"Case Stated": the hidden legal crowbar

An rarely used tool in the legal toolkit could force unconstitutional acts into the open

A case being stated, albeit in a different context!

One of the most enjoyable recent uses of AI has been exploring obscure legal instruments applicable to my case against a corrupt prosecution in Carlisle. AI surfaced between 75 and 120 legal options, with dozens potentially relevant. Among them, one stands out as both underused and powerful: Section 111 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, which enables a "Case Stated" appeal to the High Court. This article explains why it matters.

The Statutory Power

Parliament foresaw that magistrates’ courts might exceed their authority, so it embedded a legal safety valve:

(1) Where a party to any proceedings before a magistrates' court is dissatisfied in point of law with a decision of the court, he may, within 21 days from the date of the decision, apply to the court to state a case for the opinion of the High Court on the ground that the decision is wrong in law or is in excess of jurisdiction.

(2) It shall be the duty of the magistrates’ court, subject to subsections (4) and (5), to state the case accordingly and to sign and send it to the High Court.

This is distinct from a Crown Court appeal, which re-hears evidence and examines factual guilt (“I didn’t do it”). In my case, I never conceded jurisdiction: the summons was issued by a “ghost court” with no statutory existence — potentially a criminal fraud. My defence is that no lawful court exists under that name. A Crown Court appeal remains available, but the Case Stated is the correct path to challenge a constitutional abuse of jurisdiction.

Rare, but Impactful

Of approximately 7,000 Crown Court appeals annually, only around 100 Case Stated applications are filed — fewer than half succeed. Why? Because most defendants focus on evidential or procedural appeals, not systemic illegality. But with the law now increasingly simulated — using “colour of law” without lawful authority — the constitutional path is unavoidable. Case Stated enables civil rights violations to be exposed. The High Court is forced to either rectify them or endorse the abuse — either outcome clarifies the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the system.

How It Works

The process involves submitting legal questions to the magistrates’ court, which must draft a formal “case stated” for the High Court to answer. These questions must concern points of law, not disputed facts. This is ideal in a situation like mine: can a court issue a conviction under a fictitious title that does not legally exist? The magistrates must state their legal reasoning — or refuse on grounds of frivolity:

(5) If it appears to the magistrates’ court that the application is frivolous, it may refuse to state a case, and shall give its reasons for doing so.

If they do refuse, an application can be made to the High Court for an order compelling them to comply. Section 111(6) makes clear that the High Court holds costs discretion:

(6) If the High Court gives its opinion on a case stated by a magistrates’ court, it may make such order as to costs:

• including the costs of the case stated, and

• of the hearing before the magistrates’ court,

as it thinks just.

Unlike Judicial Review, there is no permission stage: this is a direct right of appeal. JR addresses systemic issues; Case Stated targets a specific judicial failure. I intend to use both. Once convicted for a paperwork offence, I have standing to use every lawful tool to expose unlawful state automation.

Call to Arms

Below is a training version of a real Case Stated, AI-processed for clarity. It is not a complete submission, but a template for others. It would be a shame — ahem — if people began to challenge unlawful summonses, liability orders, and administrative convictions using this route. Even a rejection as “frivolous” becomes evidence of stonewalling, and proof of public good faith.

---

CASE STATED – ABBREVIATED TRAINING VERSION

Title: Geddes v Justices at Carlisle Magistrates’ Court
Court Ref: [CASE NUMBER]
Offence: Failure to provide driver information (s.172(3) Road Traffic Act 1988)
Conviction Date: 11 June 2025
Applicant: Martin Geddes
Sentence: £1,574 and 6 penalty points

1. INTRODUCTION

The Applicant, Martin Geddes, was convicted under the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) for allegedly failing to provide driver information under s.172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He now challenges the lawfulness of the entire process. The issues raised go to the heart of judicial constitution, proper issuance of summonses, procedural fairness, and jurisdictional integrity under English law.

