top of page
Search

CA-2023-000750 - Panigrahi v Prime Minister of UK

CA-2023-000750 - Panigrahi v Prime Minister of UK

Inbox


from: Shantanu Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com>

to: Northkent <northkent@justice.gov.uk>

cc: waynecrowhurst@vyman.co.uk

date: 9 Oct 2023, 14:14

subject: Fwd: CA-2023-000750 - Panigrahi v Prime Minister of UK

mailed-by: gmail.com


To

Magistrates

North Kent Magistrates Court

sitting at Medway Magistrates Court


Your Honour


Further to the clarifications that I provided as linked here: Re: Auto-Reply from Folkestone Magistrates Court Complaint expanded (knowledgeassessmentanddissemination.com) https://www.knowledgeassessmentanddissemination.com/post/re-auto-reply-from-folkestone-magistrates-court-complaint-expanded; APOLOGY AND DUE COMPENSATION PAYMENT TO ME (knowledgeassessmentanddissemination.com) https://www.knowledgeassessmentanddissemination.com/post/apology-and-due-compensation-payment-to-me-2 I have received the following email from the Court of Appeal that I find distorting in that the matter referred to the Court not only specified the criminal activities of Kent Police and court officials at North Kent Magistrates Court and Folkestone Magistrates Court that the Court has removed from its decision identifying the jurisdiction issue that it is concerned with which in itself is ambiguous in that it indicates that I have a right to appeal the Parfit/Lightman decisions at the High Court but not at the Court of Appeal; further by making the subject of the email what it is, it further adds salt to injury that the Magistrates would please take into account and adjudicate.


As a layman, this email is designed to protect the criminal activities of successive Judges against me from the time of the inception of Claim E35YM660 at the CCMCC through its passage in the various stages of its progress in the Court of Central London, including Judge Bachkous, Judge Lentham, Judge Parfit, Judge Lightman plus some unnamed judges. I am supposed to accept this injustice against me that is solely the overall responsibility of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to ensure that the government has in place a viable judicial and law-enforcement system.


Please once again let me know whether the Medway Magistrates Court or the Folkestone Magistrates Court is processing my Defence against Speeding, stalking/harassment, and malicious communications that I have yet to be served court summons for.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Civil Appeals - Registry <civilappeals.registry@justice.gov.uk>

Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 10:44

Subject: CA-2023-000750 - Panigrahi v Prime Minister of UK

To: shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com <shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com>



Dear Sir/Madam,


“Further to your correspondence regarding your dispute of the jurisdiction directions given in this matter, it was referred to Lady Justice Andrews for a review of the jurisdiction directions given by the Jurisdiction Lawyer.


Lady Justice Andrews directed as follows, following referral by the Jurisdiction Lawyer:


“As far as I can see the District Judge made an order which Dr Panigrahi then sought permission to appeal to the Circuit Judge (the correct route). HH Judge Lethem refused permission on the papers and because there is a right to seek reconsideration at an oral hearing, Dr Panigrahi then made a further application which was refused by HH Judge Parfitt. I agree with your decision that the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction in this case.


You are right that the Court of Appeal cannot entertain an appeal against the District Judge's original order; an appeal lies only to a Circuit Judge sitting in the County Court pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2016. Dr Panigrahi rightly sought permission from the Circuit Judge.


You are also right that no court (including the Court of Appeal) has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the refusal of permission to appeal - the refusal of permission is the end of road. Section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act makes that clear.


The proviso to s.54(4) preserves the rules of court which allow an oral renewal of an application for permission to appeal to a judge of the same level as the judge who refused on paper. That right was abolished in the Court of Appeal but not in the lower courts. In essence the telephone hearing before Judge Parfitt was an oral hearing of the same application for permission to appeal as was refused by Judge Lethem (it is termed a reconsideration, see CPR 52.4(2)).


There simply is no right of appeal against paragraphs 1 and 2 of HH Judge Parfitt’s order because it is a refusal of permission to appeal and that means the end of the road for the would-be appellant.


However, paragraphs 3 and 4 of HH Judge Parfitt’s order are not within the prohibition in section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act because, although they are ancillary to the refusal of permission to appeal, they are discrete orders and therefore can be appealed with permission. That position, in relation to a costs order and refusal of an adjournment, was confirmed by this Court in Riniker v University College London (Practice Direction) [2001]1 WLR 13. Any such appeal would lie, with the permission of Judge Parfitt or a judge of the designated appeal court, in this case, the High Court, to a High Court Judge and not to the Court of Appeal.


There is no power to re-open the refusal of permission either: see Gregory v Turner [2003] EWCA Civ 183 where this court decided that even if the circuit judge was wrong to refuse permission to appeal against the decision of the district judge the disappointed party had no means of redress.


Accordingly, my view is that the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against Judge Parfitt's order.”


Many thanks.

Tahsin Khan (She/Her)

Court of Appeal| Civil Appeals Office| HMCTS | Royal Courts of Justice| London| WC2A 2LL

Web: www.gov.uk/hmcts

HM Courts & Tribunals Service logo

Here is how HMCTS uses personal data about you.


This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

One attachment

• Scanned by Gmail

____________________________________________________________________

Automatic Response

Inbox


from: northkent <northkent@justice.gov.uk>

to: Shantanu Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com>

date: 9 Oct 2023, 14:14

subject: Automatic Response

mailed-by: justice.gov.uk

Signed by: justice.gov.uk

security: Standard encryption (TLS) Learn more

: Important according to Google magic.


Thank you for your email.

We have received your query and will ensure that the relevant person deals with it as soon as possible.

Please do not re-send your query, as this will not result in it being dealt with any sooner.

Please note: Court staff are not legally trained and so are unable to offer legal advice.

If you are uncertain how to proceed, information can be found at www.gov.uk. If you are in doubt it is best to seek professional legal advice from a solicitor or Citizens Advice Bureau.

Need to make a complaint? Get started here: https://www.resolver.co.uk/hmcts-complaints/


This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

10 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

コメント


bottom of page