Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

10. What information will you be relying on, in support of your application?

[Z] the attached witness statement


[Z] the statement of case
D the evidence set out in the box below
If necessary, please continue on a separate sheet.

Statement of Truth
(I believe) (The applicant believes) that the facts stated in this section (and any continuation sheets) are true.

Signed Dated 16 January 2017


Applicant

Full name Jonathan Edward Bishop

Name of applicant's legal representative's firm

Position or office held


(if signing on behalf of firm or company)

11. Signature and address details

Signed Dated 16 January 2017


Applicant

Position or office held


(if signing on behalf of firm or company)

Applicant's address to which documents about this application should be sent


Celyn Cottage If applicable
8 Heol-y-Parc Phone no. 0845 3887859
Efail lsaf
Taf Ely Fax no. 07092 107212
DX no.
Postcode I CI FI 3 I 8 I I 1 IA I NI Ref no.

E-mail address jonathanbishop@jonathanbishop.com


2
Defendant

Doctor Mike Reddy


Kennedys LLP
Broomhay House
Blackbrook Business Park
Taunton
TA1 2PX

Interested Party
University of South Wales
Kennedys LLP
Broomhay House
Blackbrook Business Park
Taunton
TA1 2PX
A CASE IN THE CARDIFF COUNTY COURT
CASE NUMBER:
C00PD346

B E T W E E N:

Jonathan Bishop
Claimant

Doctor Mike Reddy


Defendant

and
University of South Wales
Interested Party

CLAIMANTS WITNESS SATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF N244 APPLICATION

1. The Claimant applied for alternative route PhDs with the Interested Party which was
reviewed by the Defendant in a matter the Claimant believes amounts to negligent
misstatement. The Claimant is based in Pontypridd and has obtained a number of
degrees from the Interested Party, making him eligible for an alternative route PhD.

2. The Defendant is a senior lecturer with the Interested Party.

3. The Interested Party is a higher education institution based in Pontypridd.

Orders Requested

4. A protective costs order.

5. A declaration that this is a Part 8 Claim - What happened is not disputed only whether
they amount to negligent misstatement.

6. The defendant to be directed to complete the Scott Schedule ahead of the hearing of
25 January 2017.
Reasons for Requested Orders

7. The Claimant expresses concern about the appointment of Kennedy LLP as the
counsel for the Defendant and any costs they might claim. The Claimant does not feel
it appropriate for the case - and his opportunity to gain a PhD - to be delayed because
of the Defendant's counsel's lack for experience. For instance, they said they wanted
their N244 application to be made without a hearing and then said they wanted it
decided at the hearing of 25 January 2017.

8. The Claimant, whose profession is an In-House Counsel responsible for bringing


litigation as well as being an expert witness, therefore applies for a protective costs
order on the following grounds:

a. The case relates to a matter general public importance insofar as universities


should be treating applicants fairly, including by their staff not promising to
supervise students if they have no intentions of doing so or by staff making
academic judgements on areas where they are not totally familiar with the
terminology and other salient factors.

b. The public interest requires that these issues should be resolved so that when
students work towards a degree, including an alternative route PhD, that they
can do so in confidence that they are not doing so when the inevitable outcome
is they will not have the opportunity to undertake such studies.

c. The Claimant would ideally not want to claim compensation from the applicant,
get an injunction, nor claim costs, if the Defendant were to agree to a consent
order that the Claimant would drop the case and the Defendant would withdraw
the reports he gave to the Interested Party in 2015, 2016 and any others in
previous years that the Claimant is not aware of.

d. It would make more sense for the Defendant to agree to withdraw his reports
to the Interested Party via a consent order rather than a protracted case with
significant costs materialise.

e. The Claimant, a litigant in person, is a person of limited means, unlike the


Defendant, and so would not be able to continue the case if it were a Part 7
claim subject to more than one 90-minute hearing. The use of a Scott Schedule
can be fair to both parties and make it easier for the judge to conclude the case
quickly without a protracted set of hearings.
9. The Defendant believes it is totally inappropriate for the Defendant's counsel to try to
extend this claim beyond Part 8 and beyond a single 90-minute hearing. There is no
dispute of fact. The Defendant did what is set out in the Scott Schedule. What is at
dispute is whether those actions amount to negligent misstatement, which the court
can decide within 90 minutes. The Claimant therefore asks to court to direct that the
Defendant complete the Scott Schedule and submit evidence in support of the
statements he records on that Scott Schedule ahead of the hearing of 25 January
2017.

