.13 had not been served.
There had been no acknowledgement of neither the written representations made
upon the content of the draft case nor letter advising of the time limits stipulated in
the relevant rules to serve the finalised Case.
40.
The Justices' Clerk was contacted by letter under cover of email on 10.1.14
enquiring into why it was that the justices had not served the Case in accordance
with the relevant rules.
Note: In accordance with rule 78 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981, service of
the final signed Case had overrun the 10.9.13 deadline by 4 months. There was no
response.
41.
The Justices' Clerk was contacted again by letter under cover of an email on 13.2.14
to arrange a recognizance hearing in order that the appropriateness and/or the
amount may be considered and agreed.
Note: No response from the Clerk meant second guessing why the case had not been
delivered and assumed the reason may have been because the judicial review claim
only prompted the court to give an undertaking to serve the draft case only and not
deliver the final case until recognizance had been agreed.
42.
There was no communication from the Justices Clerk in the matter of the
recognizance so on 3.3.14 contacted the Humber and South Yorkshire Magistrates
Court by phone and spoke to the Justices Clerk's assistant (Legal Admin Team
Leader) where it was confirmed that a message would be left for the Justices Clerk
to make contact that day.
43.
Telephoned the Court on the morning of 5.3.14 as there was still no contact and
spoke to a team member from the Judicial Support Unit who ensured a message
would reach the Justices Clerk who was due in later. A second call was made on the
afternoon of 5.3.14 where a different member of the Judicial Support Unit took the
call and confirmed that the message had been passed on but the Clerk was again not
at the premises so unavailable.
44.
The Clerk to Justices made contact on 6.3.14, stating in an email that either that day
or the following (7.3.14) the position regarding the case (advising on the next steps)
would be set out and communicated in writing.
Note: There was no communication from the Justices Clerk advising on the next
steps which on top of the obstruction already encountered seemed to confirm that
Humber and South Yorkshire Magistrates Court was a rogue unit.
45.
Telephoned the court again on 19.3.14 (for the record) to be told again that the Clerk
was not at the premises.
Note: Similarly there was no communication in response to this call from the
Justices Clerk advising on the next steps.
46.
Telephoned again on 28.3.14 (as a formality) to be advised that the Clerk was not
available but would be left a message.
Note: No response or any communication on this occasion.
47.
The Justices' Clerk was contacted by letter under cover of an email on 22.4.14
requesting the production of a Certificate of refusal to state a case under section
111(5) of the Magistrates Court's Act 1980.
Note: There has neither been a Certificate of refusal to state a case provided nor any
reply to this communication to date.
48.
The Justices' Clerk was contacted by email on 9.7.14 to enquire into whether Her
Majestys Courts and Tribunals Service had any arrangements in place to restrict the
Appellants contact with Humber and South Yorkshire, and if so in what way.
Note: There has been no reply to this communication to date.
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"Xxx" <xxxxxxxxxxxx@gmail.com>
<magistrateshrteam@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk>
14 May 2015 18:00
Advisory Committee complaint 2 Sept 2014.doc
Advisory Committee complaint 2 Sept 2014
Dear Sir/Madam
I would appreciate informing whether the attached complaint will ever be replied to.
As you will notice from the date, over eight months has passed since submitting the complaint (by post) and I
am yet to receive acknowledgement.
It is my belief that the Secretary to the Advisory Committee for the Humber to whom the complaint was
addressed is also the Justices Clerk incolved in the case for which allegations have been made in respect of
perverting the course of justice.
It is for this reason I believe an attempt is also being made (as in my High Court application) to prevent this
complaint from being addressed.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"magistrateshrteam" <magistrateshrteam@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk>
15 May 2015 10:42
RE: Advisory Committee complaint 2 Sept 2014
Dear Mr Xxxxx
I am sorry that your complaint has taken long to be replied to.
I have been advised by my Policy manager that your email has been forwarded to the Justice Clerk &
Advisory Committee Sec for Humber & South Yorks, Alison Watts. This is all we can do from our office, as the
subject matter isn't something for us to get involved with.
kind regards
Robinah Luwuge | Magistrates HR Team | Judicial Office | 10th Floor I Thomas More Building | Royal Courts
of Justice I London WC2A 2LL | Telephone Number 0207 073 4810
Email: robinah.luwuge@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk
www.judiciary.gov.uk
05/06/2016
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
<judy.anckorn@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk>
25 June 2015 06:48
Fw: Advisory Committee complaint 2 Sept 2014
Dear Ms Anckorn
Re: Advisory Committee complaint 2 Sept 2014
I have concerns that my complaint (attached) is deliberately being ignored because the Advisory Committee
Secretary, to whom the complaint is addressed, is also the Justices Clerk involved in the case for which
allegations have been made in respect of perverting the course of justice.
I have made an attempt, as the correspondence chain verifies, to submit the complaint through another
channel because of the conflict of interest. As is also evident, the email was simply forwarded to the Advisory
Committee Secretary, from whom there has been no reply (and unlikely to be).
I might add that recently a case concerning matters not dissimilar to the issues raised in my case stated
appeal (November 2012) to the High Court has resulted in successful appeal and judgment praising the
appellant and Pro Bono legal reps for bringing the case before the court. Mrs Justice Andrews described the
appeal, [2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin), as raising 'issues of significant public interest to both council tax payers
and local authorities'.
I believe the costs claimed against the defendant in the case referred to was in the sum of 33,000 and
wonder if the effort put into preventing my case progressing, as detailed in my complaint to the Advisory
Committee, was to prevent a similar outcome.
Will you please ensure that my complaint is addressed.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"Anckorn, Judy" <judy.anckorn@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk>

<xxxxxxxxxxxx@gmail.com>
29 June 2015 12:55
Dear Mr Xxxxx,
I have e-mailed Ms Watts today to ask when you might receive a reply, however, she is away currently away
from the office. I hope she will contact you directly. If however, you remain dissatisfied with the way in which
the advisory committee has handled your complaint, you may complain to the Judicial Appointment and
Conduct Ombudsman; you may do so my e-mailing headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk further information about
the Ombudsmans remit may be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/judicial-appointments-and-conduct-ombudsman
I hope this is of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
Judy Anckorn I Head of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, Press and Communications I
81 - 82 Queens Building I Royal Courts of Justice I Strand I London WC2A 2LL I Phone: 020
7073 4719 I http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/
05/06/2016
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
<headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk>
08 August 2015 19:11
Dear Sir/Madam
I wish to escalate a complaint to the Judicial Appointment and Conduct Ombudsman which was initially
submitted to the Advisory Committee for Humber & South Yorks on 2 September 2014.
The complaint has never been acknowledged and several enquiries have been made as to why
correspondence has been ignore. All efforts to elicit a response have been unsuccessful.
I have briefly visited the Judicial Appointments & Conduct Ombudsman website and believe maybe this
process requires the completion of an application form. I have not looked any further into this purely for the
reason that every 'proper' procedure I have followed so far (protracting over several years) has led to a deadend.
You may appreciate that I am keen for the hoops through which I'm being made to jump are kept to as few
as possible to reach a satisfactory conclusion. I therefore hope this email, attachment and brief history of
email communications will be sufficient to get an investigation underway.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
<headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk>
19 August 2015 10:20
Dear Sir/Madam
I would like acknowledgement of the email sent 8 August 2015 (see below).
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
05/06/2016
Judicial Appointments & Conduct

