Chronology Draft

7/25/2019 Chronology Draft

1/10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

CO Ref: CO/ /2014

BETWEEN:

XXXX XXXXX

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withdrawn if the account not brought up to date, and if following that the balance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 wasstated 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


2/10

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and advised that unless the application for a liability order was withdrawn the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. On 5.11.12 the Magistrates Court was contacted by email 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.


3/10

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


4/10

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.


5/10

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.


6/10

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.


7/10

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 ofthe 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 claimonly 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.


8/10

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.

49. On 2.9.14 a judicial complaint was submitted to the relevant Advisory Committee

(the AC) with the grounds of complaint cited as perverting the course of justice.

The events outlined up to paras 48 in this Chronology were provided as evidence.

Note: There has been no reply to this communication to date. It is understood that

the Secretary to the AC for the Humber to whom the complaint was addressed, and

against whom allegations were made is also the Justices Clerk involved in the

present case.

50. On 14.5.15 an enquiry was made with the Magistrates HR Team to establish why

there had not been acknowledgement regarding the complaint. The AC Secretary

was not contacted as it was deemed that eliciting a response would be unlikely.

However, there was no advantage gained, as the HR Team merely forwarded the

email to the Committee Secretary.

Note: The Committee Secretary did not reply.


9/10

51. On 25.6.15 concerns were raised with the Head of the Judicial Conduct

Investigations Office (JCIO) who responded on 29.6.15 stating that she had

contacted the Committee Secretary in the hope she would make contact directly. It

was suggested complaining to the Judicial Appointment and Conduct Ombudsman

(JACO) if the handling of the complaint remained unsatisfactory.

Note: The Committee Secretary did not reply.

52. JACO was contacted expressing the wish to escalate a complaint, first on 8.8.15 and

again on the 19.8.15 after receiving no acknowledgement.

Note: There has been no reply from the Ombudsman to date.

53.

JACO eventually replied in a letter dated 14.12.15 in which an apology was given

for the 4 month delay in responding. The Ombudsmans remit was also set out, some

of which permitted him to consider the delay in investigating the AC complaint

submitted more than a year earlier on 2.9.14.

54. On 18.12.15 permission was given to JACOs Office to disclose the complaint and

correspondence to the AC and confirmed that the AC had not responded to any

correspondence about the matter and the case still unresolved requesting therefore

that the Ombudsman consider the process by which the AC handled the matter so

far. JACOs Office stated in an email sent on 22.12.15 that the complaint file would

be requested from the AC and an update given after it had been received and

considered.

55. JACO made contact on 23.2.16 informing the Appellant that the complaint file had

been obtained from the AC and apologised for the delay that was down to thesignificant amount of time obtaining it. It transpired that the AC had three letters on

file that were sent to the Appellant in response to his correspondence to them (AC),

JCIO and JACO. Though the Appellant had not received the letters when allegedly

sent, he has had possession since JACO attached copies (23.2.16).

56. The first letter dated 16.9.14 which is claimed to have been sent in response to the

Judicial complaint (2.9.14) had been a letter dismissing the complaint as it did not


10/10

raise a question of misconduct. It further stated that 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 the Appellant.

Note: The Appellant received neither the letter nor the final case referred to in that

letter. Moreover, there was no copy of the case stated sent by JACO presumably

because the complaint file obtained from the AC did not contain the document.

57. The second and third letters claimed to have been sent were in connection with the

Judicial Office and then JCIO prompting a response from the AC and were dated

29.5.15 and 6.7.15 respectively. Both copies state: This matter was responded to by

the Humber Advisory Committee on 16 September 2014 and I enclose herewith afurther copy of that reply.

Note: The Appellant received neither of these letters, consequently the 16.9.14 letter

that was never received was claimed to have been sent on three occasions.

58. On 25.2.16 the Appellant contacted the Justices' Clerk by email to advise her that he

had not received and was unaware of the letters she claimed to have sent, dated

16.9.14, 29.5.15, 6.7.15 and the final case stated referred to in the 16.9.14 letter. Shewas also advised that JACO had sent copies of the three letters, though not one of

the case stated, and would therefore like that sent in order that the Appellant may

proceed with his application to the High Court

Note: The Justices' Clerk has never replied to or acknowledged this correspondence.

59. On 13.3.16 the Appellant contacted the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) about the

25.2.16 email that had not been responded to by the Justices' Clerk. The MoJresponded on 13.4.16 with a message saying that the Justices' Clerk apologised for

the delay in responding and for not arranging for an update that she was dealing with

the email. It was confirmed that the correspondence would be responded to by no

later than 15.4.16 after reviewing the file to give full consideration to the matter

raised.

Note: The Justices' Clerk has not yet replied.

Documents

Chronology Draft