Dismissal 21 (a) (b) following further info Ismail
Complaint about Lord Justice Aikens
The judicial oath provides:
“I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.”
- Aikens LJ has misused his judicial status by way of intimidation, harassment and victimization.
“Harassment” occurs when one person perpetrates unwanted conduct (including sexual conduct) related to one or more of another person’s protected characteristics which has the purpose or effect of violating that other person’s dignity and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that other person.
The judge has failed to ensure that his conduct, in the court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants, in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.
His conduct relates to the making of his decision on a day where the Court of Appeal was not sitting. His conduct also relates to the fact that he made his decision IN PRIVATE. He has created an intimidating atmosphere for the applicants as 3 minor children by imposing on them civil restraint orders in their absence. The judge has also misused his judicial position by damaging the characters of the children concerned without giving them the opportunity to be heard. Please note that this complaint does not relate to a case management or case decision, but it relates entirely to the way the judge has treated litigants, which indeed is in contrary to his judicial oath.
- Harassment, victimisation and bullying of others by means of words and/or behaviour are unacceptable. As the words of the judicial oath make clear, the principles of exercising equality and fairness of treatment have always been fundamental to the role and conduct of the judiciary when carrying out their judicial functions. Conduct giving rise to harassment, victimisation and/or bullying may take place face to face, or by other means of communication such as a telephone call, letter…
Lord Justice Aikens has failed in his duty to act fairly without having the need to victimize us as litigants. The fairness of treatment has not been shown in his conduct when he issued civil restraint orders on the children. He deprived them of an oral hearing and acceded to the decision of Stuart Isaacs QC who is currently subject to have assisted perjury.
Lord Justice Aikens has abused his judicial discretion. He has abused his judicial discretion to protect himself and other judges from civil and criminal liability for being unduly influenced, such as by bribery, intimidation or cronyism. He has directly assisted Deputy Judge Isaacs QC who has been involved in perjury.
- Instead of accommodating to the lack of legal knowledge of lay persons who either cannot afford a lawyer, or who don’t trust lawyers who are subject to the control of the courts, Aikens LJ systematically discriminate and victimise against litigants such as ourselves who appear pro se or in propria persona, often dismissing their petitions or motions out of hand, regardless of their merits. That is abuse of judicial discretion.
- Lord Justice Aikens has successfully attempted in his act to make us afraid by way of Civil Restraint orders made IN PRIVATE. His actions can be considered as acts of bullying. “Bullying” carries its normal meaning. It consists of conduct that is offensive, intimidating, malicious and/or insulting and which has the purpose or effect of undermining, humiliating, and/or frightening another person. It may amount to a misuse or abuse of power.
- A judge shall, in his or her personal relations with individual members of the legal profession who practise regularly in the judge’s court, avoid situations which might reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of favouritism or partiality. Aikens LJ has favoured public authorities by declaring that their acts of perjury were correct, and by ignoring the evidences provided. The actions of Aikens LJ are biased and are against his judicial oath. He has indeed treated us as Muslims who should be treated unequal and has discriminated us on the basis that we are wrong. Aikens LJ has misused his judicial status by his act of ‘cover up’ his colleagues in Administrative Court. As we have brought several acts of misbehaviour in public office by judiciary members, Aikens LJ and others have threatened us with civil restraint orders which amounts to bully and have no merits whatsoever according to natural justice.
- A judge’s conduct in court should uphold the status of judicial office, the commitment made in the judicial oath and the confidence of litigants in particular and the public in general. Lord Justice Aikens has failed to be courteous, patient, tolerant and respect the dignity of us. The judge should ensure that no one in court is exposed to any display of bias or prejudice on grounds said in the Bangalore principle entitled “equality” to include but not to be limited to “race, colour, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, social and economic status and other like causes”. There should be no bias or prejudice on those grounds, which are described in the principles as “irrelevant grounds”.
