The Roll of the OJC and the JC Ombudsman

This is not a story but its to help the citizen understand the roll of the OJC and the JC Ombudsman.

What needs to be understood is that the OJC cannot investigate a judges managerial process on an individuals case. The law on the OJC referred to as the "regulations" depicts that the OJC and ultimately the OJC Ombudsman cannot investigate the conduct of a Judge in is case management unless he has been rude or made a racist comment for example!

These are all very acceptable reasons for misconduct but the problabilty of this occurring is almost zero. So what can the OJC do to justify the size of the department and salaries paid to these offcials if all they can do is aks a judge not to be rude in court? However, this is contradicted by the following testimony from their own web site: The purpose of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner is to: enhance public confidence in, and protect the impartiality and integrity of the judicial system. Clearly it is impossible to comply with this statement.

The OJC cannot investigate criminal allegations or suspicion of such, allegations of abuse of process, fraud for example. This is the polices roll. Once convicted the OJC can make a discretionary decision as to the credibility of a judge to continue in his post as a judicial office holder but there is no gaurantee of any such determination. As citizens we have no control - even though we are within a democracy, we cannot change any of this and nothing is ever changed at a general election. The OJC employ skills in the form of "Legerdemain".

This is their own interpretation of how they define "misconduct". It is a very narrow definition and the writer has continually argued with the OJC on many very serious cases against the Judiciary but to no avail. As citizens we have no power to influence this office. It seems to the writer that they are not really there to do anything but use up tax payers hard earned money without providing the service they claim to. Judicial Miscondcut is very serious and as the writer has mentioned, if not addressed, can prejudice the freedom and democracy of our civilization. We need to be able to introduce dialogue with the Lord Chancellor and Mr Kenneth Clarke in order to seek redress and an understanding of how our criminal and civil justice system is to continue and regain its integrity within the constraints of the rule of law - seriously denied thus far. The government has made the entire process very complicated.

We have the Parliamentary and Local Government Ombudsman who also have remit to investigate the Courts "administration" as well as public bodies but here again the use of Legerdemain pervades the law and the criteria employed by these bodies is so extensively confused and wrongly applied in law, the poor citizen can never never and never have anything upheld. The conduct of our government is a serious insult to our gracious Majesty the Queen. We cannot have our democracy abused against the rights and freedoms of the citizen being subjects of our Majesty.

Comments (5)

  • Leonard Lawrence


    Leonard Lawrence Pilot and The Official Solicitor – Law Society investigating Solicitor report dated 30 September 2009. Disclosed 2011
    The Official Solicitor was acting as Mr Lawrence’s representative and Guardian and as such had the greater duty to protect him. I consider that the majority of the steps that Mr Lawrence feel should have been taken to protect him should have been taken by the Official Solicitor rather than the firm including the decision and action necessary to invoke the Court of Protection – View the full story in the Latest News


  • Leonard Lawrence


    17. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor and Sir John Brigstoke Judicial Conduct Ombudsman

    a) August 2009 The Lord Chancellor wrote in response to a report by Sir John Brigstoke in the following terms: “The Lord Chief Justice and I have read your report. We note that you have some concerns about delays in the OJC’s handling of the complaints service against the district judges in question and that you are minded to partially to uphold Mr. Lawrence’s complaint. We agree with your findings, and are, as ever, grateful to you and your office”

    b) Sir John Brigstoke KCB report identifies that District Judge Fortgang was aware of the complaint against him, but fails to inform Lord Chief Justice Judge that hundreds of thousands of pounds of adverse inference had been placed against Leonard Lawrence whilst he was a patient and subject to the Court of Protection by District Judge Fortgang at Slough County Court. and that Dr Tony had issued a Court of Protection CP3
    District Judge Jones: If there is conflict in what Dr Royds says Mr. Lawrence can manage affairs and contradicts Dr Tony then the trail won’t be going ahead. Unless resolved trail date would have to go.

    There was conflict between Dr Royds and Dr Tony the NHS Psychiatrist. Dr Tony issued a Court of Protection Medical Certificate CP3 for the Court of Protection.

    d) The Law Society Solicitors Regulatory Authority identifies that Graeme Fraser at BP Collins Solicitors, Sarah Benfield Ratcliffe Duce & Gammer Solicitors, Helen Clift Official Solicitors office, Dominic Brazil of Counsel and Nicholas Allen of Counsel did not include the Court of Protection CP3’s in the trail bundle. Neither did any of the named solicitors or barristers identify Dr Royds and Dr Tony’s Court of Protection Medical Certificates CP3 at the Final Hearing.


  • Heather


    I noticed on your website the page regarding the OJC. I include here information that could be of use to the wider public.

    The OJC advises complainants and certainly advised me as follows:-

    “The Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) handles complaints in accordance with the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2006 (as amended). Regulation 14(1)(b) states that the OJC must dismiss a complaint if it is about a judicial decision or judicial case management, and raises no question of misconduct”.

    However, upon investigation, I discovered that this appeared to be a misinterpretation of the law by omission. I include below this email my relatively recent email to the head of the OJC where I suggest that they are deliberately misleading the public as to the interpretation of the relevant regulations. In an earlier email to the OJC, I had demonstrated how that was achieved by the manipulation by the OJC of Regulation 14.

    Regulation 14, Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2006 states:-

    14(1)(b) – “Unless there are reasons why it believes that a complaint should be investigated, the Office for Judicial Complaints must dismiss a complaint, or part of a complaint, if … it is about a judicial decision or judicial case management, and raises no question of misconduct”.

    14(1)(c) – “Unless there are reasons why it believes that a complaint should be investigated, the Office for Judicial Complaints must dismiss a complaint, or part of a complaint, if … the action complained of was not done or not caused to be done by a judicial office holder”.

    The above wording certainly does not accord with the explanation the OJC gave me i.e. that they “… must dismiss a complaint if it is about a judicial decision or judicial case management, and raises no question of misconduct”. In fact, it states the opposite – they have missed out the most important part i.e. “Unless there are reasons why it believes that a complaint should be investigated,…”. The above wording confirms that there are in fact no restrictions on the reasons why a complaint should not be investigated by the OJC and the decision is entirely discretionary.

    In whose favour is that discretion made? I think we who have suffered these injustices are at least clear on the fact that any discretion is not utilised in favour of the complainant, no matter how genuine, but in favour of the judiciary.

    Further, the ‘OJC 2010-2011 Business Plan’ states that the OJC “… provides aggrieved members of the public with a route through which they can challenge any judicial misconduct and therefore be more confident in the accountability of our judicial systems. This directly contributes to the Ministry Of Justice’s overriding aim: Creating a safe, just, and democratic society”.

    All this is of course a big difference to what the Office for Judicial Complaints tells the public en face – where by omission they’ve actually turned the regulations on their head.

    In my particular case – where there is clear evidence of a perversion of the course of justice by a member of the judiciary, and involving an officer of the court (a solicitor) – the Head of the OJC declined to investigate. Needless to say, she did not respond to my correspondence which pointed out her the above ‘anomalies’.

    A quick look at the OJC stats suggests that there is something quite wrong with their complaints assessment. I would suggest their bald misinterpretation of the law as described above is perhaps the main reason. This is not in alignment with the Ministry of Justice’s stated ‘overriding aim’.

    I wonder whether it might be helpful to interview a legal expert – perhaps a university professor on law or similar? And then interview someone high up in the Ministry of Justice about this? Just a couple of thoughts …

    Kind regards



    • Graham Quintana


      Thanks for your input Heather. we live in the age of deception and this administration is not a democracy – This government is designed to repel democracy because the 5 year stint on political parties in no way influences the major governance of this country – this is why the Judiciary and its infrastructure has never changed in 100s of years. The whole system is protected by your money by dictatorial officials paid a fortune to stop the challenge of our citizens. In effect the Government commits treason. I am currently dealing with the SRA and Legal Ombudsman and obtaining further evidence to support this treacherous ideology of government in the UK. I do this in the public interest but I cant tell them owing to the embargo by the Government to the media to stop this material being made public. The BBC and other media assist this governmental regime of Cameron. You only need to visit their websites to see their deception. Graham Q


  • Shaun Asher


    What is misconduct?
    When a judge has sex in public or uses abusing language from the bench or a racist comment. That is political correctness.
    Misconduct is when he does not allow due process, makes orders without giving credence to both sides evidence or breaks the court rules and makes orders that are in breach of Statute Law.
    OJC can see through that malpractice, but it is another toothless public body put in place to placate the EU’s requirement to have one in place and is no different to IPCC .
    I have in my case an order that even a court in a dictatorial regime, would be ashamed of making.


Leave a comment