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.