10. The Claimant has complied with the court order of 15 December 2016 to prepare and
file a closed bundle by 16 January 2017, which is 7 days ahead of the hearing of 25
January 2017. The Claimant has included the letters he has received from the
Defendant's counsel as evidence from the Defendant, which has not been submitted
despite being requested on 17 December 2016. The Claimant therefore requests that
the Defendant's counsel's request for an extension of time be refused, as instead all
the Defendant needs to do is respond to the Scott Schedule ahead of the hearing of
25 January 2017, which was requested from the Defendant on 6 January 2017. The
Defendant was also informed of the contents of the Scott Schedule on 17 December
2016.

Statement of Truth

11. The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this claim are true.

Signed by the Claimant

Dated: 16 January 2017


BSc(Hons), MSc, MScEcon, LLM,
FRSS, FRAI, FRSA, FInstAM, FCLIP, FBCS,
SMIEEE, MIMarEST, MACM, MIET, MCIJ,
CITP, MarTech,
AACS.

17 December 2016
Andrew Crocombe
Kennedys LLP
Broomhay House
Blackbrook Business Park
Taunton
TA1 2PX
Dear Mr Crocombe,
Re: Your Client Doctor Mike Reddy
I refer to your request for me to fully particularise my claim against Doctor Mike Reddy for
negligent misstatement. I believe Doctor Mike Reddy has committed negligent
misstatement for the reasons in the following table.

Role of examiners and university When university staff are assessed for PhDs it is
The implication of this application is normal for two externals to be appointed to avoid
that all that is wanted is the conflict of interest. MRs PhD should have been
appointment of external examiners, examined by two externals. If it was not, then
which does not set a suitable standard of that explains its poor standard.
ownership by this institution; The
implication of this application is that all In 2016 I applied for a PhD in Education not in
that is wanted is the appointment of Computing. MR should not have been involved.
external examiners, which does not set a augmentive technologies are common in
suitable standard of ownership by this education not computing. An augmented e-
institution; [] a portfolio route still learning system is augmentive if it reduces the
should have some work to be achieved at complexity of information into a form accessible
the host institution. (2016) by a person in real-time through a display. Not all
The methodologies used in this project augmentive systems are augmented.
are not ideal for a submission to a
Computing PhD, and ethical concerns are There is nothing in the universitys rules that says
not addressed appropriately, given that a PhD by Portfolio has to be conducted at the
service users are potentially referred to. university. It is very rare for non-standard route
(2016). PhDs open to former students to require
Use of AR with service users, such as university attendance as this is only required at
those with social disabilities, is certainly institutions where the non-standard route is only
of interest, but would be better placed in open to staff. If MR was telling the truth only staff
a different discipline, where adequate could ever be eligible for a PhD by Portfolio as
methodologies and ethical most graduates work off-campus on graduation.
considerations would have been better
managed. (2016)
Jonathan Bishop
Ty Morgannwg, PO Box 674, Swansea, SA1 9NN
0845 3887859 @jonathanbishop
www.jonathanbishop.com jonathanbishop@jonathanbishop.com
BSc(Hons), MSc, MScEcon, LLM,
FRSS, FRAI, FRSA, FInstAM, FCLIP, FBCS,
SMIEEE, MIMarEST, MACM, MIET, MCIJ,
CITP, MarTech,
AACS.

