My response to JAC, 11 July 23

Requesting Judicial Judgement

alisonwright45@btinternet.com

11/7/23

Head of Corporate Services

Judicial Appointments Commission

5th Floor, Clive House

70 Petty France

London, SW1H 9EX

Subject: Escalation of Complaint - Request for Judicial Judgment

Dear Mr Thomson,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to follow up on my previous correspondence dated between 15 and 20 June 2023 regarding the serious concerns I raised about several Commissioners' failure to declare their interests and the use of multiple identities within the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). I provide a summary of the allegations in the table appended. It is not an exhaustive account of all the details provided in the original letters of complaint. It is possible that there are additional identities that were not identified, including potential variations in names. Commissioners not included in this list may also have undisclosed synthetic identities.

Firstly, I would like to address a matter concerning the misnaming of my name as Wilson instead of Wright in your previous response. While it may seem like a minor detail, this error reflects a concerning level of carelessness and disregard for accuracy. Such sloppy behaviour undermines the integrity and professionalism expected of the JAC. I kindly request that you ensure the correct spelling of my name, Alison Wright, is used in all future communications.

Now turning to the substance of my complaint, I must express my disappointment with the inadequacy of your response. Despite the comprehensive evidence and detailed analysis provided in my six letters of complaint, your reply fails to fully address the gravity of the allegations and the potential legal implications at hand.

In my previous correspondence, I meticulously outlined instances of non-disclosure, discrepancies in the Register of Interests, and the use of multiple identities by the Commissioners. I supported my assertions with evidence from Companies House records, clearly demonstrating the validity and urgency of my concerns. However, your response merely acknowledges some discrepancies in the Register of Interests and suggests that they arose from a misunderstanding or narrow interpretation. Such an explanation overlooks the serious implications of synthetic identities, the potential for fraud, and the risks posed to due diligence and audit processes.

Furthermore, your statement that there is no evidence of synthetic identities within the JAC Register of Interests contradicts the discrepancies highlighted in my letters and fails to address the broader issues surrounding multiple identities and their potential impact on transparency and accountability.

It is evident that a more robust and thorough investigation is required to address the breaches that have occurred. Given the complexity and legal implications surrounding the use of synthetic identities and the failure to declare interests, it is imperative that the JAC seeks an independent judicial judgment. This external evaluation will provide an unbiased perspective, ensuring that all relevant legal provisions are duly considered and that a fair and just resolution is reached. Moreover, a judicial judgment in this matter will serve as a precedent for addressing similar cases involving synthetic identities and non-disclosure of interests, ensuring consistency and accountability within the JAC and the wider legal system.

I would like to bring to your attention that in order to proceed with the judicial judgment and effectively address the complex issues at hand, I will require legal assistance. Therefore, I kindly request the provision of Legal Aid to support my case. Additionally, to ensure the thorough examination of the evidence and expert analysis, I will need a team consisting of a forensic auditor, a qualified Chartered Accountant, a legal expertise, and a data analytics specialist with experience in conducting in-depth analysis of big data, particularly pertaining to Companies House records and procurement analysis. It is of utmost importance that the individuals involved in the judicial judgment are transparent and do not possess multiple identities registered in Companies House. Hence, I kindly request the names and credentials of the professionals who will be part of the judicial judgment team to ensure their credibility and impartiality.

The investigation will require an audit team to conduct a forensic audit of the linked directorates of each Commissioner, which incorporates all of their identities and those of their co-directors. Taking into consideration the data held in the Government Contracts database and Registers' of Interests.

In light of the above, I respectfully request that my complaint be escalated for a judicial judgment. I firmly believe that such a step is necessary to uphold transparency, integrity, and fairness within the Judicial Appointments Commission. I kindly request that you initiate the process to seek an independent legal evaluation, ensuring the impartiality and thoroughness of the investigation.

I trust that you will give my request the attention it deserves and take the necessary actions to address the serious concerns I have raised. I anticipate your prompt response and a confirmation of the initiation of the process to seek a judicial judgment.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Alison Wright