- Aikens LJ has unlawfully discriminated us and our children. He has discriminated Mr Ismail who is a disabled and therefore breached the Equality Act 2010. Unlawful discrimination may also occur if a disabled person is treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of his or her disability, which cannot be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (s.15). The acts of Aikens LJ to disregard the Community Care Assessment of Mr Ismail which clearly mentioned and elaborated about his disability, the hospital confirmations and reports and other documents are unlawful. His act of imposing civil restraint orders on people who lack capacity such as the children and Mr Ismail is unlawful by way of irrationality and discrimination.
- The equality duty (s.149) requires public authorities, in the exercise of their public functions, to have due regard to eliminate prohibited discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between different groups of people. We believe that the OJC will eliminate these acts of discrimination which exist among certain judges.
- Judges should always take care that their conduct, official or private, does not undermine their institutional or individual independence, or the public appearance of independence. Lord Justice Aikens has failed to act according to judicial independence which is a prerequisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee to fair trial. By depriving the children of a fair trial shows that he has not been independent of judicial colleagues and therefore is solely responsible for his decisions.
- Lord Justice Aikens has failed to respect children’s best interests and if these points are revealed to the public, anybody will conclude that Aikens LJ is incorrect. If a public opinion is asked through a website, the majority of the public will object to his order as he has simply encouraged authorities to make false representations (CPR 81). Literally, Aikens LJ is also the object to committal as he is not immunized from such due to his status as a judge.
- Aiken LJ sat Privately and ordered that an urgent interim relief was granted. However, no urgent relief was sought by us. The OJC advised that certain part of Stuart Isaacs QC allegations of perjury should be dealt at an appeal, having done such, Lord Justice Aikens has also contributed to the same acts. He has disregarded all the evidences in front of him due to his malicious intention and animosity. These acts are part of an institutional racism for which we are victims of.
- The judge has relied upon misrepresentation. He has been biased, partial and lacks integrity. He has failed to follow the six principles set for a judge:
(i) Judicial independence is a prerequisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects.
(ii) Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.
(iii) Integrity is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office.
(v) Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential to the due performance of the judicial office.
(vi) Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office.
This complaint should be considered alongside the complaint of Stuart Isaacs QC.
—————————————————————————
I have gone through your letter dated 4 October 2013 which summarized our complaint against LJ Aikens and dismissed part of the complaint.
Your summary of complaint does not clearly outlined the points raised in the original complaint and I have attached the complaint below in bold.
Firstly, LJ Aikens did not conduct a hearing but he made his paper decision in private (as attached) on a day where the Court of Appeal was not sitting (as attached).
This action of making his decision in private made us feel prejudiced and intimidated as litigants in person and asylum seekers, most importantly, as vulnerable people. His actions of imposing civil restraint orders in our absence to the children are victimizing and go against his judicial oath as it is clear that he has treated us unfairly.
LJ Aikens has abused his judicial discretion to protect himself and other judges from civil and criminal liability for being unduly influenced, such as by bribery, intimidation or cronyism. He has directly assisted Deputy Judge Isaacs QC who has been involved in perjury.
The judge has used the method of intimidation to protect other judges and court staffs.
Please note the typological error in paragraph number 5 of my complaint. LJ Aikens has treated us unequally as Muslims Asylum Seekers and not only Muslims. We apologise and will be grateful if you could amend this in your summary of complaint.
LJ Aikens does not respect Human Rights Act 1998 and he has failed to be courteous. He treated us unfairly as Muslims Asylum Seekers who are vulnerable.
He was covering up his colleagues by refusing oral hearing and by imposing civil restraint orders. He made those acts privately which therefore concludes that there has been high level of corruption.
We will appreciate if you could amend the summary of your complaint and to read the below complaint carefully. LJ Aikens actions are a misconduct in public office and perverted the course of justice.
With regards to criminal actions against the Lord Justice and other people involved in this matter, please advise us whether police has to be involved or for us to proceed with a complaint. We understand that the JCIO has advised us to make a police complaint about Mr Isaacs QC. We are supported by some highly influential Non Government organizations (NGOs) who are prepared to assist us to make the complaint and investigation upon your response and the conclusion of this particular complaint.
We have informed the NGOs to await your conclusion of this complaint.
__________________________________________________
Parents Against Injustice UK 