A legal phantom creates real liabilities

Legal analysis of a rare constitutional clash in an English magistrates' court

On 11 June 2025, I attended a hearing at Carlisle Magistrates’ Court — and declined to participate in any trial on the merits. Why? Because the proceedings were void. The issuing entity, “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752),” does not exist in law. Everyone present — judge, clerk, prosecution — was on notice. They knew the risk. They pressed ahead regardless. I stood alone as the only lawful actor in the room.

This is not a common scenario. It’s an unprecedented one: a live legal nullity, with witnesses, a paper trail, and the State continuing — eyes wide open — to violate civil rights in order to secure a conviction at any cost. That conviction was duly delivered. But the story is not over. It’s only beginning.

The Core Issue: Phantom Courts and Void Convictions

This case isn’t merely about traffic paperwork. It’s about whether the rule of law still applies in England.

A conviction has now been handed down from a non-court, for a non-crime, with no admissible and particularised evidence served, and no lawful summons. The pretense of legality collapsed months ago. What remains is a procedural farce animated by institutional fear and authoritarian muscle memory.

The judge relied on an invented legal theory: that Magistrates’ Courts form a "national network", so any name will do. That is not how jurisdiction works. A legally constituted court must be established under s.1 of the Courts Act 2003. No such court exists under the name used. That void cannot be glossed over by improvisation or judicial wishful thinking.

---

LEGAL ANALYSIS: The Collapse of Constitutional Process

1. Jurisdictional Defect: Void Ab Initio

The entire proceeding was null from inception. The summons was unsigned, unstamped, unsealed. It named a court that does not legally exist.

• Legal Foundation: A tribunal not created by law has no authority. See R v Rochford Justices, ex parte Buck [1979] Crim LR 659.

• Implication: No court = no jurisdiction = no lawful proceedings = no valid outcome.

The judge’s rationale that “Magistrates’ Courts are national” is irrelevant. Jurisdiction is not presumed by organisational intent, but conferred by statute.

2. Rebutting the Presumption of Regularity

The Crown leaned on the Latin maxim omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta — that things are presumed to be done properly. That presumption was shattered.

• I issued a Pre-Action Protocol letter, initiated Judicial Review, and repeatedly objected on the record.

• CPS failed to produce legal authority for the “court”. The bench avoided addressing the issue altogether.

See R v Brentford Justices, ex parte Catlin [1975] QB 455 — a presumption collapses when the facts suggest otherwise.

3. Abuse of Process: Entrapment by Design

The system set up a Catch-22:

• Refuse to engage? You're punished.

• Engage? You legitimise a void process.

The court refused a stay, refused escalation, and refused to adjudicate jurisdiction. It punished integrity and rewarded compliance.

See R v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42 — a stay is proper when the rule of law is being undermined.

4. Judicial Bias and Procedural Unreasonableness

This judge presided over previous hearings and dismissed all jurisdictional arguments out of hand — with smirks, sighs, and scorn.

• No rulings on Case Stated or dismissal requests.

• Repeated criticism for not filing a skeleton in a void process.

See Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67 — would a fair-minded observer suspect bias? Undoubtedly.

The behaviour met the Wednesbury test for unreasonableness: failing to engage with a fundamental defect in process.

5. Prosecutorial Misconduct: Concealment and Silence

The CPS:

• Claimed to have served a legal opinion — then admitted they hadn’t.

• Ignored written requests for court authority.

• Declined to engage meaningfully throughout pre-trial.

This conduct breached both the CPS Code (para 2.4) and CrimPR 16.6.

In Rowe and Davis v UK [2000] ECHR 91, suppression of exculpatory material was found to violate Article 6 ECHR. The same principle applies here.

6. Trial Irregularities

You declined to offer evidence or cross-examine, holding your ground on jurisdiction.

• PC Smith: Offered little clarity and no formal tickets.

• Ms Lightfoot: Stayed in court after giving evidence and interacted with witnesses — a CrimPR 24.4 violation.

• DL1 (the notice): Unsealed, unsigned, returned “addressee not recognised”.

The judge ignored the Interpretation Act 1978 s.7 requirement for valid service. No rebuttal was offered.

7. Verdicts and Sentencing

• Obstruction: Not guilty (the judge couldn’t determine who caused it).

• s.172(3) RTA 1988: Guilty — based on presumed service of DL1/DL2 despite known defects.

Penalty:

• £1574 total: £650 fine, £650 costs, £264 surcharge.

• 6 penalty points.

Issue:

• Costs excessive. Magistrates should cap to actuals.

• Sentence vulnerable if conviction is voided on appeal or JR.

8. Article 6 ECHR Violations

• No lawful tribunal (Coëme v Belgium).

• No fair trial due to suppressed evidence.

• Defence obstructed (Hussain v UK).

Conclusion: Rule of Law or Rule of Farce?

When a court can be conjured into existence by administrative fiat, when summonses arrive from ghost entities, when trials are conducted while challenges to jurisdiction are pending, and when verdicts follow despite unrebutted procedural collapse — then the rule of law is dead.

What remains is procedural theatre. The costume of justice. And a citizen — now convicted — who knows too much, and will not go quietly.

Next Steps: Offensive Countermeasures

• Judicial Review (JR1 against the Court updated and re-filed; JR2 against CPS imminent)

• Appeal to Crown Court or High Court on points of law

• Professional Complaints against judge, clerk, and CPS

• Freedom of Information Act requests to expose administrative coordination

• Complaint to regulatory bodies (Judicial Conduct, CPS Inspectorate)

• Petition to MP and Parliamentary instruments

Final Word: Stand Where They Expect You to Kneel

There is nothing more they can do to me — but much I can do to them. I now move from defence to attack. Every pretence of lawful conduct has been stripped away.

It’s my turn.

Summer evening light