Thread by @MForstater

We have permission to live tweet the case of Maya Forstater vs Information Commissioner and Ministry of Justice #OpenJudicialCollege

Tribunal panel is

Mark o Connor - Chamber President (J-MC)
Lynn Griffin - Tribunal Judge (J-LG)
Rosalind Tatam - Tribunal Member (J-RT)

Lawyers:

Naomi Cunningham - Counsel for the Appellant (C-NC)
Ravi Mehta - Counsel for MoJ and Judicial College (C-RM)
Katherine Taunton - Counsel for ICO (C-KT)

J-MC - does it matter if the judicial college is a public authority for FOIA?

C-NC - No the appeal can be disposed of in the appellant's favour even if it is not a PA under FOIA

C- KT (ICO) - It is a question who the public authority is - the question of whether the JC is the same as MoJ requires determination.

There is a possibility that the answer will be different

J- MC - so it is an issue

C- RM Yes it is an issue
J- MC you will have to differentiate very clearly between the two organisations the MoJ and the JC
C-RM - the key issue is about whether the information is "held"

There is one witness - Amelia Wright, Executive Director of the Judicial College.

Ravi Mehta for the MoJ and Judicial College is taking her to her witness statement

Some clarifications by AW - Judicial roles in the Judicial College are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice (but not personally)

She talks about the structure of the judicial college - we have done some reorganisation since. We have two training teams - one of digital and one for magistrates.
No change in function but a slight change in organisation

C- NC Naomi Cunningham about to start her cross examination of the Amelia Wright AW of the Judicial College

NC: P5 of her statement - is it fair to say when the Judicial Studies Board role was extended it remained the JSB but with an extended remit

AW - yes. it was the same body.
NC- in 2009 it became part of the judicial offices for England and Wales but was the same body.
AW - yes. After the constitutional reform act it moved over to the Directorate - the forerunner of the judicial office

NC: Was that an arms length body?

AW - I dont know

NC: so before the JC came into being there was an arms length body?
31 March 2011 JSB - 1 April there was JC

AW: yes there was never a time when they coexisted or a time when there was neigher
It was under the oversight of the Lord Chief Justice and the forerunner of the Judicial Office up to 21 March 2011

NC: it was still listed as public authority - subject to FOIA up to 31 March 2011.

AW - and it is still listed

NC - that includes the period after the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and it had transistioned to be an independent body

And we can see the JC is now part of the Judicial office which is an arms length body of the MoJ - am I correct?

AW - yes

Now looking at the P 33D of Katherine Taunton's skeleton argument for ICO

"there is no relevant public authority here apart from the MoJ. The JC is not listed in FOIA. The administrative staff of JC are part of the Judicial Office which is an arms length body of the MoJ"

AW - the JO is separate from the judiciary.

P 14 and 15 of AW's witness statement - how did the JSB become the JC?

AW - I don't know more. everything we have on our records is captured here.

NC- it doesn't sound like there is anything concrete you can point at to say the two are separate entities?

AW - there was no memorandum. There are differences in how they are organised and governed.

NC- but there was a transition phase up to April 2011 - was it fair to say most of the changes had taken place already?

AW - I don't know

NC - I want to suggest that on March 31- 1 April JSB changed its name so that it was now called the JC

AW - I brought an end to the JSB and started the JC. This marked the final changes into the new governance arrangements - they looked different.

NC - it is right that officials for some years assumed that the JC was subject to FOIA

AW - we have set out different examples of FOIA responses - there have been different responses but details of judicial training has been disclosed.

In 2014 this solidified after an ICO decision that JC is not included in FOIA, the MoJ is.

NC - there are two points in your answer - 1) the JC is not subject to FOIA 2) information about training of judges is not disclosable

Looking at 1)... you mentioned a transitional phase. That was a long transitional phase after the Constitutuional Reform Act 2005

AW - it is true there was a long period of decision. The JSB was listed . Once it moved under the oversight of the Lord Chief Justice there may have been a different approach.
We answer historical queries about the JSB

NC - there was a period when the JSB was under the Lord Chief Justice when it was listed in FOIA and it was subject to FOIA. That is unarguable.

AW - there was a great deal of change to undertaken

NC- Are you saying that the JSB was left on FOIA schedule by oversight?

AW - I don't know. My team could not find any recognition for my team to remove it from the Act. I don't know if it was for historical reasons or from oversight? I don't know. we are now looking into it

p 295 of bundle - some material appended to a FOIA request March 2013 - "the JC is a public body but the judiciary is not covered by FOIA"

AW- that was the position in 2013, but after the ICO clarification in 2014 we have taken the position that the MoJ is the Public authority

NC - May 2014 - a response to a FOIA also included Judicial College in their response - several years after the Constitutional Reform Act to be a public authority

AW - that was clarified by an ICO in 2014 and then we gave the consistent answer that it was not a public authority

RT - there is a letter in 2017?
AW - it is on MoJ headed paper. It explains the role of the Judicial College in relation to the MoJ

NC - looking at Judicial Studies Board annual report 2006-2007 - outline of the JSBs purposes

And the Activities report of the Judicial College 2020--21

The college is responsible for training judges and magistrates

It is fair to say that the judicial college has one job - to train judges.

Yes - it is responsible to undertake the statutory responsibility of the Lord Chief Justice ...

NC - that is a lot of words - its jobs is to train judges

AW - yes . that is right . the officials in JC are doing their jobs under the supervision of the judiciary and in support of the judiciary

NC training judges is the JC's purpose?

AW - yes
When college staff hold training material they are doing on behalf of judges

NC; the point of a body whose purpose is to train judges holding training materials is to further its own purposes of training judges

AW - yes

NC: and the drawing up of contracts etc...?

AW: we are here as administrators to support judges who decide what external inputs are needed.

NC: the holding of lists?

AW: we hold information to meet the judiciaries needs, on who has done training , what training is needed. We don't report on who has done their training.

NC: and it needs to hold information of how much training costs?

AW: i am responsible for spend. Information is held by MoJ. I don'r report the information on individual training. I look at jurisdictions. High level categories.

NC: it is right that training within the JC is headed up by two directors of training.

AW: I have made a distinction between the judicary and the civil servants. the JC is overseen by judiciary. Directors of Training are judges.

NC: it is a hibred body made up of administrators and judicial appointments?

Isn't it parallel to arrangements in a university between academic staff and administrator - HR etc.. ?

It doesn't mean it is not one organisation

AW: i have not worked in a university. What is important here is the Consitutional Reform Act 2005

NC: the judicial posts - Course Directors, and Training Leads are a key part of the structure of the JC. You couldn't operate without them

AW: they determine the training needs and make sure they are met

NC: they are paid by MoJ and seconded?

AW: not sure - i think they are paid as sitting judges? We don't pay them, I don't think. They still sit 20percent of their time.

NC: paragraph 26 of statement Judicial College recruits judges to positions.

AW: on behalf of the Chair - they are ultimately appointed by the Lord Chief Justice

They have ejudiciary email addresses . Ours are judiciary . uk

They work in offices located at court, as do we at HMCT.

NC: Purely administrative information is held by the MoJ / JC for its own purposes?

AW - yes. it is an arms length body. As part of the judicial office. The relationship is defined by the Constitutional Reform Act

NC: that structure recognises a need for operational independence?

AW: yes

NC; para 38 P 325 - information held by the JC is also held by the MoJ

AW: not all of the same level of detail. The level at which we report on finance is at a higher level than we need day to day.

Time for a break - 10 minutes.