Ombudsman
Postal Area 9.53
th
9 Floor, The Tower
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
DX 152380 Westminster 8
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

Our ref: 15- MISC
T 020 3334 2900

E headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk
www.judicialombudsman.gov.uk
Mr Xxxx Xxxxx
By e-mail: xxxxxxxxxxxx@gmail.com
December 2015
JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND CONDUCT OMBUDSMANS OFFICE

It has come to my notice that you have had neither a reply nor an
acknowledgement to your e-mails of 8 and 19 August 2015 in connection with
a matter that you had previously raised with the Advisory Committee for
Yorkshire and South Humberside in September 2014.
I would like to apologise for this. This Office receives a large volume of
correspondence and, although it should not happen, there is always a
possibility that some might slip through the net. However, post should
certainly not remain unanswered when people write alerting us to the fact that
they have not received a response. I can only apologise for our shortcomings
in this regard.
You are aware that the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsmans
remit enables him to consider concerns about the process by which complaints
against Judicial Office Holders are dealt with under the arrangements for
dealing with personal conduct matters. We describe this as a second tier
investigation function. There are a number of organisations who might be
responsible for conducting first tier investigations into Judicial Office Holders
personal conduct. They include Advisory Committees, who are responsible for
considering complaints about Magistrates in their area. Advisory Committees
are required to consider whether there are issues in a Magistrates personal
conduct that might warrant a disciplinary sanction and, if so, to refer the matter
to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO).
The Ombudsman can consider whether the process followed by first tier
bodies was in accordance with the set down procedures for dealing with
judicial conduct matters (ie the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2014 and
associated guidance) or whether there was any other aspect of
maladministration. The Ombudsman cannot say whether the first tier body
reached the correct decision. Nor can he comment on matters that are
considered under arrangements other than those for dealing with judicial
conduct matters and he cannot consider any issues thatrare before the Courts.
I attach a copy of an Annex to the Ombudsmans 2006/07 Annual Report,

which includes a discussion of maladministration. You will see that it might
encompass matters such as delay and inattention.
The Ombudsman does not normally accept complaints for investigation until
the relevant first tier investigation has been concluded. There us one
exception to this. In exceptional circumstances he will consider concerns about
delay in investigating a first tier complaint before the first tier investigation has
finished. Accepting a complaint about delay whilst an investigation is ongoing
would not preclude the Ombudsman from conducting a further investigation
after the first tier investigating body has concluded its deliberations.
The position as I understand it from the papers you have sent is that you
submitted a complaint on 2 September 2014 to the Central Secretariat Office
at Doncaster Magistrates Court. You said that you had concerns arising from a
Council Tax Liability Order hearing in November 2012 and provided a
chronology of events which you suggested was evidence that the Magistrates
conduct has been such to pervert the course of justice. You provided a copy
of correspondence that you had sent to the Judicial Office in May 2015 and to
the JCIO in June 2015, both of whom said that they would alert the Justices
Clerk to your concerns.
It appears from the documents you have sent that, as of August 2015, the
Advisory Committee had not responded to any of your correspondence about
the matter. If the case is still unresolved you may wish to ask the Ombudsman
to consider the process by which the Advisory Committee has handled the
matter to this point. If so I would be grateful if you could confirm and provide
permission for this Office to disclose your complaint and correspondence to the
Advisory Committee and for the Advisory Committee to provide this Office with
copies of its documents.
You may be aware that information on the Ombudsmans role and remit is contained
on his website (https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/judicial-appointmentsand-conduct-ombudsman). This includes a form that people can fill in order to submit
a complaint (I attach an electronic copy). However, if you are only asking the
Ombudsman to consider concerns that the Advisory Committee had not responded
to your concerns then you might believe that you have already set out your concerns
about the process and that all you need to do would be to provide permission to
disclose the complaint and file, as discussed above.
We look forward to hearing from you if you want the Ombudsman to consider
issues regarding delay by Yorkshire and South Humberside Advisory
Committee up to this point. If you wish to pursue a further complaint after the
Advisory Committees deliberations are complete you would need to set out
exactly why you believe that the Advisory Committee failed to follow a correct
process and provide us with written permission to disclose, as discussed
above (the best way of doing this might be to complete a complaint form). It
would also be helpful if you could provide a copy of the Advisory Committees
final response to your complaint. Please also be aware that the Constitutional
Reform Act 2005 generally requires that people submit complaint to the
Ombudsman within twenty eight days of being notified of the decision reached
by the first tier body (there is scope to consider complaints received outside
that timeframe if the Ombudsman considers it reasonable in all the
circumstances).
I hope that this information is helpful. I apologise again for the very poor handling of
your previous correspondence.
Joan Wilson
Acting Head of Office
ANNEX A
Examples of maladministration by Sir William Reid as quoted by the

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman1
In the 1993 Annual Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration,
under the heading "What is maladministration?", Sir William Reid, the then
Ombudsman, wrote:
"To define maladministration is to limit it. Such a limitation could work to the
disadvantage of individual complainants with justified grievances which did not fit
within a given definition. However I suggest an expanded list of examples going
beyond those recounted in what has become known as the Crossman catalogue.
When the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill was being taken through Parliament, the
examples with Mr Crossman as Leader of the House of Commons then gave were
bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, ineptitude*, perversity, turpitude,
arbitrariness and so on. In the language of the 1990s I would add:
rudeness (though that is a matter of degree);

unwillingness to treat the complainant as a person with rights;
refusal to answer reasonable questions;
neglecting to inform a complainant on request of his or her rights or
entitlement;
knowingly giving advice which is misleading or inadequate;
ignoring valid advice or overruling considerations which would produce an
uncomfortable result for the overruler;
offering no redress or manifestly disproportionate redress;
showing bias whether because of colour, sex , or any other grounds;
omission to notify those who thereby lose a right of appeal;
refusal to inform adequately of the right of appeal;
faulty procedures;
failure by management to monitor compliance with adequate procedures;
cavalier disregard of guidance which is intended to be followed in the interest
of equitable treatment of those who use a service;
partiality; and
failure to mitigate the effects of rigid adherence to the letter of the law where
that produces manifestly inequitable treatment."
*Crossman's list reads "inaptitude", not "ineptitude"
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about_us/our_history/definition_of_maladministration.html
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Wilson, Joan (JACO)" <Joan.Wilson@jaco.gsi.gov.uk>
18 December 2015 17:17
Re: Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
Dear Ms Wilson
Thank you for your attached letter to your 14 December 2015 email in which
you have detailed an option available to me to pursue my complaint.
I confirm that the Advisory Committee had not responded to any of my
correspondence about the matter and the case is still unresolved and wish to
ask the Ombudsman to consider the process by which the Advisory Committee
has handled the matter to this point
I confirm that my permission is given for your Office to disclose my
complaint and correspondence to the Advisory Committee and for the Advisory
Committee to provide your Office with copies of its documents.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"headofoffice" <headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk>
22 December 2015 17:03
Re : Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
Dear Mr Xxxxx,
Thank you for your email to Ms Joan Wilson dated 18 December 2015.
We will now request your complaint file from the Advisory Committee and you will be written
to again when it has been received and considered.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs C Achila
JACO
05/06/2016
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"Jones, Adam (JACO)" <Adam.Jones@jaco.gsi.gov.uk>

