Allegations of identity fraud by Judicial Appointments Commissioners (JAC)

Response from JAC and my subsequent Freedom of Information request, which is due by 26/11/2024.

Allegations of Identity Fraud by Helen Pitcher, OBE

On 15th June 2023, I discovered prima facie evidence that Helen Pitcher, OBE, Chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), has committed identity fraud to conceal interests. This conclusion is based on her registration of multiple identities in Companies House using variations of her name. If this were an error, she would have declared all her interests in her Register of Interests; however, she has not done so.

Helen Pitcher has committed fraud by false representation (Section 2, Fraud Act 2006) by providing misleading information to Companies House. Additionally, she has committed fraud by failing to disclose information (Section 3, Fraud Act 2006) by not registering all her active and recent interests in her Register of Interests and by omitting past associations in her biography, which is required for full transparency and accountability.

The existence of multiple identities obscures transparency and accountability, potentially allowing individuals to evade scrutiny and improperly influence decisions. This issue is not isolated; approximately half of the JAC Commissioners either fail to declare all their interests or have multiple identities registered—or both. This pattern is echoed among other public officials, including Police and Crime Commissioners and Members of Parliament.

Whether Helen Pitcher has also committed fraud by abuse of position (Section 4, Fraud Act 2006) requires police investigation. The fact that she is connected to a widespread group of politicians and civil servants who also have multiple identities raises serious concerns about organised misconduct—potentially indicative of a cartel-like behaviour.

Given their positions in government and the civil service, I allege that these actions represent a coordinated effort attempting to undermine democratic processes. Both the current Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister—regardless of party affiliation—have multiple identities registered. This could be defined as a coup d'état since they have effectively taken control of government operations through these deceptive practices.

My allegations include the assertion that this fraudulent group has strategically positioned itself to control policy-making, which increasingly appears authoritarian and complicit in enabling terror against civilians, particularly abroad. If my allegations are upheld, it would set a precedent that holding multiple identities in Companies House is evidence of synthetic identity fraud. Those implicated by this breach of trust in both public and private sectors should resign while criminal investigations are undertaken. In this way, transparency, accountability, and the rule of law might flourish.

To illustrate the extent of this issue, let's examine the specific case of Helen Pitcher, OBE, Chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission. A thorough investigation into her Companies House records reveals a concerning pattern of multiple identities.

A search in Companies House for “Helen Pitcher” reveals four distinct “unique identifiers”, effectively creating separate identities (https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/search?q=Helen+Pitcher). The search results are as follows (Image 1. Search results for “Helen Pitcher”, in Companies House on 21/11/2024):

Image 1. Search results for “Helen Pitcher”, in Companies House on 21/11/2024.

Helen Pitcher, born March 1958 has used three variations of her name and four different addresses to register her appointments:

• “Helen PITCHER Total number of appointments 4

  10 Haldane Close, Enfield, England, EN3 6XN

• Helen Marie PITCHER Total number of appointments 1

  14 Church Square, Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, LU7 1AE

• Helen PITCHER OBE Total number of appointments 1

  131 Psalter Lane, Sheffield, South Yorks, S11 8UX

• Helen Marie PITCHER Total number of appointments 1

  36-38 Cornhill, London, United Kingdom, EC3V 3PQ”

This fragmentation of identities creates significant issues for accountability:

1. Audit challenges: For auditing purposes, Helen Pitcher appears as four separate individuals, making it difficult to track all her interests comprehensively.

2. Missed related party transactions: The separation of identities increases the risk that related party transactions go undetected, potentially concealing fraudulent activities.

3. Compromised KYC checks: Multiple identities undermine Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures, which are crucial for preventing money laundering and terrorism financing.

These issues are particularly concerning given the current fraud landscape in the UK:

• Fraud is the most prevalent crime, with an estimated annual cost of £200 billion.

• Public Sector Fraud alone accounts for an estimated £50 billion per annum.

• Identity fraud is responsible for approximately 45% of all fraud cases.

Fraudulent Police and Crime Commissioners have awarded the City of London Police responsibility for all investigation financial and cybersecurity crime, however, members of their leadership also have multiple identities. As a result this identity fraud is unchecked.

My complaint about Helen Pitcher, OBE, included the following text:

“Failure to register interests.

