Judicial Appointments Commission initial reply
Regarding Commissioners' synthetic identities and failure to disclose interests.
Judicial Appointments Commission
5th Floor
70 Petty France
London
SW1H 9EX
PERSONAL
Alison Wilson
Via email: alisonwright45@btinternet.com
10th July 2023
Dear Alison Wilson
Thank you again for your email of 15 June, enclosing your letters regarding three of our Commissioners, Helen Pitcher, Anuja Dhir and Emir Feisal. I am also in receipt of your further email of 3rd July in which you expand on you concerns.
The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) takes issues such as this seriously and I can assure you that I, as complaints lead, along with senior colleagues at the JAC (independent of those identified in your emails), have taken steps to investigate the issues you have raised relating to the JAC’s records.
The JAC expects its commissioners to work to the highest personal and professional standards. That is why in the JAC Code for Commissioners it follows the principles of the Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies. This sets out the standards expected and requires Commissioners to “declare any interest that may present an actual or perceived conflict of interest prior to appointment or at any time during their appointment if their position changes”. Whether a conflict in fact applies, is then for the Commission to determine, not the individual Commissioner.
As you are aware, the JAC does maintain a Register of interests which was last updated fully in July 2022 and we remind Commissioners of their responsibilities regularly.
As mentioned, I along with senior colleagues have investigated your complaint as far as declarations of interests to the JAC are concerned. We have contacted the three Commissioners to ensure that they are aware of their responsibilities and to ask them to check their records carefully against your findings. As a result of these enquiries, it is recognised that the published register does not fully reflect the current position and it will therefore be updated and republished. We will also update and clarify the guidance provided to Commissioners on what they need to declare, as a matter of good practice.
While there were some discrepancies within the Register of Interests, we have concluded that this arose as a result of a misunderstanding or narrow interpretation of what might be considered as an actual or perceived conflict. Accordingly, we have taken the opportunity to remind all Commissioners of the need for the register to be maintained to include all appropriate information and to be updated if their position changes.
In respect to the points, you raise about the records maintained on the Companies House website, you will appreciate that the purpose of Companies House records differs to the purpose of the JAC Register of Interests and the JAC is not able to comment on Companies House records. We note that you have raised your concerns regarding the accuracy of Companies House records directly with Companies House. We are, however, confident that there is no evidence of synthetic identities within the JAC Register of Interests.
I and my senior colleagues are grateful to you for bringing your concerns to our attention.
Yours sincerely
Head of Corporate Services
The email to which this letter refers:
Alison Wright <alisonwright45@btinternet.com>
To: JAC Complaints complaints@judicialappointments.gov.uk;
03/07/23 15:57
Dear Mr Thomson,
Thank you for your response regarding the investigation into the misconduct related to synthetic identity fraud and failure to register interests by the Judicial Appointments Commissioners I reported. I appreciate the seriousness with which this matter is being treated and the decision to conduct an investigation. However, in order to ensure the utmost fairness and impartiality throughout the process, I kindly request further reassurance that the investigation is being carried out by individuals who do not possess multiple identities themselves. This measure is essential to eliminate any potential bias and uphold the integrity of the investigation. I would greatly appreciate being contacted by the investigating team to address any concerns I may have and to provide additional information that could assist in the investigation.
It is important to emphasise that the issue of synthetic identity fraud extends beyond isolated incidents. I have repeatedly reported instances of such fraudulent activities involving individuals in significant positions. This includes Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who has three identities with two different dates of birth, his wife Akshata Murty, who possesses two identities and two dates of birth, Attorney General Victoria Prentis with two identities, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, my representative in Parliament, with five identities and two dates of birth, and Katy Bourne, the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner and chair of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC), who initially had three identities and two dates of birth when I first lodged a complaint in November 2022. Notably, Katy Bourne failed to disclose her active directorships of the APCC and Bluelight Commercial Limited, as well as her resigned appointments to the College of Policing and Police Digital Service until December 2022.
Despite substantiated complaints, the response has been limited to registering previously undisclosed interests, neglecting allegations of synthetic identity fraud, fraud by non-disclosure, and fraud by false representation. Reporting these issues to the police involves going through Action Fraud, where their restrictive reporting system poses a significant barrier. It is concerning to note that the City of London Police, as the National Lead Force for Fraud, operates Action Fraud and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau. This is particularly troubling considering their involvement in questionable procurements, such as the cybersecurity strategy 2020-2030 devised by Police Digital Service, which was procured via Bluelight Commercial. These procurements raise serious concerns about breaches in due process and the failure to uphold separation of duties. Please refer to Provision of a National Management Centre for UK Police Forces through Mint Commercial Services LLP (EU company 32217)(https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/notice/e5ae3988-7835-44d6-a802-6b7df130287b and https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/notice/a21d55e7-dadd-443a-a2fe-6d8f989dae37), and the £800,000,000 contract with Adecco, which is ultimately a Swiss owned company, for CONTINGENT LABOUR SERVICES - (https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/notice/89a5cc6a-5a17-4231-9d18-599c4cfbf4e4). It suggests a potential regulatory capture by synthetic identity fraudsters, further undermining confidence in the system's ability to effectively address the issue of synthetic identity fraud.
This consistent pattern of behaviour raises serious concerns and suggests a broader problem involving individuals with synthetic identities, potentially compromising the integrity of the governance system. It is particularly troubling to consider the possibility of corruption in policing procurement.
I remain fully committed to uncovering the truth and ensuring that appropriate action is taken to address synthetic identity fraud while upholding the principles of transparency, accountability, and fairness. I trust that your investigation will thoroughly examine these matters without prejudice and with a sense of urgency. It is crucial to address these concerns promptly to maintain public trust in the institutions and individuals involved. Please confirm that the synthetic identity screening of the investigating team has been completed.
Yours sincerely,
Alison Wright