23 February 2016 15:15
Mr Xxxxx Letter 16.9.14.pdf; Mr Xxxxx Letter 29.5.15.pdf; Mr Xxxxx Letter 6.7.15.pdf
Your complaint to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
Dear Mr Xxxxx,
Further to your correspondence to the Ombudsman about the Humber Advisory Committee not replying to or
dealing with your complaint about two Magistrates, which you initially made on 2 September 2014. I am sorry
for the delay in writing to you. It took a significant amount of time to obtain the complaint file from the Advisory
Committee, which was received last week.
Having considered the complaint file, I noted that the Advisory Committee had letters on file that were sent to
you in response to your correspondence to them, the Judicial Office and the Judicial Conduct Investigations
Office. I attach them for your perusal.
As your complaint to the Ombudsman related to the Advisory Committee not replying to or dealing with your
complaint, I ask you to consider the letters attached and then advise me whether you wish to continue, close
or amend your complaint to the Ombudsman.
I would be grateful for a reply by 9 March 2016.
Yours sincerely,
Adam Jones
JACO
05/06/2016
THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND LORD CHANCELLOR'S

HUMBER ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUSTICES OF THE PEACE
Mrs A Watts
Secretary to the Humber Advisory Committee
Cline Allerton / Karen Crocken
Secretarys Assistants
celine.allerton@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Mr X Yyyyyy
XY Xxxxx Yyyyy
Grimsby
DN32 XYY

P O Box 49
DONCASTER DN1 3HT
Tel: 01302 347303/4
Fax: 01302 327906
Our Ref: AW/KC
Date: 16 September 2014
Dear Mr Yyyyyy
Re: Complaint
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 2 September 2014.
I can confirm that the complaint you made in relation to the conduct of Mr J A O'Nions JP and Mr T
A Shepherdson JP has been referred to the Deputy Chairman of the Humber Advisory Committee
in accordance with the prescribed procedures contained within the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates)
Rules 2014.
Having considered your complaint, in accordance with the powers available to him under the
Rules, the Deputy Chairman of the Advisory Committee dismissed your complaint in respect of
both magistrates. The decision to dismiss the complaint was made first on the basis it related to a
judicial decision made in proceedings against you which did not a raise a question of misconduct
by the magistrates, and second that the actions you have complained of were not done or caused
to be done by the magistrates. A certificate of refusal to state a case was not issued by the
Justices because they did state a case for the consideration of the Administrative Court and the
final case has been sent to you.
If you feel that the Advisory Committee has not handled this case properly, you can complain to the
Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman. Please note that the Ombudsman can only
consider a complaint about the handling of this complaint and he has no power to investigate the
conduct issue itself.
The Ombudsman will be able to investigate your complaint about the handling of this complaint if
you write to him within 28 days of receipt of the Committee's decision. After that period he will
consider whether it is appropriate to investigate it. Further information about the Ombudsman may
be found at www.judicialombudsman.gov.uk. The office of the Judicial Appointments and Conduct
Ombudsman can be contacted in writing at 9th Floor, The Tower, 102 Petty France, London SW1h
9AJ, by e mail at headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk or by telephone on 020 3334 2900.
Yours sincerely
Mrs A Watts
Secretary to the Advisory Committee

Mrs A Watts
Mr X Yyyyy
XY Xxxxx Yyyyy
Grimsby
DN32 XYY

P O Box 49
DONCASTER DN1 3HT
Tel: 01302 347303/4
Our Ref: AW/KC

Date: 29 May 2015
Re: Complaint
I have been contacted by Judicial Office in connection with your complaint of 2 September 2014.
This matter was responded to by the Humber Advisory Committee on 16 September 2014 and I
enclose herewith a further copy of that reply.
Yours sincerely
Mrs A Watts
Enc

Mrs A Watts
Mr X Yyyyyy
XY Xxxxxx Yyyyyy
Grimsby
DN32 XYY

P O Box 49
DONCASTER DN1 3HT
Tel: 01302 347303/4
Our Ref: AW/KC

Date: 6 July 2015
Re: Complaint
I have been contacted by Judicial Conduct Investigations Office in connection with your
complaint of 2 September 2014.
This matter was responded to by the Humber Advisory Committee on 16 September 2014
and I enclose herewith a further copy of that reply.
Yours sincerely
Mrs A Watts
Enc
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Subject:
"Watts, Alison" <alison.watts@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
25 February 2016 18:15
Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court
Dear Mrs Watts

The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman has made me aware of three letters it appears you sent
me, dated 16 September 2014, 29 May and 6 July 2015.
Although I now have copies of all three letters, none of these reached me and I was not aware they had been
sent, neither did I receive the final case stated which in your 16 September 2014 letter you say was sent to
me. The Ombudsman, however, has not sent a copy of the case stated and so would like to have that in order
to proceed with my application to the High Court.
If you agree to this would you please clearly state the original date and an effective date of service so I can
ensure the relevant papers are served within the 10 day time limit under the procedure rules.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
27 February 2016 21:54
Re: Your complaint to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
Dear Mr Jones
As you will be aware from the email I sent on 25 February 2016 to Mrs Watts, I never received the
letters which have been obtained from the Advisory Committee until you sent copies. Neither did I receive the
final case stated, which in the 16 September 2014 letter Mrs Watts says was sent to me. Moreover, I have still
not been sent a copy, nor do I know when that document was sent.
This all puts a different perspective on the complaint. Had I received the reply in September 2014, the
complaint would have turned to a different matter which would essentially have been to focus on when the
final case stated had been produced/sent and why it had not reached me. Incidentally, it can now be verified
that the Deputy Chairman of the Advisory Committee who dealt with the complaint had mistakenly understood
the issues to relate to the Magistrates' decision at the court hearing. My complaint letter clearly defined the
issue, i.e. the mishandling of the application to state a case for an appeal to the High Court which were events
leading on from the judicial decision referred to by the Deputy Chairman. The complaint letter was also clear
in stating that the detail supplied was just preliminary information to get an investigation underway.
Regarding the issues as they now stand, it would seem an investigation should turn to one of establishing why
there was never a reply to several communications querying the missing document (final case stated), which
according to the relevant procedure rules, should have been served on or before 10 September 2013.
From August 2013 when the representations upon the draft case were submitted up until September
2014 (Advisory Committee complaint), the Court was contacted a total nine times in connection with obtaining
the finalised document. All communications were ignored except one (6 March 2014) to which Mrs Watts
replied with an undertaking to have written communication setting out the position with the case and advising
of the next steps. This undertaking was never acted on.
In answer to your 23 February email, after considering the letters I now hold it would be most appropriate to
amend my complaint to consider what is set out above.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
05/06/2016
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:

