Issued! The "little quo warranto" before the "big one"

My Judicial Review claim, seeking due process before fine enforcement, is live

On Friday I wrote about my exhaustion after a marathon paralegal effort to file a Judicial Review. The claim seeks to remedy the “ghost order” behind a fine being enforced from a “ghost court” — itself the subject of a separate legal action. Well, the claim finally went live today and has been served on the defendant. But, as ever, nothing in this saga is simple or smooth.

Administrative Ping-Pong

On Monday I received a rejection notice from the Administrative Court in Manchester, saying the claim should have been filed in Leeds. (The rule is that you must file in the venue with the closest connection to the case.) I wrote to Leeds to confirm whether that was correct, since the decision under review comes from the Lancashire office of HMCTS — which is, geographically and administratively, in the North West, same as Manchester. Leeds promptly bounced me back to Manchester, disclaiming jurisdiction.

Manchester then refunded my filing fee, tacitly admitting their error. There’s no mechanism to transfer claims between offices at the issue stage, nor any way to “undo” a refusal; once rejected, the payment token dies. So I had to file again, pay again, and wait weeks for the original £174 to be returned — a meaningful hit to cash flow. Thankfully, I could reuse the same uploads rather than rebuild the docket from scratch.

The Manchester office never replied to my earlier request for venue confirmation, so I refiled blind and hoped for the best. Two days later, the claim was issued, allowing me to serve it. Even then, the process was painful — another clunky PDF form that looks different in Preview and Acrobat, with text boxes too small for the data they demand.

The Claim That Shouldn’t Exist

The government may ignore the claim, contest permission, accept some validity and settle, or seek to strike it out. Their response is not my concern. The claim should not even exist — a fine is being enforced without the lawful paperwork granting authority. This is textbook ultra vires. HMCTS didn’t even follow its own procedures when answering my pre-action letter.

The case’s significance is that it’s the “little quo warranto” — “show me the warrant for my conviction and fine” — which leads inevitably to the “big quo warranto”: “show me the warrant for the court named on the legal instrument.” HMCTS openly admit to issuing paperwork under non-statutory court names, relying on obscure procedural rules to “cure” these universal defects. But if you name a non-court, there’s nothing to cure. It’s just artwork in the post — with legalese words printed on it.

Ghost Courts and the Rule of Law

This is the first time the State has had to properly account for itself in nearly a year of battling maladministration and misconduct. Twice I’ve been blocked from testing the “ghost court” hypothesis in the High Court — once with a non-issued but valid Judicial Review in May, and again with a non-processed but valid “Case Stated” appeal in July. HMCTS is trying to outrun the High Court and enforce before any determination is made. Today’s Judicial Review preserves the appellate path.

Viewed against the backdrop of Digital ID and social credit technologies, the implications are chilling. The state can already issue criminal punishments in the name of courts that don’t exist in law — and face no accountability. There’s no requirement for authenticated paperwork, nor any obligation to respond to requests for proof of authority. Every route to remedy — complaints, appeals, disclosures — is sealed off by procedural obstruction. Now imagine that system fully automated. The prospect is dystopian.

Fighting for the Basics

What I’m fighting for is the most basic principle of constitutional order: that everyone, including the State, is bound by law, not mere habit or administrative convenience. That “ghost courts” and “ghost orders” have become normal practice signals a need for correction, not acceptance. My ability to push back exists only because of a rare combination of circumstances — personal, financial, and technological — and because of your continued support.

The cost is visible in my health, physical and mental. This is worse than prison in many ways — at least prison would be legible, with a start and an end, and perhaps some anthropological insight into a different world. I can easily see how others facing such relentless institutional abuse might slide into despair or illness. I genuinely wonder how many functionaries can do this work and still sleep soundly.

What Comes Next

I’ve requested an expedited schedule for the State’s acknowledgment of the claim and sought interim relief via a temporary stay on enforcement — including any committal for non-payment of a non-fine to a non-court. Constitutional litigation of this kind by a solo litigant is rare. It’s intellectually rewarding, but heavy on the soul. I’m hoping for a few days’ rest now that the main filing is done.

Next comes the Part 8 civil claim — the general public law test of whether the Justices’ Clerks’ Society doctrine (“court names have no legal meaning”) can withstand scrutiny. The Government Legal Department’s deadline for its “round three” response is tomorrow. Hopefully today’s Judicial Review will make clear that this is not a bluff: the law must be clarified. Are the public entitled to legible, lawful court names — or not?

Let’s see what happens.

I need to get out and restore myself with something creative!