Mr Anthony Dickinson, a Legal Administration Team Business Support Officer from Preston Magistrates Court has confirmed that Paul Brooks resigned from the Judiciary after being notified of a serious complaint against him, thus avoiding investigation.
In a reply to the complainant, Mr Dickinson said;
When provided with a copy of your complaint, prior to him offering his resignation, Mr Brooks refuted much of what you had said in your complaint.
Begging the question, why resign?
The complaint was provided with unequivocal evidence of the allegations. Evidence that Mr Brooks simply cannot refute, showing his continued intent to lie to the judiciary, and then resign to avoid investigation.
What concerns us is Mr Dickinson’s further comment;
The Judicial Conduct Rules 31 (a) say that the “Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the Advisory Committee may dismiss the complaint in accordance with rule 32. In terms of the reasons for this, Rule 32 (i) says: “it is about a person who is no longer a magistrate”.
The complainant responded;
Mr Brooks resigned ‘after’ I made the complaint and after he was forewarned of it. Therefore, when the complaint was made, Mr Brooks ‘was’ at all material times, a magistrate.
Mr Dickinson has been reminded that the judiciary cannot rely upon Rule 32(i).
Mr Dickinson ended his letter with;
As far as the Advisory Committee is concerned this matter is now concluded and no further correspondence will be entered into.
No appeal rights were offered, nor was a right to Judicial Review mentioned following this public body decision. The reply from the judiciary was basically… ‘go away‘.
Be the first to comment