03 March 2016 13:23
RE: Your complaint to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
Dear Mr Xxxxx,
Thank you for your email and clarifying the issues you now wish to pursue.
I note your concerns now relate to the time period between August 2013 and September 2014 and the
concern that the Court was contacted nine times by you in connection with obtaining the finalised
Court document. You state that the Court only replied once, but did not act on their undertaking to write to
you. Please let me know if my understanding is incorrect.
If this is your complaint, it would appear that the Ombudsman's office is not the appropriate body to take
forward your concerns. The Ombudsman can only consider your concerns about how the Advisory Committee
handled your judicial misconduct complaint about the two Magistrates, i.e. any concerns arising from the
complaint you made in September 2014 and thereafter.
Concerns about the Court not responding to your communications about the missing document would need to
be made to the Court Manager in the first instance. However, if (as you state) the Court has failed to respond
to your communications, you can escalate your concerns to Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service,
Complaint Handling and Enquiries Team. Their contact details are
Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service
Complaint Handling and Enquiries Team,
Zone C,
1st Floor,
102 Petty France,
London
SW1H 9AJ
Email - ComplaintsCorres<@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I would be grateful, in light of the information I have provided in this email, if you still feel you have a complaint
that falls within the Ombudsman's remit (solely about the Advisory Committee's handling of your complaint
about the two Magistrates).
I hope this information is of assistance and I look forward to hearing from you, by 10 March 2016.
Yours sincerely,
Adam Jones
JACO
05/06/2016
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
03 March 2016 17:05
Re: Your complaint to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
Dear Mr Jones
Thank you for your 2 March 2016 email.
The complaint does surround the Advisory Committee's handling of my judicial misconduct complaint.
I never received the letters which have been obtained from the Advisory Committee until you sent copies.
Neither did I receive the final case stated, which in the 16 September 2014 letter Mrs Watts, the Justices'
Clerk who handled the complaint (also Secretary to the Advisory Committee) stated was sent to me.
Moreover, I have still not been sent a copy, nor do I know when that document was sent. This is all tied in with
the Secretary to the Advisory Committee's handling of my judicial misconduct complaint.
As you will recall, the email I sent Mrs Watts on 25 February 2016, asked for the case stated to be re-sent and
to be informed of the original date it was served. The Justices' Clerk has not responded to the email which
raises the question, why, if the document exists and has been sent once would it be an issue to do so again.
The answer, in all probability lies in the fact that the final case stated has never been sent nor produced which
can also be said of the 16 September 2014, 29 May and 6 July 2015 letters. On the balance of probabilities,
these letters will have been produced in response to the investigation, which by your own admission took a
significant amount of time to obtain from the Advisory Committee.
I appreciate the Ombudsman will have as his highest priority for you to find a get out clause, but these are
issues that have arisen since the complaint was submitted in September 2014 which fall under the
Ombudsman's jurisdiction, and in any event, the issues preceding this were detailed in my complaint as
concerns, but which were never addressed. All the concerns I have raised are in relation to the handling (or
mishandling) of my complaint.
The Deputy Chairman of the Humber Advisory Committee, who is said to have dealt with the complaint,
dismissed it erroneously for the reasons I have previously stated, and as such this also falls under the
Ombudsman's remit.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:

07 March 2016 16:48
Transfer of your complaint to JACO Investigating Team
Dear Mr Xxxxx,
Further to our previous correspondence in relation to your concerns about the Advisory Committee's handling
of your complaint.
I am writing to inform you that your complaint has today been transferred to our Investigating Team for
consideration. Mr Nick Rose, Investigating Officer, will be in contact with you shortly.
Yours sincerely,
Adam Jones
JACO
05/06/2016
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"Rose, Nicholas" <nick.rose@jaco.gsi.gov.uk>

11 March 2016 12:17
Xxxxx - update letter 11.02.16.doc
Xxxxx - update letter 11.02.16
Mr Xxxx
I attach my first update letter.
Regards,
Nick Rose
Investigating Officer
Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
9th floor, The Tower, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ
0203 334 2912
nick.rose@jaco.gsi.gov.uk
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:

11 April 2016 10:33
Xxxxx - update letter 11.04.16
Mr Xxxxx
I attach my latest update letter.
Regards,
Nick Rose
0203 334 2912
17/06/2016

Ombudsman
Postal Area 9.53
th
9 Floor, The Tower
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
Our ref: 15-2489

Mr Xxxx Xxxxx
T 020 3334 2912
E nick.rose@jaco.gsi.gov.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxx@gmail.com
11 March 2016
Dear Mr Xxxxx

I am writing to inform you that I will be investigating your complaint to the
Ombudsman. I am also writing to ensure that you are aware of the limited scope of
the Ombudsmans powers. The Ombudsmans role, remit and powers, with regard to
judicial conduct matters are set out in sections 110-114 of the Constitutional Reform
Act 2005.
The Ombudsmans role is to consider complaints about the process by which
complaints about judicial office holders personal conduct have been dealt with. The
Ombudsman can consider whether prescribed procedures were complied with and
whether there was any maladministration in the original investigation. Section 111(5)
of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 enables him to set aside a decision if he
concludes that failures or maladministration in the investigative process make the
determination unsafe. However, the Ombudsman does not provide an appeal
mechanism and he cannot review the merits of judicial decisions, nor comment on
judicial actions or any other matter associated with the case.
I will write to you during April to advise how the matter is progressing.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Rose
Nick Rose

Ombudsman
Postal Area 9.53
th
9 Floor, The Tower
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
Our ref: 15-2489

Mr Xxxx Xxxxx
T 020 3334 2912
11 April 2016
Dear Mr Xxxxx

I am writing to inform you that I have now started my investigation of your complaint.
I will write a report and recommendations for the Ombudsman at the end of my
investigation. He will then consider the papers and make a decision on the case.
His draft report will be sent to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice for
comment. At the end of this stage his report will be finalised and a copy sent to you.
I will write to you during May to advise how the matter is progressing.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Rose
Nick Rose

Ombudsman
Postal Area 9.53
th
9 Floor, The Tower
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
Our ref: 15-2489

Mr Xxxx Xxxxx
T 020 3334 2912
12 May 2016
Dear Mr Xxxxx

I am writing to update you on the progress of your complaint. I have contacted the
Advisory Committee to obtain further information and comment but have not received
a response. Today I sent a chase-up letter. Once I have this information I will be
able to complete my report and prepare the papers for the Ombudsman.
I will write to you next in June.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Rose
Nick Rose
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:

12 May 2016 10:38
Mr Xxxxx
I attach my latest update letter.
Regards,
Nick Rose
0203 334 2912
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:

23 May 2016 15:25
Xxxxx - PI report 18.04.16 .doc; Xxxxx - final IO Report v1 13.04.16.doc; Xxxxx final.PDF
Emailing: Xxxxx final letter
Mr Xxxxx
I attach the Ombudsman's preliminary investigation report and final letter in word and signed PDF
format.
If you have any questions in regard to these documents please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Nick Rose
0203 334 2912
17/06/2016
Complaint by Mr Xxxx Xxxxx - Ombudsmans Preliminary Investigation Report
JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND CONDUCT OMBUDSMANS PRELIMINARY

INVESTIGATION REPORT
COMPLAINT BY MR XXXX XXXXXX
Introduction
1.
Mr Xxxx Xxxxxx 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 Xxxxx 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 Xxxxx 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 Xxxxx 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 Xxxxx 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 Xxxxx - 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 Xxxxxx when it posted a
copy of the letter, but again this omission could not amount to maladministration.
I am content that Mr Xxxxxs 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
Annex A
JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND CONDUCT OMBUDSMANS OFFICE
COMPLAINT BY MR XXXX YYYYYY
INVESTIGATING OFFICERS REPORT
INTRODUCTION
1. This report is prepared following a request by Mr Xxxx Yyyyyy, that the Judicial
Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman review the conduct of an
investigation by the Humber Advisory Committee (HAC) of his complaint
against Mr JA ONions JP and Mr T A Shepherdson JP. This report will form
part of the evidence considered by the Ombudsman in assessing the
complaint.
BACKGROUND
2. The papers I have seen indicate that 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 Yyyyy did not receive the letter and subsequently complained
about this to Judicial Office, the JCIO and to you.
THE COMPLAINT
3. Mr Yyyyyy contacted the Ombudsmans Office on 8 August 2015 and made
final comments on 3 March 2016. The Ombudsman has agreed to investigate
the concerns that: the HAC failed to properly respond to his complaint or his
correspondence and dismissed the complaint erroneously.
4. Mr Yyyyyy asked the Ombudsman to investigate his concern that the court had
not properly responded to his application for Judicial Review and had not
provided a case stated document. The complaint about the Courts handling
of the Judicial Review application would be outside the Ombudsmans remit as
it does not concern a matter which could be considered under the disciplinary
legislation as it does not concern the actions of a judicial office-holder. The
Ombudsman cannot therefore consider it within the powers granted to him
under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
MY OBSERVATIONS
The complaint to the Advisory Committee
5. On 2 September 2014 Mr Yyyyyy complained to the Central Secretarial Office
in Doncaster that
Investigating Officers Report - Complaint from Mr Xxxx Yyyyyy
two Magistrates, Mr ONions and Mr Shepherdson had adjudicated on his

case and allowed the local authority to enforce payment of an unpaid
element of his court summons costs; and that
his application was subsequently submitted to the Magistrates Court to
state a case in his appeal to the High Court, he believed the failure to
respond to this request was a failing in the Magistrates behaviour which
he described as conduct [which] has been such to pervert the course of
justice.
6. Mr Yyyyyy attached an affidavit to his complaint which he had produced for his
application for Judicial Review, this document set out a chronology of the
events surrounding the hearing of his case; it also set out his attempts to
obtain a response to his application from the court. The papers show that the
application was not proceeded with as the local authority responded with an
offer acceptable to Mr Yyyyyy.
The Advisory Committees handling of the complaint
7. On 16 September 2014 the HAC responded, stating that the Chairman had
dismissed both aspects of his complaint because:
first, the complaint related to a judicial decision which did not raise a
question of misconduct and
second, the complaint about correspondence in his legal proceedings
concerned actions which were not done or caused to be done by the
Magistrates.
8. I observe that the disciplinary rules state that:
The Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the Advisory Committee
must dismiss a complaint, or part of a complaint, if it falls into any of
the following categories: 32(b) it is about a judicial decision or judicial
case management, and raises no question of misconduct; and 32(c)
the action complained of was not done or caused to be done by a
magistrate.
9. I also observe that first tier complaints bodies such as the HAC do not have
the power to investigate complaints about criminal behaviour such as
perverting the course of justice this is a matter for police action if appropriate.
10. The response was sent to Mr Yyyyyy but did not reach him. I observe that the
postal address was correctly stated on the letter but that the postcode was
written as DN32 0Q3 rather than DN32 0QJ.
11. Having not received the response, Mr Yyyyyy emailed the Judicial Office HR
Team at the Royal Courts of Justice on 14 May 2015 to complain. His
complaint was forwarded to the HAC which sent another copy of the dismissal
letter to him on 29 May 2015; unfortunately this letter did not reach him (it had
the same error in the postcode but was otherwise correctly addressed). I
observe that the HAC did not email a copy of the letter to Mr Yyyyyy.
12. On 25 June 2015 Mr Yyyyyy emailed the Judicial Complaints Investigations
Office (JCIO) to complain that his complaint had been ignored by the
Secretary of the HAC. The JCIO forwarded the email to the HAC on 29 June
2015.
13. On 16 July 2015 the HAC sent another copy of the dismissal letter to him,
unfortunately this letter did not reach him (it had the same error in the
postcode but was otherwise correctly addressed). I observe that the HAC did
not email a copy of the letter to Mr Yyyyyy.
14. Mr Yyyyyy then complained to the Ombudsman.
15. I asked the HAC to ask if it had a record of postage of the letters; it responded:
A log is not maintained of post that is sent out by the Advisory
Committee. Correspondence that for any reason is despatched by
recorded delivery will of course have proof of posting.
Correspondence of the description sent to Mr Yyyyyy is issued by
ordinary post and will be despatched on the date of the
correspondence or exceptionally the next working day if for some
reason the mail does not reach the collection by Royal Mail from the
court office in time.
16. The Ombudsman will consider whether there is any maladministration in the
handling of Mr Yyyyyys complaint and his correspondence.
17. The Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2014 state that:
Making a complaint about judicial misconduct
9. A complaint must be made to the local Advisory Committee or its
Secretary.
10. A complaint must contain an allegation of misconduct
Consideration of complaint
24. The Chairman of the Advisory Committee must initially consider whether
an allegation of misconduct has been made by a complainant.
25. If not, they may refer the matter to the Bench Chairman to deal with as a
pastoral or training matter.
26. Otherwise, the Chairman of the Advisory Committee must
(a) decide what action to take under rule 31; or
(b) refer the complaint to the Advisory Committee to decide what action to
take under rule
Dismissal of complaint
32. The Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the Advisory Committee
must dismiss a complaint, or part of a complaint, if it falls into any of the
following categories
(a) it does not adequately particularise the matter complained of;
(b) it is about a judicial decision or judicial case management, and raises no
question of misconduct;
(c) the action complained of was not done or caused to be done by a
magistrate;
(d) it is vexatious;
(e) it is without substance;
(f) even if true, it would not require any disciplinary action to be taken;
(g) it is untrue, mistaken or misconceived;
(h) it raises a matter which has already been dealt with, whether under these
Rules or
otherwise, and does not present any material new evidence;
(i) it is about a person who is no longer a magistrate;
(j) it is about the private life of a magistrate and could not reasonably be
considered to affect
their suitability to hold their judicial office;
(k) it is about the professional conduct in a non-judicial capacity of a
magistrate and could
not reasonably be considered to affect their suitability to hold judicial office;
(l) for any other reason it does not relate to misconduct by a magistrate.
Guidance
Rule 9: An Advisory Committee may only consider a complaint that contains
an allegation of personal misconduct by a magistrate. Misconduct is not
defined in the rules. The OED definition is Instances of unacceptable or
improper conduct or behaviour. In the context of the rules personal
misconduct relates to the magistrates behaviour for example: a magistrate
shouting or speaking in a sarcastic manner in court; or misuse of judicial
status outside of court. Personal misconduct does not relate to how the judge
has managed a case or hearing or, to any decisions or judgments made in
the course of court proceedings. The only way to challenge such matters is
through the appellate process. The Directions for Bench Chairmen, the
declaration and undertaking signed by magistrates and the Guide to Judicial
Conduct are a useful point of reference on determining whether a matter may
be one of potential misconduct. Where a complaint does not contain an
allegation of misconduct the Advisory Committee will advise the complainant
that it cannot investigate the complaint under these rules and will inform the
complainant of the reasons for rejection. Where a rejected complaint raises
issues that may need to be addressed through training or informal guidance,
the Advisory Committee Chairman may refer the complaint to the Bench
Training and Development Committee or to the Bench Chairman to deal with
as part of his pastoral responsibilities.
Rule 32 (a) A complaint must set out all the details required under rule 12 and
provide specific details about the alleged misconduct. For example a
complaint which simply states that a magistrate was rude is not adequately
particularised. In this
example the complainant should say what the magistrate said or did to cause
the complainant to believe that the magistrate was behaving inappropriately
and at which part of the hearing this occurred.
Rule 32 (b) The constitutional independence of the judiciary means that
decisions made by a judicial office holder during the course of proceedings
are made without the interference of ministers, officials or other judicial office
holders (unless they are considering the matter whilst sitting in their judicial
capacity, for example, in an appeal hearing). Judicial decisions include, but
are not limited to, the way in which proceedings are managed, disclosure of
documents, which evidence should be heard and the judgment or sentence
given. However, the manner in which the justice conducted themselves can
amount to misconduct, for example if the justice was rude or abusive or failed
to exercise a fundamental responsibility such as a failure to accept the
decision of the majority of the bench or falling asleep on the bench.
Nick Rose
2016

Ombudsman
Postal Area 953
9th Floor, The Tower
102 Petty France
London SW 1H 9 AJ
OX 152380 Westminster 8
T 020 3334 2900
E headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk
wW\f.J.judiciafombudsman.gov.uk
23 May 2016
Dear Mr
Your complaint
Thank you for your correspondence
complaint.
with my officers setting out your concerns about your
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 investigatioJ':}, but I can assure you that I did consider the matter most carefully before
reaching my d~io9ft.
~
Yours sin<;e'reJy;'
/.
,t/
//
l?/'
,-1
t"
r-".
.,
-'''i
~=
.~~~~-
r/, ~.
~7
lPaufKernaghan CBE
....-
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
23 May 2016 17:05
Re: Emailing: Xxxxx final letter
Dear Mr Rose
I have briefly looked at the attachments and from what I've seen the contents are so misrepresentative of the
truth that they are hardly recognisable.
It is so obvious that the Ombudsman is being fed a pack of lies by the Justices' Clerk (Mrs Watts) yet you are
prepared to allow this injustice on the basis that she is being honest.
How has the Ministry of Justice managed to deteriorate to such a state that it is staffed by dishonest people
and even worse the governing bodies in place to tackle complaints actively encourage it?
I would like my criticism officially recording.
Your sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:

24 May 2016 09:36
RE: Emailing: Xxxxx final letter
Mr Xxxxx
I will record your comments on the file.
Nick Rose
0203 334 2912
17/06/2016
Page 1 of 2
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
24 May 2016 12:52
Dear Mr Rose
Further to my 24 May 2016 email, I have noted that the events are inaccurate regarding the proceedings, for
example there seems to have been confusion regarding the the two High Court applications. The first was an
application for the justices to state a case for the opinion of the High Court and the second (Judicial Review
claim) was for a mandatory order requiring the Justices to state a case for an appeal to the High Court as I
was having no success dealing directly with the Magistrates court.
For the moment I will leave that to one side except to say that I'm concerned about how it has come about
that you have been led to believe that there was some settlement with North East Lincolnshire Council, hence
(para 2):
"He subsequently applied to Judicially Review this decision and the matter appears to have been
settled with the Council at that point."
And (para 6)
"The papers show that the application was not proceeded with as the local authority responded with an
offer acceptable to Mr Xxxxx."
I would like to know what information has been referred to in order to assert the above because there has
never been any kind of settlement with North East Lincolnshire Council in the matter.
Letters produced in response to the investigation
There is no obvious reason why the three documents which were allegedly sent to me dated 16 September
2014, 29 May and 6 July 2015 could not have been made available for the Ombudsman within a few days,
yet Mr Jones who was initially dealing with the matter stated the following in his 23 February 2016
correspondence:
"It took a significant amount of time to obtain the complaint file from the Advisory Committee, which
was received last week."
I have checked my records and note that Mr Jones wrote to me on 3 December 2015 and from the contents of
his email it was implied that it was on or around that date when these documents were asked for:
"I will now request your complaint file from the JCIO and you will be written to again when it has been
received and considered."
To take over 12 weeks to disclose the documents does tend to suggest what I believe has happened which is
they have been produced purposely for the Ombudsman's investigation. This would be supported by the fact
that the final case stated, which is said in the 16 September 2014 letter by the Justices' Clerk who handled the
complaint was sent to me has apparently never been seen by anyone. Presumably the Ombudsman has not
at any time been furnished with the document and I definitely have not despite requesting or enquiring about it
on the following occasions:
1. An email to the Justices' Clerk on 25 February 2016, (Mr Jones JACO copied in).
I was never sent a response.
2. A request to the Ministry of Justice on 13 March 2016 regarding the 25 February email.
17/06/2016
Page 2 of 2
I received the following

"I have spoken to Ms Watts and she apologises for the delay in response and for not arranging for you
to be updated with the fact that she is dealing with your email. Ms Watts has confirmed that she will
respond to your email of 25 February by no later than 15 April 2016. Ms Watts has been considering
this matter and has had to review the file to give full consideration to the matter raised."
I was not sent a response by or on 15 April 2016 nor have I received one since.
3. Prompted the Ministry of Justice on 11 May 2016.