Helen Pitcher has failed to correctly register her directorships of: Sustainable Boardroom Excellence Limited, Balance in Business Limited, Kids Out Trading Limited, United Biscuits (UK) Limited and Kids out UK. As this is a breach of the code of conduct, please investigate this for misconduct.

Companies disclosed, but not registered in Companies House.

Helen Pitcher's current appointments to C&C Group PLC, IAA ExCo and Global Clubs, and her past appointments to Saville Group PLC and Pladis Global, could not be located in Companies House. The reference to VP Global Clubs is ambiguous and her appointment could not be located. None of these named companies are registered with these names in Companies House. There are similarly named companies registered but Helen Pitcher is not a named director of these. Please will you clarify the names of the companies to which she refers in her Register of Interest and biography? Under what name is she registered as a director?”

The response from the Judicial Appointments Commission:

“(W)e have approached the three commissioners named in your original letter and have now also approached the three others you have mentioned to ensure that their declarations of interests cover all aspects and remain appropriate. We have also taken steps to ensure that our guidance to Commissioners is clearer on the issues to declare. You have requested that the JAC undertakes an external evaluation into this matter. We do not consider that this is appropriate.. The JAC is confident that with our revised processes our commissioners are better informed as to what to declare which has a bearing on their role as a JAC Commissioner. I do appreciate that this will be another disappointing reply to you, but the matter has been fully considered(.)”

I escalated this complaint and this was the reply:

------ Original Message ------
From: Jessica.Murphie@judicialappointments.gov.uk
To: alisonwright45@btinternet.com Cc: complaints@judicialappointments.gov.uk
Sent: Tuesday, November 5th 2024, 13:16
Subject: Complaint Response
 

Good afternoon Ms. Wright,

Please accept my apologies that the response to your complaint has been delayed.

Thank you for your correspondence regarding this matter. After a thorough review of all previous communications, including the responses provided by Mr. Thomson and Ms. Barling, we can confirm that the Judicial Appointments Commission does not believe the Nolan Principles have been breached in this instance.

As such, we do not have further information to add beyond our prior responses.

Kind regards,

Jessica Murphie
Freedom of Information and Complaints Manager | Judicial Appointments Commission | M:

www.judicialappointments.gov.uk | LinkedIn | Twitter |”

My response, later the same day.

“Dear Ms. Murphie,
Thank you for your response dated November 5, 2024. I am deeply disappointed that the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) continues to dismiss the serious issues I have raised without thoroughly addressing them.
I must emphasise that my original complaint regarding Helen Pitcher, and subsequent concerns about other Commissioners, relate to potential breaches of Section 1082 of the Companies Act 2006. These breaches, involving multiple unique identifiers in Companies House records and failures to disclose all interests, directly undermine the Nolan Principles, particularly those of Integrity, Openness, and Honesty.
Your response fails to engage with the specific legal and ethical concerns I have raised. The existence of multiple identities in official records for public office holders is a matter of significant public interest and potential misconduct. It is not sufficient to simply state that the JAC believes no breach of the Nolan Principles has occurred without providing a detailed explanation of how this conclusion was reached.
Given the unsatisfactory nature of the responses I have received thus far, I am formally requesting, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, all correspondence within the Judicial Appointments Commission and with any external advisors regarding myself and my enquiries since the initiation of my complaint. This should include, but not be limited to:
1. Internal emails, memos, and meeting minutes discussing my complaints
2. Any legal advice sought or received regarding the issues I have raised
3. Correspondence with the Commissioners named in my complaints
4. Any documents related to the review process of my complaints
I believe this information is crucial to understanding how the JAC has handled this matter and to ensure transparency in the process.
Furthermore, I request a detailed explanation of:
1. How the JAC has verified the accuracy and completeness of Commissioners' disclosures
2. What steps, if any, have been taken to investigate the discrepancies I have identified in Companies House records
3. The JAC's interpretation of how multiple unique identifiers align with the Nolan Principles, particularly Integrity and Openness
I remind you of the JAC's obligation to uphold the highest standards of public office and to thoroughly investigate any potential breaches of these standards. Your current stance appears to fall short of these obligations.
I look forward to receiving the requested information within the statutory 20 working days, as well as a more comprehensive response to the serious issues I have raised.
Yours sincerely,

Alison Wright”

I received acknowledgement of this FOI request by the Judicial Appointments Commission and anticipate receiving the information requested by Tuesday 26th November.

Please find below links to my correspondence with the Judicial Appointments Commission, organised chronologically: