Friday, 12 May 2017

COURT OF SESSION JUDICIAL REVIEW GUIDELINES NOT FOLLOWED IN PRACTICE


Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

12 May 2017                 

 

Ms Yvonne Anderson

Court of Session

Parliament House

EDINBURGH EH1 1RQ

 

                                              

Dear Ms Anderson,

FORMAL COMPLAINT

I want to submit a formal complaint about being misled by the Court in relation to my recent request for authority to proceed with an application for a judicial review of an omission by the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner.

I was misled by point 2 of the Court’s published Form 58.6 Form of petition in application for judicial review which is reproduced below:

‘2.        That on (date) the respondent (specify act, decision or omission to be reviewed).’

In your letter to me dated 9 May 2017 you provided the reasons for Lord Doherty’s refusal of my application including the following relevant statement:

‘The proposed Petition does not disclose a relevant basis for Judicial Review of a decision of the respondent.’

Clearly, the practice of judges at the Court of Session does not accord with, and in reality supersedes, the guidance given to the general public in the Court’s published Form 58.6 and accompanying notes on this point.

Lord Doherty and presumably all the other judges at the Court of Session would have no regard whatsoever for an application for the judicial review of an omission by a respondent, since that is the reasoned outcome in this case. The judge focussed entirely on the absence of a decision to be reviewed, rejected the application for that reason and thereby appears to have deliberately disregarded the alternative lawful ground for my application which was plainly stated to be for the judicial review of an omission by the respondent.

The Court’s published form and notes have been directly contradicted by the judge in this case. I followed the Court’s published guidelines and was effectively punished for it with no appeal available. My valid application appears to have been rejected on the grounds of a falsehood published by the Court. Such egregious unlawful deception in the full knowledge of the judicial practice on the point would tend to bring the Court into disrepute, being blatantly contrary to the interests of justice and the public interest.  

Misinformation by the Court is undoubtedly extremely damaging and confusing for persons who could reasonably be expected to rely upon the Court’s published Forms and their explanatory notes being compatible with the current practice of its judges.     

Accordingly, I want to submit a formal complaint about being misled and damaged by the Court’s misinformation on this point in the full knowledge of its falsity in practice.

Separately, I will be submitting a formal complaint to the Judicial Office for Scotland about alleged unethical conduct by Lord Doherty.

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION *SCOTLAND) ACT 2002

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 I formally request for each of the last three years disclosure of the number of applications for judicial review of an omission by a respondent that were rejected on the grounds that they did not disclose a relevant basis for judicial review of a decision.

 

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998

I formally request subject access disclosures under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Yours sincerely,

                              Eddie Cairns.

  

 

 

No comments: