Of course I complained to the Judicial Office of Scotland about Sheriff Johnston's prejudice and disregard of the facts but they didn't uphold my complaint so I shall be asking for a review of that decision by the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Mr James Mollison.
The Judicial Office for Scotland in their email of 10 April 2025 to me claim that my "complaint falls to be dismissed under rule 8(3)(b): is about a judicial decision" of the "Complaints About the Judiciary (Scotland) Rules 2024."
However, my complaint was not about a "judicial" decision but a prejudicial decision, that is to say, an exercise of prejudice, not judgement, on the part of Lesley Johnston, who was clearly prejudiced against any utterance by me certainly (and possibly by anyone else) in her court of the word "Paki" regardless of the facts of the context in which I use the word, as I explained in brief in my email of complaint to the Judicial Office for Scotland 28 March 2025 and I quote -
"Sheriff Johnston didn't want to hear me speak the word "Paki" whose use is at the heart of this case - the crux of the matter. She seemed to be prejudiced about my use of the word "Paki" in court, even when I made it clear I meant the word as a shortened form to refer to Pakistanis, the Pakistani diaspora or Pakistan as the case may be. The word "Paki" per se seemed to jar with her sensibilities regardless of what I meant by the word.
Her response to my use of the word "Paki" seemed Pavlovian, as if she was behaving in a conditioned manner, conditioned to censor any utterance of the word regardless of the context.
Sheriff Johnston insisted that the facts referred to in my "Minute for the Accused" could not be considered at this stage of the proceedings which didn't seem to mesh with Sheriff Foulis's previous decision of 25th February to invite me to submit an Application by Minute which, as far as I can see from the legislation, which I can quote even if I am not a lawyer but a scientist, is supposed to be an application in a form which consists of a statement of facts as well as the other items.
See Act of ACT OF SEDERUNT (SHERIFF COURT ORDINARY CAUSE RULES) 1993 No.1956 (S.223)SCHEDULE 1, Initiation and progress of causes, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/1956/made
CHAPTER 14 APPLICATIONS BY MINUTEForm of minuteAlthough Sheriff Johnston claimed to have read my "Minute for the Accused" before the hearing, she didn't seem to display any understanding or appreciation of my usage of the word "Paki", as detailed in the document and she wouldn't allow me to read through it which would have taken about 45 minutes - apparently much too long for a Sheriff who had already made her mind up after a quick read through on her own, before the hearing.
14.2. A minute to which this Chapter applies shall contain-
(a) a crave;
(b) where appropriate, a condescendence in the form of a statement of facts supporting the crave; and
(c) where appropriate, pleas-in-law.
A prejudiced sheriff and a sheriff who is not interested in the relevant facts of a case is not a good sheriff, in my opinion, sorry, so I don't want Sheriff Johnston to have any more dealings with this case if that is possible?
March 25th was a very unsatisfactory hearing which I don't think advanced the cause of justice one iota."
The Judicial Office for Scotland's email shows the Judicial Office misapplying the rules.
Lesley Johnston in not allowing me to read through my Application by Minute, wilfully disregarding the relevant facts of the case, did misconduct the proceedings.
Since Lesley Johnston was personally presiding over the court hearing then her misconduct of the proceedings amounts to her personal misconduct too.
When my use of the word "Paki" is the crux of the case then it is wholly wrong-headed for the Judicial Office for Scotland to claim -
"The Sheriff is entitled to limit the use of certain language that could be considered offensive within the courtroom if she saw fit to do so".
WRONG!
My point is there was NO "consideration" of my language by Sheriff Johnston. The only person in the court room who had carefully considered my use of the word "Paki" was me. No-one else there was allowed by Lesley Johnstone to hear my carefully prepared Application by Minute for precisely such a consideration of my use of language.
Lesley Johnston did not "consider", but merely exercised her prejudice. She did NOT consider the facts of my usage of the word "Paki". She simply didn't want to hear the word "Paki" uttered in her court precisely to prevent detailed consideration by the court of the facts as to how I am using the word "Paki" in court and on-line.
Lesley Johnston didn't know and she didn't want to learn the relevant facts for the appropriate considered judgement of crux of the case. She set her face against any fair consideration of my language when she decided not to allow me to read from my Application by Minute.
Lesley Johnston decided on the basis of her prejudice about the word "Paki" which she had before she unjustly censored me because she did not want to "hear" nor "consider" what any judicially-minded Sheriff was duty-bound to hear and to consider.
In a court of law, my use of the word "Paki" is protected by the law of human rights and freedom of expression, but Sheriff Johnston was NOT applying the law to the facts in a judicial fashion but simply exercising her prejudice about the word injudiciously.
In a court of law, NO Sheriff is "entitled" to disregard the law and the relevant facts of a case.
That's where the Judicial Office for Scotland is entirely wrong in their "The Sheriff is entitled .." statement as they apply it to Lesley Johnston somehow being "entitled" to limit my use of the word "Paki" within the courtroom.
Not in a court of law where I have the presumption of innocence and I am attempting to defend my own use of the word "Paki" in a case where the use of that word is the central matter at issue - the crux - does Lesley Johnston, nor any other Sheriff, have any such "entitlement" to presume the offensiveness of my words without knowledge of the facts of how I use the word.
This is a quote from my Application by Minute
SNOWFLAKEFact. "Snowflake" is a derogatory slang term for a person, implying that they havean unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly emotional, easily offended,and unable to deal with opposing opinions.See - “Snowflake (slang)” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_(slang)