I was emailed on 12 May by the MoJ as follows: "I will contact Ms Watts again and ask her to respond."
Still no reply or even acknowledgement.
It is also material that the Court was contacted nine times in connection with obtaining the finalised case
stated and replied only once, despite the Ombudsman stating that the mishandling of the application does not
come under his remit. The fact that I was written to on that one occasion (6 March 2014) with an
undertaking that by the following day, the position regarding the case would be set out and communicated in
writing fits in with the pattern, as that too was never acted on.
A letter updating me on the progress of my complaint, sent 12 May 2016 provides further evidence of the
difficulty there seems to be for the Advisory Committee to provide information. Delaying continues to be the
recurring theme:
"I am writing to update you on the progress of your complaint. I have contacted the Advisory
Committee to obtain further information and comment but have not received a response. Today I sent a
chase-up letter. Once I have this information I will be able to complete my report and prepare the
papers for the Ombudsman."
The odds are virtually nil that four items of correspondence correctly addressed, all but a minor error being
sent that neither reached me nor were returned. I have stated that none of the correspondence reached me
and am prepared to declare so in a signed statement of truth.
I would think the most sensible way forward before a final report is produced is for the relevant person at
the Advisory Committee to make a written statement of truth that the documents said to have been sent to me
on the respective dates were actually produced and sent around that time.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
17/06/2016
Page 1 of 1
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:

24 May 2016 15:07
RE: Emailing: Xxxxx final letter
Mr Xxxxx
Thank you for your comments, I am happy to respond to the points you raise.
Para 2 of the Report - You confirm that the 'case stated' related to a separate claim and not the JR - thank
you for clarifying this. This is not something that would affect the outcome of the decision as the Ombudsman
confirmed in Para 2 that correspondence about the 'case stated' was not a matter that could be considered
under the regulated disciplinary process. Your proceedings and correspondence with the court about these
proceedings did not raise an issue which could be considered by the AC or the Ombudsman.
Your papers appeared to suggest that the JR did not proceed because the Council had declined to pursue the
costs against you (see Para 32 and 38 of your chronology). You have now clarified that this was not the case
- again this has no bearing on the Ombudsman's decision as he has already stated that correspondence
about a 'case stated' was outside the scope of the regulated disciplinary procedures.
Delay by the AC in providing a copy of its complaint file - the AC stated that the delay in responding to a
request for the complaint file was caused by an office move. There was a further delay when I asked the AC
if it had proof of posting for the three letters. It finally confirmed that the letters would have been sent by
standard delivery and that there was no record of posting for this type of mail. JACO provided regular
updates to you during this period.
The complaint file did not contain the letter of 16/09/14 or correspondence with the MoJ because this was not
a matter dealt with by the AC as it was outside the disciplinary process. Again the Ombudsman was clear that
issues around the case stated were not matters he could consider, he cannot consider any issue arising in
your correspondence with the court regarding your claim or your application for JR. He confirmed in his report
that the AC properly dismissed your judicial conduct complaint in accordance with the legislation. Other
matters you raised were outside the AC's investigative remit.
I trust that the 3 letters have now reached you. You will have to chase your contact in the MoJ about the 4th
letter. The Ombudsman's preliminary investigation report is final and there will be no further 'final' reports; the
complaint process has been completed and no further action will be taken by the Ombudsman as he has
confirmed that the actions complained about could not lead to a finding of maladministration because the AC
correctly dismissed your original complaint in accordance with the disciplinary legislation.
I trust this clarifies matters and concludes the complaint.
Nick Rose
0203 334 2912
18/06/2016
Page 1 of 2
Xxx
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
27 May 2016 21:31
Dear Mr Rose
My suspicions are now confirmed that the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman is an organisation
put in place at the expense of the taxpayer to give the appearance that holders of judicial office are
accountable. It takes little concluding that legislation governing investigatory powers has been enacted to
enable its application to cases with such flexibility that the same complaint could either fall within the
Ombudsman's remit and be accepted for investigation or be considered outside his remit and be rejected.
The statutory nature of the process serves as protection for judicial office-holders as invariably the
Ombudsman will apply the law in a way that ensures the matter falls outside the Ombudsman's remit.
Presumably, only when the MoJ wishes to be rid of someone will the governing legislation be applied as a
means to that end.
The Ombudsman has decided the outcome purely on the basis that he believes the Advisory Committee's
version of events when the overwhelming evidence is that the letters have been produced afterwards and in
response to preliminary enquiries.
From the Ombudsman statement at paragraph 4 of his decision the matter is narrowed down to such triviality
as to decide whether he considers the alleged letters containing a minor error in the post code constitutes
maladministration, which of course it wouldn't but is not the issue.
The deliberate postcode error was an obvious and half-hearted attempt at a red herring, but did serve as
something on which the Ombudsman could base his report. It should be noted that other correspondence
sent by the Justices' Clerk, properly addressed, have been received both before and after the alleged letters
were sent.
I doubt the Ombudsman disagreed with my assertion that the odds of four items of correspondence failing to
be delivered are virtually zero. If he doesn't the matter effectively comes down to being my word against the
relevant person at the Advisory Committee's. I have stated that none of the correspondence reached me and
prepared to declare so in a signed statement of truth and suggest that the relevant person at the Advisory
Committee does similar. However, this proposal has been ignored and believe it has been because
discovering the truth might not fit in with the Ombudsman's agenda.
Further inaccuracies
It might seem trivial but there should be at least a minimum standard to which the Ombudsman should aim
with regard accuracy of reports.
At paragraph 4 of the decision, the dismissal letter referred to was not the letter of 2 September 2015, that
was the date of my letter of complaint to the Advisory Committee.
In your email (24 May) it is stated that the complaint file did not contain the letter of 16/09/14. My
understanding is that this was in the complaint file as it was one of three letters sent to me as email
attachments on 23/02/16. That email stated as follows:
"I am sorry for the delay in writing to you. It took a significant amount of time to obtain the complaint file
from the Advisory Committee, which was received last week."
While checking my records today to confirm this I also looked into when the letters were created which were
as follows:
Letter 16.9.14 Created on 08/02/16 at 18:20:11
18/06/2016
Page 2 of 2

Whether or not the fact they were produced two weeks before you sent them to me has any significance I will
let you decide.
Case stated document and MoJ correspondence

I assume you meant the case stated document when referring in your email (24 May) to the complaint file not
containing the letter of 16/09/14.
The final 'case stated' referred to in the 16/09/14 letter is a key piece of evidence that should have been
obtained. The Ombudsman should have insisted on its disclosure whether or not it was part of the
complaint file. Where events are questioned the Ombudsman must be required to make a reasonable attempt
to get at the truth. That could have been done simply by asking for the disputed document as it supposedly
exists as stated in the recently obtained dismissal letter of 16/09/14:
"A certificate of refusal to state a case was not issued by the Justices because they did state a case for
the consideration of the Administrative Court and the final case has been sent to you."
The complaint file clearly should have contained the final 'case stated', but it is immaterial that the
Ombudsman disagrees. Discovering it did not exist, therefore not sent would provide a solution for why the
three other letters had similarly not existed. Merely requiring proof that the case stated existed to further an
investigation does not amount to considering issues surrounding the document.
For the same reasons stated for being unable to consider the MoJ correspondence, i.e., that it was not part of
the complaint file and not dealt with by the Advisory Committee, it does not amount to considering issues
around the 'case stated', only reinforces the assertion of maladministration by the failure to reply after
undertaking to do so by a given date.
It is clear from the chronology (para 47) that a certificate of refusal to state a case was requested on 22/04/14
and if as is said in the dismissal letter of 16/09/14, the final case had been sent to me, then you would have
expected this would have been advised.
It is my belief that the Ombudsman, knowing full well I have been caused gross injustice by these events, has
unfairly applied the law in a way that ensures the matter falls outside his jurisdiction in a bid to protect the
responsible person.
It would be reasonable, given these arguments, that this matter be reconsidered, however, I expect you will
counter this by informing me that I have the option of challenging the decision by entering into another
procedure that has been responsible for causing me the injustice in the first place.
Your sincerely
X. Xxxxx
18/06/2016
Freedom of information request to Ministry of Justice
Grimsby Magistrates' Court correspondence ignored (3)

