Justice or a Hoax
Office of the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman, 8th Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London. SW1P 4QP.
RE: Judicial Complaint against Judge Elias and Judge Serota
Further to our letter of the 16th April sent to your office in regard to Judge Elias response dated the 27th March 2007 in regard to one of a members complaints we would like to pursue a judicial complaint against both Judge Elias & Judge Serota respectively in regard to mismanagement of the EAT & incompetence in regard to handling of our members appeal.
We consider Judge Elias’s adjudication of our members complaint per his letter dated the 27th March 2007 (1) was undertaken in bad faith as he knew their was a clear conflict of interest in adjudication on this matter due to his own involvement in this complaint.
1. He instructed Judge Serota on the claimant’s appeal and did not communicate his true intentions for fast tracking the appeal and having a red flag on the case or its circumstances, so causing our member financial injury.
2. Judge Serota on finding that the claimant had supported Mr Suresh Deman in providing him an affidavit in regard to the unprofessional conduct he experienced at the hands of Mr. Chairman Leahy of the Manchester tribunal who failed to declare the numerous conflicts of interest he had in regard to hearing the claimants CMD at the Manchester Tribunal was furious, when providing the claimant’s his judgment..
3. Judge Serota lied in open court while giving his judgment on the claimant’s appeal on the 3rd June 2005 by stating that the EAT had declared Mr Suresh Deman a vexatious litigant whose vilification and defamation was recorded by ethnic minority members present in the tribunal. There was no foundation for Judge Serota’s claim’s against Mr Suresh Deman however this clouded the appeal and the subsequent request for a cost hearing against the claimant which was totally prejudiced by Judge Serota’s comments. In view of this the claimant’s Counsel on reading his judgment decided to accede to the respondents offer of a financial settlement rather than facing Judge Serota’s bile against the claimant’s witnesses and the punitive financial punishment it was perceived he would have serve on the claimant despite winning his appeal.
We note Judge Elias states at sentence 3 of his letter s that Judge Serota nor counsel picked up on the point that he failed to have wing members during the hearing of the appeal. We have to state that this is utter nonsense. Judge Elias cannot transfer the responsibility of Judge Serota or the EAT’s registrar’s to the inaction of the claimant or claimant’s counsel. If the failure was due to Judge Serota or due to the registrar’s incompetence then the claimant has a complaint against either party and the ex gratia payment requested by the complaint dealt with in his letter to Judge Falconer dated the 15th January 2007 should be granted.
We note that Judge Elias states at line 3 that the red flag on the file was to ensure the case received immediate attention. What is not stated is in whose interest did this serve. The claimant suffered unnecessary costs so it was not his interest it was only in the interests of the respondents and the EAT who share the same employer. The claimant did not request an immediate hearing and the Manchester Tribunal at that time was the subject of numerous complaints by ethnic minorities on the grounds of prejudice. Under the freedom of Information act we request the names of the parties who fast tracked this case by red flagging the file be made available.
4. We note that Judge Elias at sentence 4 fails to concede any point on our members behalf and contradicts the claimants own counsel’s advice and the claimant’s reading of Judge Serota’s judgment in regard to prejudice. In view of the EAT’s procedures we consider this shows a contempt for the principle of natural justice and a prejudice against members who raise complaints against the judiciary due to the collegiate structure of such organisatiuons. We note that ethnic minority members who have questioned the EAT’s decision on his behalf like Mr Suresh Deman have been isolated and vilified by members of the EAT such as Judge Serota.. The EAT has failed to adhere to the over riding objective of the tribunals by keeping both parties on an equal footing but are bending to pressure by the employer and their employer’s. The claimant by association with Mr Suresh Deman has been discriminated by Judge Serota and the EAT. In view that the judiciary is protected against a claim of racial discrimination the claimant only choice, is to raise this matter under the judicial complaints procedures.
5. We note Judge Elias states that the ex gratia payment requested by the complaint was already dealt with by the EAT and refused (EAT’s letter 3rd January 2007). Again Judge Elias knows that this statement has been made in bad faith as their is a conflict of interest. The members of the EAT are under his jurisdiction and due to his own mismanagement he has tried to protect them at the claimants cost and they will do the same so as the by deny the claimant natural justice.