Lack of expertise in assessor Because MR says (sic) in reference to


I have reviewed the letters and the augmentive it proves he does not have the
proposed thesis An Investigation into expertise to look at the submission. augmentive
the use, application and evaluation of refers to systems that present complex
assistive and augmentive (sic) information simply. It is different from
technology (2016) augmented systems.
Bias Supervisors MR transferred to the PhD by Portfolio after
I have experience of portfolio PhDs, failing to complete a PhD by Thesis. His PhD is at a
being one of, if not the first to gain a PhD poor standard, and if it was only examined
by this internally that explains why. His Portfolio cannot
route in 1999. (2016) compare with Professor Mark Goodes for
reference is made to part-time doctoral instance.
elements contributing to the portfolio;
specifically that of Dr David Martland, The reference to past supervisors was based on
but also Prof Mark Goode, as it is unclear what was submitted in MRs PhD. MR transferred
what role/resource was being referred to Portfolio PhD from a Thesis one and did not
to. (2016) state the role of his former tutors.
Bias Commercialisation The projects submitted as part of MRs PhD have
The three projects are only partially not been commercialised by him. Therefore, he
justified in terms of their commercial should not require mine to be.
applicability, but little research at PhD
level has been undertaken, and the The level of detail of the projects was at the same
academic impact of these products is not intensity at in MRs PhD. Technical reports are
clearly indicated. (2016) low quality, not peer-reviewed and unpublished.
Technical reports or work in progress MR fudged his PhD by cobbling together the
(WIP) papers are not included in the reminiscents of his post-breakdown PhD. No
portfolio, leaving the main report to matter how many times he tries to convince
cover the complexities of each project in himself, his PhD was not at a high standard.
both more and less detail than ideal.
(2016) MR cannot talk about quality. None of those
Succinctly, the writing quality of this works submitted in his PhD were followed up. He
work is not up to standard for a PhD did not write one line of code for his PhD in
submission, and would require extensive Computing. An Education PhD, as I applied for,
additions and rewriting, as well as does not have these requirements, only
substantial new work in reflecting upon computing ones do.
and verifying claims of the various sub-
projects. (2016).
Bias Links between the projects MRs PhD consists of loosely connected projects
As the author himself suggests an also. For instance, caching is not artificial
overarching link between the distinct intelligence, it is a mechanical process. caching
areas might be weak. (2015) is not done by an AI agent, it is a software
Jonathan Bishop
Ty Morgannwg, PO Box 674, Swansea, SA1 9NN
0845 3887859 @jonathanbishop
www.jonathanbishop.com jonathanbishop@jonathanbishop.com
BSc(Hons), MSc, MScEcon, LLM,
FRSS, FRAI, FRSA, FInstAM, FCLIP, FBCS,
SMIEEE, MIMarEST, MACM, MIET, MCIJ,
CITP, MarTech,
AACS.

The structure of the section on GRANDIR process. MR did not write one line of actual code,
is unclear, being apparently a split his work was purely conceptual. He cannot
between Comprend and AVEUGLE, which criticise the linking of my works when his were
appear to be distinct sub-projects, and not obviously linked either.
yet no reference to the overarching
concept of GRANDIR is present in MRs PhD contains concepts with names like
discussion of the individual papers. The GARP, CAST, CoCo-POP and AMNESIA
VOIS section, while lightly better making up RAPIDO so why can he do it and
referenced, still consists of sub-projects then say I cant?
that dont appear to have a common
source of inspiration, consisting of Vois,
MEDIAT AND VoisOver. (2016)
PROTEGER also raises concerns over
appropriate ethical consideration, which
has not been properly addressed. It too
consists of three sub-projects PAIGE,
VoisSafe and VoisJet, which bear naming
similarities with the previous project
VOIS that are not easily connected
under the umbrella of the project title.
This fragmentation, evident in the two
previous projects as well, is a deep
concern for a PhD by Portfolio route,
being too disconnected in the report to
be a strong submission. (2016)
Gross Offence MR cannot lecture me about doctoral level
However, the diversity of disabilities submissions. I have over 75 peer reviewed
covered seems too ambitious and thinly publications when as MR has less than 14
spread. Lack of effective supervision according to Google Scholar. From the same
might be to blame for these failings. The source, I have 768 citations for my publications
whole section on critiquing the three whereas MR only has 81. My top paper has 304
projects would need to be extended a citations whereas MRs has 38. My application
great deal before this proposal was of was checked over by Professor Mark Goode prior
sufficient rigour for doctoral level to submission, who has a PhD by Published Works
submission, with too little critical (Portfolio/Publication combined). Mark Goode is
appraisal. (2016) far more experienced and qualified than MR.
Allegations Plagiarism It is normal in PhDs by the alternative route to
Several sections of this proposed report include the abstracts from the publications being
are cut and pasted from other materials, submitted and their conclusions. In many EU
which although they appear to be countries it is the norm for a portfolio of
authored by the proposer, should not publications to be synthesised into a single thesis.
Jonathan Bishop
Ty Morgannwg, PO Box 674, Swansea, SA1 9NN
0845 3887859 @jonathanbishop
www.jonathanbishop.com jonathanbishop@jonathanbishop.com
BSc(Hons), MSc, MScEcon, LLM,
FRSS, FRAI, FRSA, FInstAM, FCLIP, FBCS,
SMIEEE, MIMarEST, MACM, MIET, MCIJ,
CITP, MarTech,
AACS.

