Simple (my first) question about the UK Supreme Court

citizen_uk036

Hello Everyone,

This is my first post - please be kind !


While doing some research, I got stuck trying to find out who is responsible for the UK Supreme Court ?

Could somebody post a link to an article on this subject, please ?

Peregrinus

What do you mean, who is responsible for it?

What does it mean to be "responsible" for a court? Are you asking who appoints the judges? Or who pays the costs of running the court? Who enforces its judgments? Or are you asking whose idea was it that the UK should have a Supreme Court?

citizen_uk036

Thanks for your response.



Apologies for the misunderstanding.

For example, who is 'responsible' for 'representing' the Supreme Court in a case of 'enforcement' for an outstanding Freedom of Information Request ?

It would seem that 'somebody' would have to represent the Supreme Court in a Court Case - isn't it ?



I hope this clarifies my question.

Peregrinus

I don't know if you can make an FoIA Act request to the Supreme Court. But let's assume that you can.

You make a request. If they give you the information you have requested, that's an end to the matter.

If they turn down your request, your next step is to ask them to review your request.

If they review it and still reject it, or if they simply fail to respond to at all, you can complain to the Information Commissioner. He'll investigate your complaint, and take it up with the Supreme Court.

Who will represent the Supreme Court during this investigation? Dunno. Doesn't matter. Not your concern. Most probably some staff member who deals with FoIA requests.

If the Information Commissioner thinks the Supreme Court was wrong to refuse or ignore your request, he will tell them so, and direct them to comply with their obligations. If they fail or refuse (which is very unlikely, to be honest) he will take enforcement measures against them. That'll be between him and the Supreme Court; you won't be involved.

If the Information Commissioner thinks the Supreme Court was right, and you are unhappy about that, your next step is an appeal to the Tribunal (which is a specialist court in the UK to which you can appeal decisions made by government authorities). Note that your appeal is not against the Supreme Court or any of its staff, but against the Information Commissioner. It's his decision that you are challenging.

And, if you don't get joy at the Tribunal, you can then go to court (specifically, the High Court) and seek to have the Tribunal's decision set aside. Again, this is not a court case between you and the Supreme Court, but between you and the Information Commissioner.

It's possible that the Supreme Court, or (more probably) a staff member of the Supreme Court, would wish to take part either in the Tribunal proceedings or in any review of those proceedings in the Court, since they are going to be affected by the outcome and might want to make observations about the issues. If they do want to participate, then they'll appoint representatives in the usual way - either a staff member or an external lawyer in the Tribunal; an external lawyer in the court proceedings. They'll instruct whatever legal representatives they choose, just like anybody else does. You won't know who they instruct until they instruct them.

Victor

Note that 1. Northern Ireland, 2. Scotland and 3. England and Wales have different court systems and may have different procedures.

Courts tend to decide things, they don't do enforcement.

If the Freedom of Information Request is about information held by the court, then you need to chase HM Courts & Tribunals Service.

If the Freedom of Information Request is to another party and was adjudicated on by the Supreme Court, I presume you go back to the High Court (or equivalent) and seek a mandatory injunction. Failing that, you need a High Court enforcement officer (HCEO, previously known as sheriff's officers) to enforce the mandatory injunction.

citizen_uk036

Thanks for your helpful insights.



Let's presume that an information request was made directly with the Supreme Court in the UK.

In this event, as explained, it would be necessary to seek a 'HIGH COURT' enforcement (DPA.18 section 167 Compliance Orders)
@Victor - I believe this is what you meant.


However, it brings us back to my original question: who should be listed as RESPONDENT (on behalf of the Supreme Court) at the HIGH COURT ?

It can not make sense - could it be either: *The United Kingdom* (as the nation) , or the UK Government (Prime Minister Cabinet at n.10)

Peregrinus

Citizen, back in post 3 you were talking about a Freedom of Information request. Now you're talking about the Data Protection Act, which is a whole different law dealing with different matters. You're more likely to get useful information if you are clear and correct (and complete) in the question you ask.

Plus, you tell us that "an information request was made directly with the Supreme Court in the UK" and it's now necessary to seek high court enforcement under DPA s. 167. You wouldn't normally go straight from your initial request to a s. 167 application; you'd take the matter to the Infomration Commissioner, as outlined above. Have you done this? If not, why not?

However, assuming that a s. 167 application is appropriate, an order under s.167 is directed to "the controller in respect of the processing, or a processor acting on behalf of that controller". So the proper respondent is the data controller against whom you want an order.

In your case, the controller will almost certainly have been identified in the course of what has happened up to this point - specifically, in relation to your complaint to the Information Commissioner. I agree with Victor that the controller is probably HM Courts and Tribunal Service, and this is the agency you should name in your proceedings. If they think they are not the controller they will say so, and in the course of that exchange the identity of the controller should emerge.

Victor

I think you would put HM Courts & Tribunals Service as respondent. Neither the United Kingdom* (as the nation), or the UK Government / Prime Minister have what you want (unless there is some awful nuance you aren't telling us.

If this is a real case, you need to get professional advice.

citizen_uk036

.
There are plenty of awful nuances which is the reason for professionals to refuse getting involved.

The ICO is not an option as this agency was shown to have taken decisions in conflict with the Legislation to allow the HMCTS to conceal evidence of their *awful* actions.
And, the Tribunal has NOT respondesdto my challenges against the ICO's decisions - 'Catch 22'

Having read your suggestions, it appears that the responsible / respondent might be the "Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice"


found here: https: www _gov _uk government/ministers/secretary-of-state-for-justice
the forum does not allow links - please search for "Ministerial role Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice"

Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

Organisations: Ministry of Justice
Current role holder: The Rt Hon Robert Buckland QC MP

Responsibilities

Oversight of all portfolios and Ministry of Justice strategy
Oversight of future relationship with the EU and international business
Resourcing of the department
Functions of the Lord Chancellor
Judicial policy including pay, pensions and diversity
Corporate services


Unfortunately, this is a matter of Life or Death for me.
.

Peregrinus

citizen_uk036 wrote: »

There are plenty of awful nuances which is the reason for professionals to refuse getting involved.

The ICO is not an option as this agency was shown to have taken decisions in conflict with the Legislation to stop me from obtaining responses from HMCTS when the court of appeals and the administrative court failed to process my submissions/appeals.

You can appeal the decisions of the ICO to the Tribunal. That is your proper course if you think the ICO has made an unlawful decision. If instead you bring a s.167 application instead it may only result in expense and delay, when the court tells you that you can't pursue your s. 167 application until you have exhausted your remedies before the Tribunal.

citizen_uk036 wrote: »

Having read your suggestions, it appears that the 'responsible party' is the "Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice"

Well, you can try that. If it turns out to be wrong you can apply to amend the proceedings to name HM Courts and Tribunal Service (or whoever the correct respondent is) instead.

Somehow, I don't think identifying the correct respondent is the biggest hurdle you have to surmount. When you say that "there are plenty of awful nuances which is the reason for professionals to refuse getting involved", I'm thinking "Awful nuances are not normally a reason for professionals to refuse to get involved. They normally love awful nuances. A more common reason for professionals refusing to get involved is that they don't think you can win, and they don't think you are willing to hear that."

citizen_uk036

Thanks for your response @Peregrinus

I do not mind hearing - however, the court of appeals dismissed my appeal claiming that I requested for a refund - and, this is not the case.

And, when the HMTCS was requested for evidence of this alleged refund that I requested - and, they did not respond.
While the ICO concluded that 'it was not correct for me to request for copies of correspondences allegedly sent to myself' ...

and, a challenge against the ICO has been filed with the GRC & Upper Tribunals - and, they have not responded and they refused to clarify when or * IF * they will ever respond.

perhaps, one may consider these to be awful, isn't it ?