My reply to JAC's 2nd response

27 July 2023

The email below is part of a series of communications between the Judicial Appointments Commission complaints manager and myself, Alison Wright. The issue is that over half the Judicial Appointments Commissioners have multiple identities registered in Companies House and/or have failed to disclose all of their interests.

To: JAC Complaints complaints@judicialappointments.gov.uk;

27/07/23 10:25

Dear Mr Thomson,

Thank you for your response.

I would like to bring to your attention three recent reports on investigations conducted by Martin Jelley, the Lords' Commissioner for Standards, relating to my complaints regarding Members of the House of Lords with multiple identities, who have failed to register their interests correctly, available here: Reports on complaints - UK Parliament, refer to The conduct of Baroness Smith of Basildon (published 20 July 2023), The conduct of Lord Kennedy of Southwark (published 20 July 2023) and The conduct of Lord Fink (published 29 June 2023).

Your current position, aligns with that of Martin Jelley and Lord Fink. However, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Smith of Basildon have both acknowledged that multiple identities obscures clarity and have asked Companies House to link their entries together.

At the very least, I expect each of the Commissioners I have reported to you to follow the example set by Baroness Smith and Lord Kennedy. However, this is still an inadequate response because you are ignoring that establishing multiple identities is an act of fraud and that past audits have been corrupted by these multiple identities since all their interests were not associated to one identity, meaning that interests held by the other identities were excluded from audits. Linking, or, more correctly, de-duplicating their entries renders the legal record in Companies House corrected but because de-duplications are not currently tracked it also renders the legal record altered without traceability. This is an issue which I have asked Companies House to design a process to address.

To illustrate the issue with the current process, I attach 4 images, of the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner's 3 identities in Companies House (one identity holds multiple records so is captured in 2 images) as they appeared in November 2022. You will see that one of these identities had an incorrect date of birth, another held a duplicated registration to College of Policing Limited. She had not registered any of these interests for the ten years she has been in position. This rendered the Police and Crime Panel unable to hold her to account, for they were not fully aware of the extent of her involvement, as director, in setting policing standards, defining the digital and cyber-security strategy and procuring that vision, so the Panel has been denied the opportunity to ensure accountability and transparency. She has now updated her Register of Interest and de-duplicated her entries so that she only has one identity. The evidence of her multiple identities and duplicate registration to College of Policing Limited has been eradicated and is untraceable, see Katy Elizabeth BOURNE personal appointments - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk).This issue calls for immediate and thorough investigation to ensure proper governance and accountability in the procurement of cyber security services, particularly given the City of London Police's significant role in addressing fraud-related matters and its coordination of Action Fraud, the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau. It is concerning that even their reporting systems are severely dysfunctional, and they have also failed to address my allegations of fraud. The potential implications of this situation on cyber security and public trust cannot be overlooked, and urgent action is needed to rectify these systemic failures and ensure that appropriate measures are put in place to safeguard against fraudulent activities and the use of multiple identities to obscure transparency and accountability.

Image 1 - Identity 1

Image 2 - Identity 2

Image 3 - Identity 3

Given the clear and concerning example presented, I strongly urge you to reconsider and request an external view from a judge who has a history of only ever registering one identity in Companies House. Such a judicial judgment will not only serve as a precedent but also provide an unbiased and impartial evaluation of the issues at hand. It will help ensure transparency, accountability, and proper governance in cases of multiple identities and fraudulent activities, setting a standard for future cases and enhancing the public's trust in the judicial system. The expertise of a judge with a track record of compliance with Companies House regulations will be instrumental in addressing the complexities of these matters and ensuring a fair and just resolution.

Yours sincerely,

Alison Wright.