have been reproduced verbatim in a It is equally rich for MR to talk about self-
document intended for submission as an plagiarism when he had the same paper
academic piece of work. Although they published three times with just different titles
might not constitute self-plagiarism it is and abstracts.
not unreasonable for written work to be
unique to a PhD submission, or properly Equally, many of the works in MRs PhD thesis
quoted and referenced. (2016). were co-authored with Graham P Fletcher. Seeing
as MR has produced hardly any publications since
Furthermore, on page 9 (of 197) the getting his PhD in 1999, one might question
author acknowledges that elements of whether Graham P Fletcher was more than a bit
the first project were submitted to the helpful in producing these primarily non-peer-
MSc in eLearning at Glamorgan. Issues reviewed publications.
such as these would need to be clarified
as work can only be assessed for one
award. (2016).
Deceit MR must have read the publications to know that
Publications submitted as part of the the abstract and conclusions had been
portfolio are not included in the draft transferred into the thesis. He is then prevented
report, so it is only possible to comment from claiming he has not read the papers which
on the suitability of titles submitted, and could not be added because the universitys
the overarching themes that they admission system does not allow uploads of more
represent. (2016). than 10 megabytes. Unlike those submitted as
Several sections of this proposed report part of MRs PhD, all the publications are in the
are cut and pasted from other materials, public domain, including at
which although they appear to be http://research.crocels.com - papers 7 to 12 in
authored by the proposer, should not MRs PhD By Portfolio are not included, meaning
have been reproduced verbatim in a the criticisms applied by MR to my application
document intended for submission as an apply to his awarded PhD by Portfolio.
academic piece of work. Although they
might not constitute self-plagiarism it is
not unreasonable for written work to be
unique to a PhD submission, or properly
quoted and referenced. (2016)
Bias: Reference to quality/rigor The vast and overwhelming number of MRs
Daniel and I discussed this proposal publications submitted to his PhD are not in high
today. We are not satisfied that the quality sources. They are technical reports that
quality of the publications is of are not even in the universitys library.
sufficient standard to be the basis for a One of MRs colleagues, Fiona Carroll, has three
portfolio PhD; quantity is not an issue, IGI Global publications. Of all the publications
but the publishers of most of the papers submitted by USW to the conferences I attend
have been questioned as dubious in the since 2015 none were accepted as at the correct
Jonathan Bishop
Ty Morgannwg, PO Box 674, Swansea, SA1 9NN
0845 3887859 @jonathanbishop
www.jonathanbishop.com jonathanbishop@jonathanbishop.com
BSc(Hons), MSc, MScEcon, LLM,
FRSS, FRAI, FRSA, FInstAM, FCLIP, FBCS,
SMIEEE, MIMarEST, MACM, MIET, MCIJ,
CITP, MarTech,
AACS.

