“1. In his decision notice IC-317819-Z0F4 (DN), the Information Commissioner (IC) has impliedly adopted the unacceptable approach from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), to group together (”bulk disposal”) of 8 separate information requests which are of different nature and contents; 2. The blind-adoption of the undue “grouping-together”/”bulk-disposal” is evidence, of bias by the IC in favour of the MoJ. 3. The appellant’s 8 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) requests erroneously “bulked”/”grouped” together: to refer to each of the (a) 240509031, 240509029, 240521056 – asking for names and oaths of numbered paragraphs in the decision or notice and give Judges; (b) 240513021, 240509030 – asking about info. re. due process/administration of justice; (c) 240514008, 240405043, 240513020 – asking for the existence of valid orders; 4. It goes against logic to undertake to group/bulk them: it was undertaken by the MoJ in order to avoid the discharge of their duties under the FOIA 2000, and that approach was wrongly overtaken by the IC; 5. It is also evidence of arbitrariness: had the 8 complaints not been made by the appellant within a period of several weeks, but rather stretched them over a period of several months/years, the MoJ would not have been able to adopt their vexatious “grouping”/”bulking” together separate complaints; 6. In his decision notice IC-317819-Z0F4, the IC has adopted an approach hostile to openness and transparency, hostile to information access, and thus harmful to the open justice principle, and harmful to the trust in the judiciary branch; 7. In his DN, the IC has fallen way behind the handling of Freedom of Information requests in the United States of America (USA): whereas in the USA it is the most normal thing to not only make a FOIA-request (1) for the full name of any judge, (2) for the full oath that any Judge has taken (and to request written confirmation), (3) for the insurance-bond that any particular judge has as required by law, but the oath and bond can even be requested and verified in the Judge’s office itself in many places; 8. It should not be a big issue at all for members of the public to be able to enquire who is sitting in judgement, which oath they have sworn when, whether they are duly insured – these are the minimum requirements for the rule of law, which each and everyone must be able quickly and efficiently verify regarding any given case, as a precondition to participate in proceedings in full trust; 9. The IC with its approach hostile to transparency, rule of law, individual and public rights, is showing a worrying tendency to create a gap/divide between the jurisdictions and civil socities e.g. of the UKon the one hand, and the USA, Australia, etc.– not only on the background that there is only one universal Common Law, this approach by the IC is erroneous - IC risks that the UK “decouples” and falls behind (vis-à-vis its peer-group); 10. IC's hostility to the open justice principle, contrary to UKSC case law;”
“1. The 8 individual complaints to the IC, must be separated, and looked at and decided separately by the IC: some of them have nothing to do with others, and are of an entirely different nature and character and contents than others; 2. The 8 individual complaints (once separated again by this Tribunal) should be referred back to the IC, to be decided one-by-one under separate case-numbers/separate decision notices; 3. It should be generally established by the Tribunal that in future the request for names of Judges, their oaths and their bonds, should be a “no brainer”, should be an information request which the MoJ in the interest of rule of law, open justice, should answer swiftly, completely and without months of delay, nor without possibility for the MoJ to "hope" for the IC to assist relation to the request for information them with any hostility to transparency and information freedom in an open society and regarding open justice; The same should be done regarding the request to the existence of valid orders; And with regards to requests concerning info. re. due process, etc.; 4. This Tribunal may want to encourage the IC to generally adopt an information-access-friendly approach (intransparency, concealment, bias, procedural-manipulations (and/or the impression thereof) is not helpful, nor acceptable.”