Bronwyn Jones, writing for Birn, re-hashes the tired fiction and distortions of truth that for so long have been circulated by the EU press.
Her article is presented as an objective, unbiased opinion. It is anything but that. Bronwyn Jones does not refer in her article to comments of persons with whom she spoke who attest to my professionalism. She does not include in her article my comments in response to her allegations. These she conveniently omits because they do not serve to further the purpose of her story which is to distort the truth.
Bronwyn Jones refers to the disciplinary investigation that was initiated against me by the very people I had accused of serious misconduct. Let’s look at the facts.
The panel comprised three members. They were selected by the very persons I had accused of misconduct. One was even subordinate to a person I had accused of serious misconduct.
So confident was the board in its belief the perverted process would not be subject to external scrutiny that its members did not even try to give the process any vestige of credibility.
– The only witnesses heard were witnesses called by the board;
– None of the witnesses proposed by my solicitors was called to give evidence;
– Witness statements submitted by my solicitors were ignored by the board;
– I was not permitted to be present when the board interviewed the witnesses it had called to give evidence. Instead, I was sent what the board described as a “resume” of their evidence;
– I was not permitted to cross-examine witnesses;
– I had no opportunity to ask my own questions;
– The only documentary evidence the board would accept were documents it had requested;
– Exculpatory documents submitted by my solicitors were not accepted by the board;
– I had no opportunity to make any oral submissions to the panel.
Was this a ‘fair and impartial’ tribunal?
The disciplinary investigation against me was commenced AFTER a fellow EULEX judge had obtained emails hacked from my private email account. Those emails revealed that I was a whistle blower and that since 2013 I had reported serious misconduct to both the UK Foreign Office and to the EU Anti-Fraud Agency.
I demanded an independent investigation into the hacking of my private emails. That request was refused. Instead, an internal investigation was conducted by EULEX. When I insisted that person’s I knew to be in possession of my private emails be interviewed, including a former judge of the European Court of Justice, I was informed by EULEX that the investigation into the hacking of my private emails had been “closed”. I was given no explanation. I demanded to see the investigation file to see what steps the investigators had taken and who had been interviewed. That request was initially refused. When I was eventually given access to the investigation file, it contained only one document: the notification informing me the investigation had been closed.
There was no independent investigation into the hacking of my private emails – despite repeated requests of the UK FCO.
The senior staff members who initiated the investigation against me were in possession of my hacked private emails. They were persons I had accused of serious misconduct. Indeed, they were the same persons who refused to initiate an independent investigation into the hacking of my private emails. It is also alleged that one of persons I accused of manipulating the investigation against me had interfered in an investigation involving senior staff of another EU mission. It was further alleged the same senior member of staff had attempted to frustrate an investigation into corruption.
Bronwyn Jones ignored my invitation to investigate those allegations. Fair-minded people reading this article will form their own opinions.