past (2015). quality. What is dubious is not IGI Global, but the
fact MR fudged his PhD by Portfolio by claiming
The majority of publications are not in the work from his failed PhD by Thesis were
peer-reviewed and esteemed journals or technical reports. IGI Global publications,
conferences, many being published by IGI including in the 5 books I edited for them, are
Global and do not, therefore, show the peer reviewed. The fact I am able to edit books
diversity and strength of papers required shows my academic abilities.
for a PhD Publication route. Furthermore Indeed, I am more experienced at research than
they are not supportive of a Portfolio MR, so I do not need to be supervised. I work for
route either, because they do not mesh a research institute called Crocels
well with the three proposed projects; www.crocels.ac.uk.
there is a lack of rigour in the papers,
which would be present in supervised The publications I submitted which focus on the
and properly reviewed publications. It practical application of technologies which the
should be noted that none of the papers Portfolio route is for are at a far higher standard
presented is co-authored. (2016) than those cobbled together by MR in his PhD
which was a fudge because he lacked the ability
In light of the shortfall in various to do a PhD by Thesis, which he had a breakdown
aspects of this report, the from doing. The PhD by Portfolio route he
inappropriate/incomplete methods and transferred to was a cop-out as most of the
reflections on the publications submitted were not published or
various sub-project elements, and the peer reviewed. This is the pot calling the kettle
fragmented nature of the report, I would black.
not consider this work to be suitable for
submission as a PhD by Portfolio. The
quality of publications submitted in
support of this proposal are not
sufficiently
rigorous. (2016)

Harmful recommendations The portfolio was reviewed by Professor Mark


The request that this be fast tracked Goode who has a PhD by Published Works
straight through to examination, and the (portfolio plus publication). Mark Goodes
lack of direction that could be judgement is far greater because he has 10s more
given to ongoing or new remedial work publications and citations than MR and his PhD
required to make good the various contained mainly peer reviewed journal papers. If
weaknesses in the submitted material, all MRs fudge of a PhD is up to standard then so is
contribute to my expert opinion being mine which is at a higher quality because my
that this work is not suitable to be publications were published whereas MRs were
so-called technical reports which he did not write
Jonathan Bishop
Ty Morgannwg, PO Box 674, Swansea, SA1 9NN
0845 3887859 @jonathanbishop
www.jonathanbishop.com jonathanbishop@jonathanbishop.com
BSc(Hons), MSc, MScEcon, LLM,
FRSS, FRAI, FRSA, FInstAM, FCLIP, FBCS,
SMIEEE, MIMarEST, MACM, MIET, MCIJ,
CITP, MarTech,
AACS.

accepted as a potential PhD project. one line of code for and which is not available for
(2016) inspection at any library I have tried to find
them and I am a Fellow of CILIP.
Requirement for supervision When I applied for the 2015 PhD by Portfolio, MR
There is also the issue of capacity. I am said he did not have supervisory capability. In
in the process of accepting a new PhD 2016 he is saying he is taking on a new student. It
student as Director of Studies, and with was reasonably foreseeable in 2015 that he
other would have a vacancy in 2016.
commitments would not feel comfortable
taking on this student. I would want a
significant involvement in new work,
hosted at USW, to be comfortable of the
quality of the portfolio, but am not able
to commit to the supervision required to
undertake management of this research,
given resources for other duties.
Disability Discrimination Autism References to wanting to mould me are totally
Neither of us want such an apparently inappropriate. Firstly, MR has already had the
straightforward process, both wishing chance to mould me when he supervised my
rather to mould and develop any PhD MSc Thesis and MSc Independent study. But, far
students we would supervise. We don't more importantly, MR knows that I have autism
feel that would be possible in this case. and this means I have rigid and repetitive
(2015) patterns of behaviour. He should know trying to
mould me into something I am not would cause
me great distress. It is not appropriate to use
non-academic criteria when deciding whether to
admit someone for a PhD.
Bias / Conflict of interest The 2015 application was based on making the
It might be possible for the student to proposal fit to the modules taught by MR and
study for a PhD by Daniel Cunliffe and also those publications in
the traditional route - i.e. 3+ years, their CV. Therefore it is malicious to say they have
starting a thesis from scratch - but I no interest in the subject area.
believe that Daniel would be These two reports from MR were pre-admission.
unwilling to supervise the author, and I If he had issues with me he should have
have reservations, having worked with withdrawn from assessing my application due to
him before. [] no matter what the conflict of interest. If he and Daniel Cunliffe did
merits of this potential student are. We not want to supervise me in 2015 he should not
believe that he had selected us on the have reviewed my application in 2016. My 2016
basis of prior familiarity rather than application were based on linking my publications
technical or specialist to Masters degrees awarded by the education
department. They were therefore outside the
Jonathan Bishop
Ty Morgannwg, PO Box 674, Swansea, SA1 9NN
0845 3887859 @jonathanbishop
www.jonathanbishop.com jonathanbishop@jonathanbishop.com
BSc(Hons), MSc, MScEcon, LLM,
FRSS, FRAI, FRSA, FInstAM, FCLIP, FBCS,
SMIEEE, MIMarEST, MACM, MIET, MCIJ,
CITP, MarTech,
AACS.