2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL

(i) No Lawfully Constituted Court
The Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN) named “North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court” while the subsequent summons named “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752).” Neither of these entities appears in the HMCTS venue register or is designated as a criminal court under s.1 of the Courts Act 2003.

A Freedom of Information (FOI) response from the Ministry of Justice confirms that “North and West Cumbria” is merely a local justice area. No statutory instrument designates it as a criminal venue. The “(1752)” suffix is an administrative code, not a lawful court name. This invalidates any exercise of jurisdiction under that title.

(ii) Void and Defective Summons
Both the SJPN and summons lacked a court seal, officer or magistrate signature, or identification of any lawful issuing authority. Under CrimPR 4.7 and 7.2(1), a summons must be issued by a proper officer or justice and identify the issuing court. These defects render the process void ab initio.

The documents were instead issued in the name of the Chief Constable of Cumbria Police, who lacks legal standing to act as an issuing authority. The Applicant argues that no valid criminal process can arise from unsigned and unauthenticated paperwork lacking lawful provenance.

(iii) Jurisdictional Challenge Ignored
The Applicant raised the jurisdictional objection:

• In correspondence from December 2024 onwards;

• In a Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) letter dated 11 April 2025;

• At the Mention hearing and again orally at trial on 11 June 2025.

Despite this, the court refused to make any ruling on jurisdiction and instead pressed ahead with trial proceedings. The bench dismissed the objection with the phrase “no merit,” without addressing the substantive legal evidence submitted.

This refusal to inquire into jurisdiction violates natural justice and reverses the proper burden: the court assumed jurisdiction before proving it. The judge even required Geddes to give his name before hearing his objection—an inversion of procedural logic and legal authority.

(iv) Breach of Boddington Principle
Per Boddington v British Transport Police [1998] AC 143, a defendant is entitled to challenge the legality of administrative action in the forum where it is enforced. Geddes presented a formal jurisdictional objection supported by statutory references and FOI evidence showing no such court existed.

The justices failed to engage with these arguments or refer to statute. Instead, they proceeded without explanation, undermining both the legitimacy of the trial and the Applicant’s right to lawful adjudication.

(v) Procedural Unfairness and Article 6 ECHR
The proceedings violated the principle of legal certainty under Article 6(1) of the ECHR. The Applicant was never clearly told which judicial body had jurisdiction. The varying titles used in SJPN and summons documents—none with statutory grounding—created legal ambiguity that prevented:

• A valid venue challenge under CrimPR 9.2;

• Identification of a court capable of being held to account;

• Basic comprehension of the tribunal’s authority.

This lack of legal identity obstructs the Applicant from seeking redress or costs, further compounding the breach of procedural fairness.

3. QUESTIONS FOR THE HIGH COURT

1. Was “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)” lawfully constituted under the Courts Act 2003?

2. Does the absence of a lawful issuing authority — including missing seals, signatures, and officer names — void the SJPN and summons?

3. Did the justices err in law by refusing to determine a jurisdictional challenge presented in writing and orally?

4. Did failure to respond to the Applicant’s pre-trial objections and formal legal correspondence constitute a breach of natural justice?

5. Can justices physically sitting in Carlisle exercise lawful jurisdiction under a fictitious or undesignated court name?

4. RELIEF SOUGHT

The Applicant respectfully requests:

• That a case be stated for the High Court on the above questions;

• That enforcement of the conviction be stayed under CrimPR 34.7(3);

• That the conviction be quashed as void ab initio;

• That costs be awarded under s.111(6) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.

---

Final Thoughts

In reality, you’ll need a full bundle and supporting exhibits — but this template gets you most of the way there. As public trust erodes and institutional actors bend procedure to revenue objectives, it’s time to use every lawful mechanism to resist. Case Stated isn’t new — but it’s newly essential. Let this be the year this statutory scalpel finds its rightful place in the toolbox of every conscientious citizen confronting manufactured (in)justice.

At the seaside yesterday in Whitby taking a break from legal affairs