6. The failure of the EAT and Judge Elias to provide a copy of the tape recording of the judgment of the appeal under the information of freedom act, in view of the numerous discrepancies between what was heard in open court and the transcript of the judgment provided shows that our client has been prejudiced and we again request its disclosure so that the conduct of the EAT and the handling of our appeal and cost hearing can be further investigated..
We note from the comments of our members that this is not an isolated case as many judges have continuously caused detriment to our members via their perverse decisions and share similar affiliations such as Judge Elias & Judge Serota.
For example in the appeal of Dr Rahman vs MMU in which Elias (Rahman.pdf ) advised he stated that he had no grounds for an appeal despite meeting test 1, of the two tests of the ET for a claim of racial discrimination. It was Justice Cox (UKEATPA/1517/05/DM)(1) who had to overturn the decision on this matter in a rule 3:10 hearing and grant him an appeal (2).
We note that Judge McMullen QC on the 5th January 2007 (UKEATPA/1656/06/LA)(3) caused our client detriment by granting the respondents an appeal on the absurd grounds of perversion when there were no grounds for an appeal as the claimant was not present at the tribunal hearing for there to be any perversion. In view that the claimant was not present it was left to Justice Peter Clarke at the EAT on the 15th March 2007 to inform the parties that he could only refer the matter to the ET as Mr. P.Gilroy and the chairman of the ET and her two lay members were the only witnesses to the hearing. Mr Gilroy, the respondents Counsel requested he re-hear the evidence and strike out the claimants claims. Unfortunately for Justice Clarke he was struck down that day with food poisoning during lunch and the case was adjourned and costs wasted on the first day of a two day hearing. The claimants solicitor has since requested that the matter should be referred to the Manchester Tribunal in line with Tribunal procedures and undertaken on paper so as to waste no further costs (6). Again the claimant was prejudiced by Judge McMullen QC order firstly in allowing the hearing and secondly in view of the circumstances of this case that the claimant was not present, for not requesting that the whole matter be conducted on paper instead of wasting £ 8,000 of our client’s money, via an unnecessary appeal. We note that the hearing of this case at the EAT was to be heard by Judge Wilkie (4) who suddenly became unavailable and he was replaced with Judge Peter Clarke. We note that in the EAT appeal of Rudzkl vs MMU that Judge Peter Clark were involved as was Mr Peter Gilroy .
Judge McMullen QC has been the subject of complaints by ethnic minorities . In the case of Farzana Hague heard at the EAT Judge McMullen claimed that Mr Suresh Deman was picketing outside the EAT whilst he was in the court hearing the judges defamation of his conduct. How could this man be at two places at any one time.
We have received comments from Dr Ghosh and other medical doctors that appeals sent by lay representatives as Dr Rahman’s were stated to have no merit until re-submitted bearing the name of a barrister, whereupon the appeal is granted. It is quite evident that the EAT is involved in a game not of natural justice but of poker. How high can the respondents raise the stakes before the claimant is starved of funds and withdraws his case despite having a winning hand (case). Where is the justice.
We note also again in our members case he applied for an appeal hearing on the grounds of perversion in his case against his Union the UCU (UKEATPA/1161/06/LA) (5) and was denied a hearing by Judge Peter Clarke knowing he had a claim in regard to the issue of comparators which were highlighted in his comments as did the claimant’s barrister on consultation, after lodging his appeal. Here again we see the perversion in the decision making process of the EAT and judges where an appeal which had no grounds for perversion made by an employer is allowed by Judge McMullen despite the over-riding objective whilst one with grounds made by an un-represented claimant is disallowed by another judge. In view of the overriding objective of the tribunal is to save money they appear to support the financially stronger represented candidate against the weaker. As can be seen if a claimant makes an appeal it is less likely to succeed that an appeal endorsed by a barrister knowing failure will result in it not being questioned or re-appealed.
We request that an ex-gratia payment as detailed in the letter dated to Judge Falconer (15th January 2007) be made to the claimant. A subsequent complaint will be pursued in respects to the wasted costs in the current appeal made by the respondents in the EAT based on the EAT’s further handling of the matter.
We intend to copy this letter to Lord Falconer, via the Claimants MP to make him aware of the situation and the perceived conflicts of interest our member has experienced at the hands of the EAT and judiciary.
125, Ladybridge Road,