Request
13 March 2016
Dear Ministry of Justice,
I would like the MoJ to disclose who or what department at Grimsby Magistrates' Court dealt with the
correspondence below, and what the court's policy is in regards picking and choosing which correspondence
it replies to.
Xxx
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Subject:
"Watts, Alison" <alison.watts@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
25 February 2016 18:15
Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court
Dear Mrs Watts

The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman has made me aware of three letters it appears you sent
me, dated 16 September 2014, 29 May and 6 July 2015.
Although I now have copies of all three letters, none of these reached me and I was not aware they had been
sent, neither did I receive the final case stated which in your 16 September 2014 letter you say was sent to
me. The Ombudsman, however, has not sent a copy of the case stated and so would like to have that in order
to proceed with my application to the High Court.
If you agree to this would you please clearly state the original date and an effective date of service so I can
ensure the relevant papers are served within the 10 day time limit under the procedure rules.
Yours sincerely
X. Xxxxx
Response from Ministry of Justice, as far as is relevant

13 April 2016
Our Ref: 104073
Re email of 25 February 2016 to Alison Watts - I would like the MoJ to disclose who or what
department at Grimsby Magistrates Court dealt with the correspondence, and what the courts policy
is in regards picking and choosing which correspondence it replies to.
I can confirm that there is not a policy of picking and choosing correspondence to reply to within
HMCTS. All courts endeavour to reply to correspondence usually within 5 working but usually no
later than 10 working days.
I have spoken to Ms Watts and she apologises for the delay in response and for not arranging for
you to be updated with the fact that she is dealing with your email. Ms Watts has confirmed that she
will respond to your email of 25 February by no later than 15 April 2016. Ms Watts has been
considering this matter and has had to review the file to give full consideration to the matter raised.
Query to Ministry of Justice

11 May 2016
The relevant content of your response to this request is below, however I have never received any
correspondence from Ms Watts relating to it, despite confirming that she will respond to the 'email of 25
February by no later than 15 April 2016'.
Re email of 25 February 2016 to Alison Watts - I would like the MoJ to disclose who or what department at
Grimsby Magistrates Court dealt with the correspondence, and what the courts policy is in regards picking
and choosing which correspondence it replies to.
I can confirm that there is not a policy of picking and choosing correspondence to reply to within HMCTS. All
courts endeavour to reply to correspondence usually within 5 working but usually no later than 10 working
days.
I have spoken to Ms Watts and she apologises for the delay in response and for not arranging for you to be
updated with the fact that she is dealing with your email. Ms Watts has confirmed that she will respond to your
email of 25 February by no later than 15 April 2016. Ms Watts has been considering this matter and has had
to review the file to give full consideration to the matter raised. "
Response from Ministry of Justice

12 May 2016
Dear Mr Xxxx,
I will contact Ms Watts again and ask her to respond.
Yours sincerely
K Smith
K Smith
NE Region KILO
NE Delivery Directors Office,
Declaration to Ministry of Justice

23 June 2016
I would like to confirm that as of today (23 June 2016) there has been no correspondence received by the
Justice's Clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire in relation to the email of 25 February.
Consequently, there has been no sight of a copy of the final signed Case which is claimed to have been sent
some time between August 2013 and September 2014. Incidentally, this gross negligence is the cause of the
application to the High Court that was instituted on 22 November 2012 being unable to be proceeded with.

Complaint Handling and Enquiries Team - 102 Petty France

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Complaint Handling and Enquiries Team - 102 Petty France

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Complaints, Correspondence and Litigation Team

1st Floor, Post Point 1.4

Re: Failure responding to correspondence regarding delivery of case stated

Our ref: G45G04/MD/AW

Council Tax Liability Order

"Draper, Mike" <mike.draper@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

"Draper, Mike" <mike.draper@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

"Draper, Mike" <mike.draper@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

APPLICATION TO MAGISTRATES COURT OR CROWN COURT TO STATE A CASE

This is an application by [Mr xxl xlxxxxxli (name of defendant)]

Forms for use with the Rules are at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/formspage.

2002 increase in summons:

2011 budget and medium term financial plan:

4) Other applications. I am also applying for:

pending my appeal, the suspension of a disqualification.

pending my appeal, bail.

Give reasons for any of these applications you are making:

[defendant / defendants solicitor]

T 01472 592408 (Mike Draper)

Our ref: G47G05/MD/AW

Dear Mr (------Case Stated.

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

"Anderson, Karen" <karen.anderson@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

----- Original Message ----From: Xxx

Can I please have acknowledgement of this email.

----- Original Message ----From: Xxx

----- Original Message ----From: Xxx

"Townell, Graeme" <graeme.townell@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

When calling please ask for: xxxxxxxxxx Direct

"Townell, Graeme" <graeme.townell@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

Justices' Clerk for Humber & South Yorkshire

Dear Mrs xxxxx

Re: Application to State a Case Grimsby Magistrates Court

"Crocken, karen" <karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

Robinson, Joanne" <Joanne.Robinson@Nelincs.gov.uk>

Not Protectively Marked

Attached response to your e mail of 6 February

Not Protectively Marked

Strategic Director Resources

Please find attached letter.

North East Lincolnshire Council

"Crocken, karen" <karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

Good afternoon Mr Xxxxx

"Administrative Court Office, General Office"

Administrative Court Office

"Harding, Glynn" <glynn.harding@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk>

Glynn Harding | Case Progression Officer | Administrative Court Office | Telephone:

"Harding, Glynn" <glynn.harding@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk>

Glynn Harding | Case Progression Officer | Administrative Court Office | Telephone:

"Crocken, karen" <karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

Justices' Clerk for Humber & South

Dear Mrs Watts

Notes for guidance are available which explain

SECTION 1 Details of the claimant(s) and defendant(s)

Grimsby Magistrates' Court

SECTION 2 Details of other interested parties

North East Lincolnshire Council

North East Lincolnshire Council

Doncaster Magistrates' Court, PO Box 49

SECTION 3 Details of the decision to be judicially reviewed

Grimsby Magistrates' Court

SECTION 4 Permission to proceed with a claim for judicial review

SECTION 5 Detailed statement of grounds

SECTION 6 Aarhus Convention claim

Completed forms, WRJHWKHUZLWKDFRS\VKRXOGEHORGJHGZLWKWKH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH&RXUW2IFH