Alan Dransfield's Blog

Lord Chief Chancellor. Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP

Dear Sir

I write to you in your official capacity of Lord Chief Justice requesting you to investigate the conduct of two serving Judges, i.e Judge Wikeley from the Upper Tribunal and Justice Charles the Upper Tribunal President.

My complaint against the latter is based on the fact he has failed to take my allegations of misconduct by Judge Wikely seriously. My complaint against Judge Wikeley is he has wilfully and knowingly perverted the course of justice by making decision GIA/3037/2011. This case is currently before the Royal Courts of Justice Appeal Court. The full case title is GIA/3037/2011 Alan M Dransfield V ICO & Devon County Council.

I fully understand that your office remit will not allow you to interfere with individual cases, but I ask you to consider making an exception to the rule on this case because GIA/3037/2011 has been entered into the Statute Book and has life threatening ramifications.

I look forward to hearing from you.

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield

http://www.panopticonblog.com/2013/02/07/vexatious-and-manifestly-unreasonable-requests-definitive-guidance-from-the-upper-tribunal/

Attn Judge Wikeley, Upper Tribunal

Dear Judge Wikeley

I appreciate that you have concluded your business with the Subject Title and I am now pursuing Court of Appeal Application. However, there is now NEW evidence recently produced by the Devon County Council (DCC) which supports my allegations that the DCC are perverting the course of justice and circumventing the FOIA 2000.

Please see the attached response from the DCC to a member of the Public Mr Gary Howlet ref# 03505. The full History of this particular FOIA request available at the whatdotheyknow (WDTK) website.

Initially, the DCC refused the request from a Mr Gary Howlett claiming he was in consort with a 3rd party which MUST have been me. They refused the FOIA request on grounds of Section 14 (1) Vexatious.

Mr Howlett then requested the DCC to review their decision and Mr Martin Lawrence upheld Mr Howlett’s complaint and overturned the Vexatious decision.

Mr Lawrence’s review decision is of paramount importance to my allegations of wrongdoing by the DCC because, he has now contradicted evidence used by the DCC at my Upper Tribunal (UT) hearing in connection with GIA/3037/2011, which has now been cast in the Statute Book.

Mr Lawrence claims the DCC do not own the Rugby Bridge, which is a complete fabrication of the truth because the DCC adopted this bridge some two years ago as informed to the UT and they hold vicarious liability for the Sandy Park Bridge for all aspects of engineering, health and safety and public liability.

I appreciate the correct course of action will be for Mr Howllet to pursue his complaint with the ICO, but that will involve the unnecessary cost to a member of the public AGAIN..

Mr Lawrence knew, or should have known, he was/is giving false and misleading information to Mr Howlett because it was a mirror image of my request. Mr Lawrence response in para 1-2-3 in attached letter are at best factually incorrect and at worst concocted evidence to pervert the Course of Justice,……..

For your information, action and files

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield

Please also see previous posting re this subject.

Case 2. GIA/3037/2011.
This case started in May 2009 and has since proceeded through the Information Commissioner’s Office, then the First Tier Tribunal and then the Upper Tribunal and now currently awaits the confirmation of acceptance by the Court of Appeal.

1. My FOIA to the Devon County Council for technical data on the Exeter Chiefs Rugby Bridge was refused as vexatious by the DCC

2. I appealed the DCC decision to the ICO, who upheld the Vexatious decision by the DCC.

3. I appealed the ICO vexatious decision to the FTT, who overturned the ICO decision claiming my FOI was straightforward and benign and instructed the DCC to release the sought after data.

4. The ICO and DCC appealed the FTT to Upper Tribunal, who overturned the FTT and agreed my FOI request was indeed vexatious. The UT decision is dated Jan 2013.

5. A triple Consolidated Hearing was held on Nov 14th 2012 as a test case before the Upper Tribunal.

It should be noted that the Upper Tribunal Judge made a Court Order for the ICO & DCC to produce 13 Ghost Documents, but they failed to meet this court order. Hence, the decision was based on hearsay and Ghost Documents.

I have also made another FOIA request to the HSE related to the two above cases and the HSE have refused my FOIA requests based on Section 14 , VEXATIOUS and this decision has been upheld by the ICO.

I have also made a similar FOIA request to the Met office HQ, which has been refused under National Security, and is currently before the ICO on appeal.

The two main FOIA Cases have cost the taxpayers thousands of pounds to date and the DCC have, in my view apparently conspired with the ICO and Upper Tribunal to Pervert the Course of Justice.

The two cases continue.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (FOI) CAMPAIGNER IN EXETER

My name is Alan M Dransfield. I am 62 years of age and an unemployed construction site engineer, who for the last 5/6 years has been involved in a David v Goliath battle with my local public authority (PA) – Devon County County Council (DCC).

At this juncture (Mar 2013) I have two live FOI cases passing through HM Courts, and I think it would be easier for the future readers if I break my FOI Cases into separate events.

Case 1.ref EA2010/0152
This case started back in May 2009, when I submitted a FOI request into the DCC FOI department for technical details of the 6 public finance initiative schools, which I claimed were not fit for purpose owing to a number of technical issues, including the failure to provide minimum lightning protection system safety.

The DCC initially refused my FOIA request based on Section 12 costs; they then changed their pleas to DO NOT HOLD and belatedly they have changed their plea again to Section 14 VEXATIOUS.

This particular case is due to be heard again in London in July and this will be the 3rd retrial by the FOI First Tier Tribunal(FTT). The last FTT was adjourned by the FTT Judge owing to the “EVIDENTIAL GAPS “from the DCC key witness, who held the Position of FOI Manager for the DCC.