27th September 2025
Freedom of Information campaigner Alan M Dransfield has accused tribunal officials of presiding over a “systemic failure” after being told — just four days before his hearing — to disregard a 650-page bundle and await a last-minute replacement.
Dransfield, a well-known local transparency advocate, says he has been left in the dark about what changes have been made to the key evidence pack and whether new documents have been added or removed.
“This is not just an administrative hiccup — it’s a breach of natural justice,” Dransfield told the Gazette. “Without a change log or an explanation of authority, I cannot be sure the bundle hasn’t been altered in a way that prejudices my case.”
He points out that the last hearing was adjourned because of what he describes as Registrar Richard Bailey’s failure to ensure transparency, security and integrity in compiling the bundle — calling the repeated errors “a shocking breakdown of process.”
Citing Lord Denning’s 1956 principle that ‘fraud unravels all’ and the 1947 Wednesbury unreasonableness ruling, Dransfield argues that the mishandling may go beyond mere incompetence.
“Quite frankly, it appears to be a systemic failure,” he said. “These are not isolated mistakes — they go to the heart of whether the tribunal can guarantee a fair hearing.”
Legal Experts Weigh In
Legal experts contacted by the Romiley Gazette expressed concern.
“Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to a fair hearing. If the documentary evidence is altered or substituted at the last minute without adequate explanation or opportunity to respond, that could amount to a breach of those rights.”
“The overriding objective of tribunals is to deal with cases fairly and justly. That includes ensuring transparency in the evidence process. If a party cannot meaningfully review what is before the tribunal, the hearing may be vulnerable to challenge.”
Dransfield has formally requested either permission to file a supplementary note after reviewing the new bundle or, if significant alterations are discovered, a short adjournment to prevent unfair disadvantage.
Observers say the case highlights wider concerns about tribunal administration nationwide, with some campaigners warning that last-minute document substitutions risk undermining public confidence in the justice system.
The Tribunal has not yet issued a public statement in response to Dransfield’s application.
