Alan Dransfield's Blog

Email sent – 17 November 2014 15:25

Justice Dept Select Committee

Dear Sir

Please see the attached FOI decision which indicates the Vexatious decisions are spreading like cancer.

Please bring this matter to the attention of the Justice Select Committee.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

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 emphasis 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 request the Upper Tribunal to add my complaint against Judge SM Wright to my complaint against Judge Wikeley.

…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 Wrights GIA/1642/2014 decision to the Court of Appeal.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield.

Vexatious? I think not. Cover-up more like.

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Exeter-Freedom-Information-campaigner-pledges/story-23309774-detail/story.html

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmjust/96/96vw70.htm

“Vexatious” Requests (96)

3. Public authorities have expressed concern that section 14(1) on vexatious requests is hard to use. Index on Censorshipsupports the principle that the section should only be used as a last resort against those filing multiple FOI requests where no public interest can be demonstrated. “

http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2014/fs_50522278.ashx

Email Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 6:23 AM

Dear Mr Bradshaw

The Devon County Council has recently released cost information for my
FOI cases since 2010. They claim they have spent £22,200 on legal costs and travel
expenses, but do not include man-hours for dealing with my complaints.

Firstly, I do not believe these recently-released figures and would
envisage their costs to be much higher. Secondly, I don’t accept the DCC should
have incurred a single penny costs because the information I sought from them on
the PFI schools and the Exeter Chiefs Bridge could and should have been
released without cost under the FOIA 2000.

As you are aware, both case continue – the Rugby Bridge is due for a Court
of Appeal retrial later this year and the PFI schools is still before the Upper
Tribunal; hence further cost impact on the public purse. The £20k costs could
double before the end of the year

Moreover and more importantly, these costs do not appear in the DCC audit
report records – hence they are fudging legal cost records.

I call upon my MP to write to the CEO of the DCC seeking clarification as to why
they have incurred such costs in the first place and why they continue to accrue such
costs, and please ask them why such costs are not included in their annual audit
reports?

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2014/fs_50522278.ashx