Judicial Conduct Investigations Office turn a blind eye to Judicial allegations

I have created articles where it is alleged QC David Knifton failed to declare a conflict of interest while acting as a recorder (part-time judge).

 

QC David Knifton failed to declare a conflict of interest

Bias in the Judiciary

Now the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) are in the spotlight for turning a blind eye to the allegations of misconduct of a serving judge.

After QC David Knifton failed to disclose that he acts for the police as a private, fee earning barrister, a complaint was made to the JCIO.

Within the complaint, and referring to recorder, QC David Knifton, it was written;

…he clearly publishes his personal public profile that he is still a fee earning barrister and undertakes work, FOR THE POLICE. How can this possibly be seen as a fair and impartial judge in such a case?

and

It is inconceivable how this ‘part-time judge’ who takes payment from the Police on a private fee-paying basis can be seen as fair & unbiased, acting as a judge when one party is the Police, David Knifton’s paying clients!

 

The JCIO responded, saying that they can only investigate ‘conflicts of interest’, and that my complaint was about a Judicial decision or case management.

The JCIO completely disregarded the complaint as being an allegation of a conflict of interest.  They did not in any way address the above blatantly obvious allegations, they just acted like it was never even mentioned.

My complaint is that QC David Knifton is “still a fee earning barrister and undertakes work for the police”.

While I believe 100% this is a known and malicious abuse of the judiciary by Lancashire police and QC David Knifton, I am not demanding any outcome, all I was expecting was that the allegation was recorded and investigated.

It was also noted that Exchange Chambers where David Knifton acts as a full-time barrister is the ‘go-to’ Chambers for police when they face legal action.  https://legal500.com state that

“Exchange Chambers is a go-to for criminal and police misconduct work“

and

“According to some, it is also becoming the North’s go-to chambers for police misconduct instructions“

David Knifton has also commented on articles stating that he is “close to his clients’”

This means, in other words, QC David Knifton (the judge) is close to the police, his clients (the claimants) in a civil case he presided over as a single decision-maker is a case, brought by his own clients.

I am of the opinion, (supported by a poll where at the time of writing 94% agree this was a conflict of interest), that David Knifton failed in his Judicial duty to disclose a very clear conflict of interest that any reasonable person would, without question, believe that it could (and did) influence his decision.

The decision of the JCIO has now been appealed to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO)

The JACO is well aware that the allegation made was a conflict of interest and their role is to determine if the JCIO handled the complaint correctly or not.

The JACO must decide if the JCIO investigated the complaint correctly.

The JACO must therefore decide IF a conflict of interest was alleged.

The JACO must, therefore, decide IF a complaint of a Conflict of Interest was made, and if so, why the JCIO did not investigate it?

It should be noted that, the JACO is Paul Kernaghan CBE, QPM.

• Paul Kernaghan is an ex-Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary. This could have some influence as this decision is intrinsically linked to a claim brought by a colleague of his, ‘the Chief Constable of Lancashire police’
• It is believed that Paul Kernaghan may be a Freemason (as yet, unconfirmed)

It is hoped the neither of these points will skew his decision in this matter.  His decision and rationale will be published in due course.

Both the JCIO and the JACO have been asked for their comments on this article and asked to confirm or deny any association with the Freemasons.