knowledge/research, which does not scope of a PhD in Computing, which MR could not
seem appropriate (2015). supervise me for as it is not his area, evident by
him not knowing augmentive is a word.
The book How to get a PhD says it is helpful if
ones undergraduate tutors supervise ones PhDs.
And in 2011 MR said that being part of a
community is important and acknowledged this
was difficult for me as someone with autism.
Harassment / Victimisation This shows a clear intention to try to damage my
We don't believe that a revised proposal chances of securing a PhD by portfolio in a
would be useful at this stage, and would different discipline to Computing. If MR did not
appreciate further like me then he should not have reviewed my
communication with the author being application. It is quite clear that because he does
discouraged by you when you contact not like me for whatever reason he should not
him. (2015) have been involved in assessing my application as
with other commitments would not feel it was inevitable he would give me a bad report.
comfortable taking on this student. It would equally have been obvious that if he did
(2016). not like me in 2015 that his opinion would not
change by 2016. In emails since 2015 he said he
wanted nothing to do with me. He should not
have reviewed the 2016 application as he had a
conflict of interest.
Allegations: Professional misconduct This allegation that I have not followed the
the publishers of most of the papers publishers review process is bordering on
have been questioned as dubious in the defamation. It is questioning my professional
past, and the author's role as editor may integrity and allegations like this should not be
have conflicted with the proper peer used to deny me a professional qualification as
review process. (2015). they are untrue and unproven.

I intend to submit a bundle of evidence to the court in support of the above particulars,
so would be grateful if you could confirm whether your client wishes to add anything to it.

I will look forward to receiving your reply within 14 days. If you have any queries or
questions then please contact me on jonathanbishop@jonathanbishop.com or 0845
3887859.

Yours faithfully,

Jonathan Bishop

Jonathan Bishop
Ty Morgannwg, PO Box 674, Swansea, SA1 9NN
0845 3887859 @jonathanbishop
www.jonathanbishop.com jonathanbishop@jonathanbishop.com
The Crocels Community Media Group
Ty Morgannwg, PO Box 674, Swansea, SA1 9NN
Tel: 01792 345105 Fax: 07092 1072123
Web:www.crocels.net Email: info@crocels.net

6 January 2017

Andrew Crocombe
Kennedys LLP
Broomhay House
Blackbrook Business Park
Taunton
TA1 2PX

Dear Mr Crocombe,

Re: Jonathan Bishop v Doctor Mike Reddy

I refer to your recent communications.

I'm in no rush for an oral hearing and would prefer Doctor Reddy to respond to the attached Scott
Schedule included with my claim form.

I think there was some misunderstanding in that when the case was transferred to Cardiff it wasn't until
a late stage the court realised that Pontypridd had not formally issued the claim.

When I served the claim, I put the University address down for Doctor Reddy, but you should have
received the documents on behalf of the University as an interested party in any case. Doctor Reddy
might not have received it when it was formally issued to the university address on 29 December 2016.
If Pontypridd had issued it before transferring it, he would have received it before the Christmas break,
as would have you.

Yours faithfully,

Jonathan Bishop LLM