From: alan
dransfield
To: aacpresident
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 7:08
AM
Subject: Complaint against Upper Tribunal
Judge SM Wright
Mr Justice Charles
Upper Tribunal President
Dear Sir
I wish to make a complaint of misconduct against Judge SM Wright in the
manner he has handled a recent UT Case and his subsequent final decision
notice.
In particular,I refer to the UT hearing in London on the 16th Oct 2014 ref
GIA/1642/2014 Dransfield v the ICO and House of Lords.
Judge SM Wright upheld the ICO decision, “DO NOT HOLD THE SOUGHT AFTER
DATA”.
No person applying a right and proper mind could have reached such a
decision because the House of Lords(HoL) have a legal obligation to hold the
sought after data, i.e. Lightning Risk Assessment (LRA) for the Westminster
Parliament Premises.
As you are aware, I have a long running complaint against another UT
Judge, i.e Judge Wikeley ref GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO &Devon County
County Council, which you have refused to investigate pending the Court of
Appeal Hearing in London on the 27/28th Jan 2015.
I accept that the GIA/1642/2014 is not VEXATIOUS related but it would
appear the Upper Tribunal are determined to obstruct Justice in cases involving
Dransfield.
Judge Wright claims in his decision notice that it is NOT the duty of the
FTT/ICO or the UT to investigate if the HoL “SHOULD”
hold the sought after data.
It is inconceivable that a Upper Tribunal Judge would not investigate the
Legal Obligation of the Public Authority to HOLD the sought after data.
Therefore, the emphasise of my complaint is Judge SM Wright MINDSET ref
“SHOULD HOLD” definition.
In all probability, the House of Lords have a legal obligation under UK and
EU Laws to hold the sought after data and the ICO/FTT and the UT were very wrong to not investigate this matter. Indeed, it is not a question of fact if they should hold the Lightning Risk Assessment as it is well documented in Statutory
Law.
Any right minded person would investigate if the House of Lords held a
legal remit to hold the Lightning Risk Assessment.
Judge SM Wright was very wrong to dismiss my appeal based on the fact the
HoL claimed they did not hold the LRA documents.
My allegations of wrongdoing falls under the UT Rules and Procedures
related to “Judicial
Misconduct ie Rule 34(b).
There is evidence to support my claims the FTT and the UT are part of a
wider conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and to circumvent the FOIA
2000.
At this juncture, there are two UT decisions which debar the general public
access to the FOIA 2000.
A1. The GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO &DCC. (Vexatious).
A2. The GIA/1642/2014 Dransfield v ICO& House of Lords.( Do not
hold)
I claim the UT Judges are conspiring to pervert the Course of Justice and I
request the Upper Tribunal to add my complaint against Judge SM Wright to my
complaint against Judge Wikeley.
It is fact that the ICO/FTT/UT appear to be bending over backwards to obstruct the general public’s access to the FOIA 2000 and the two above cases
are prima facie evidence of that fact.
It should be noted that Judge Wright has subsequently refused permission
for me my leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Please be informed that I now intend to appeal Judge Wright’s GIA/1642/2014
decision to the Court of Appeal.
With thanks
Yours sincerely
Alan M Dransfield.
