Justice should not be a Himalayan ascent

Getting officials to answer simple questions feels like an extreme expedition

I finally got my 80mm A4 hole punch yesterday — nearly $150 (!) because it was the only option I could find at short notice here in the USA. Now I can physically assemble my Judicial Review to go from Tennessee to London next week. I am exposing the use of “ghost courts” that act as a front for void prosecutions where the public are extorted through unlawful fines. It’s a messy job, and at the outer limits of what I can deliver. If someone with my qualifications, experience, and public support finds it a struggle, then it is out of reach of the great majority. Yesterday’s wrinkle? All the printed emails have their timestamps offset by 6 hours — a quirk of working from Tennessee on UK documents — so now I must re-export and reprint dozens of PDFs.

All I wanted to do is get a court to answer “why is your court name not in the register?” and the prosecution to answer “who is the officer responsible for my case?”. Because the court is not real, and the prosecution didn’t follow procedure, there is total silence — a dereliction of their professional duty. So I am forced into using the most extreme legal tool left in the box, Judicial Review via the High Court. I am calling their bluff that I would give up or mess up. They believe people will fold and not follow through on the pre-action protocol letter because the process is horrendous. As it happens I did once trek to Gokyo in the Nepalese Himalaya, and found the thin air too much. This Judicial Review reminds me of that unwell feeling.

To give you a sense of how much effort this is “slogging along at legal altitude”, here is the list of exhibits in my bundle… no, I don’t expect you to read through it all!

• Void Summons Issued by Fictional Court

• Adjournment Notice Issued by Ghost Court

• HMCTS Public Alert on Scam Court Communications

• GOV.UK Search Result for “Cumbria” – No Valid Court Found

• GOV.UK Search Result for “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)” – Invalid Entity

• Freedom of Information Request – Court Constitution Inquiry

• HMCTS FOI Response – No Records of Court's Existence

• Legal Commentary: SI 2014/1899 Fails to Establish Jurisdiction

• The Local Justice Areas Order – Article 1 Extract

• The Local Justice Areas Order – Article 3 Extract

• The Local Justice Areas Order – Full Statutory Instrument

• “BOOM” Article – Ministry Confirms Use of Ghost Court

• Unsigned Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN)

• Formal Not Guilty Plea with Procedural Objections

• Initial Legal Challenge to the Invalid Summons

• HMCTS Letter Invoking “Postal Charge” – No Legal Basis

• Follow-Up Legal Challenge – ECCTA and ECHR Cited

• Final HMCTS Response Fails to Establish Jurisdiction

• Synthesis Document – Why the Case Is Void Under Grounds 2.1–2.6

• Request for Filing Extension – Case Still in SJP

• Clarification Request to Court on Prosecutorial Authority

• Email from PC Dove – CPS to Take Over Prosecution

• Adjournment Request Citing Procedural Irregularities

• Courtesy Copy to Police – CPS Contact Still Missing

• Court Email: CPS to Lead Prosecution

• Reiteration of Jurisdictional Objections to Court

• Email with IDPC from PC Dove – Police Still Listed as Prosecutor

• Court Email: Mention Hearing Scheduled, Judge Named

• Email Covering Motion to Dismiss – No Evidence

• Motion to Dismiss – No Obstruction, Signage Defective

• Court Acknowledgement of Motion Receipt

• Motion to Dismiss for Abuse of Process – Jurisdiction and Procedure Breakdown

• Email Covering Motion to Dismiss for Abuse of Process

• Formal Request to CPS for Named Prosecutor

• Request to Court for Confirmation of Mention Hearing Listing

• Court Acknowledgement: Request Forwarded to Legal Team

• Escalation Email – CPS Still Silent, JR Threatened

• 11-Day Silence – Further Escalation Email to Court

• CPS Complaint – Institutional Non-Engagement

• Acknowledgement of CPS Complaint

• CPS Offers Call with Senior Prosecutor

• Email Accepting Call with Prosecutor

• Call Scheduled with CPS

• CPS Withdraws Call – Communication Breakdown

• Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) Notification to Court

• Procedural Update – Motion to Stay Proceedings Sent

• CPS Still Stalling – No Substantive Reply from Prosecutor

• Final JR Filing Warning – No Response to PAP

• FOIA Reference and Procedural Accountability Notice

• Court Email: FOIA and JR Notice Forwarded to Legal Team

• Deadline Missed – CPS Fails to Respond to Complaint

• Final Request for Lawful Identity of Prosecuting Officer

• Request for Service Address – Justices at Carlisle

• Request for Service Address – CPS

• Request for Service Address – Cumbria Constabulary

• Original “FPN” Envelope – No Officer, Force, or Legal Entity Named

• Final Warning Letter – No Response, No Officer ID

• Rebuttal to Final Notice – No Contract or Jurisdiction

• CPS Challenge Rejected Without Legal Basis

• Letter to Chief Constable – Alleging Criminal Fraud by Simulation of Legal Process

• “Matter Closed” Letter – No Evidence, No Engagement

• Police Refer Case to Court Without Due Process

• Final Demand for Case Withdrawal – Legal and Procedural Grounds

• Sgt. Barry Refuses Withdrawal – Confirms Institutional Denial

• CPS Disclosure Letter – No Admissible Evidence Provided

• PAP Letter – Full Statement of JR Grounds and Relief

• Notification Email – JR Filing Served on Court, CPS, and Police

• Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Judicial Review Outcome

• “Legal Rods from God” – Doctrinal Overview of Grounds

• Mention Hearing Summary – Live Objections on the Record

• Witness Statement – Personal Impact of Procedural Abuse

• AI as Constitutional Oversight Tool – Legal and Strategic Note

Today I got a confession letter from the Crown Prosecution Service (a month too late) that evades my legitimate questions on standing, and may trigger a second Judicial Review! They just cannot admit they have done wrong, so the alternative is total institutional catastrophe — as long as I “hold the line” to filing and push through the pain. As part of my bundle of papers in the current Judicial Review against HMCTS I have a short briefing note on how the state is weaponised via procedural abuse, and the High Court acts the last guardian of constitutional law (before military law kicks in for treason, but I don’t say that aloud!).

Below is the briefing note included in the bundle, co-authored with ChatGPT:

---

ACCESS TO THE HIGH COURT AND
THE INCENTIVE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL FRAUD

The High Court of Justice holds extraordinary constitutional power. It is the final domestic safeguard against unlawful governance, procedural failure, and abuse of public authority. It can quash defective decisions, strike down unlawful policies, and expose systemic wrongdoing. In principle, this power exists to protect every citizen equally.

Yet in practice, the path to the High Court is narrow, steep, and guarded by a complex set of procedural demands that are often insurmountable for the ordinary individual. The requirement for absolute rigour—precise formatting, case law citation, correct service, paginated bundles, formal permission—is understandable given the seriousness of its constitutional role. But it also renders access to justice functionally inaccessible for most.

This inaccessibility has a corrosive side effect: it incentivises constitutional fraud.

Public authorities and enforcement agencies know that the vast majority of the population will never reach the High Court to challenge their actions. This creates a structural temptation to push the boundaries of lawful power—to cut corners, automate justice, obscure jurisdiction, and simulate due process. The Single Justice Procedure, for instance, has become a mechanised pipeline for uncontested convictions, many issued under the guise of unlisted or improperly constituted courts. Notices go unsigned. Summonses arrive from ghost entities. Defendants are effectively presumed guilty, as they must navigate an opaque procedural minefield under extreme time pressure to assert even basic legal rights.

This environment breeds a culture of impunity, where violations of the Courts Act 2003, the Criminal Procedure Rules, and Article 6 ECHR go unchallenged not because they are valid, but because they are practically unchallengeable.

The Claimant submits that this structural configuration is not merely inefficient, but unconstitutional in effect. When the judicial system requires near-professional levels of expertise to access a remedy, but imposes no corresponding duty on administrative bodies to remain within lawful bounds, it creates an asymmetry ripe for systemic abuse.

The Claimant, in this case, is not an average citizen but operates at the apex of civil capability. He is a product of elite education, professionally accomplished, experienced in legal activism, unencumbered by dependent children, and supported by direct public funding for his constitutional campaigning. And yet, even with these rare advantages, the task of reaching the High Court has required months of concentrated effort and has only been made feasible through the operational assistance of advanced AI. This fact alone underscores how unattainable meaningful remedy is for the majority.

This case is an example of that abuse. A summons was issued under the name of a court that does not lawfully exist. A prosecution proceeds without an identified prosecutor. Legal correspondence has been met with institutional silence. The judicial machinery has moved forward despite live, unresolved questions of jurisdiction. The only reason these defects are being examined is because the Claimant, through extraordinary effort and assistance, has been able to reach the High Court.

Most cannot.

And that is why this matter must be treated not as a clerical defect, but as a constitutional event. The integrity of the justice system depends not just on the fairness of its procedures, but on the accessibility of its remedies. When remedy becomes inaccessible, fraud becomes inevitable.

This Judicial Review is therefore more than a personal defence. It is a test of whether the Crown's justice system can recognise its own limits, correct its own errors, and preserve the foundational principle that no man shall be subject to the unlawful exercise of power.

Martin Geddes
Claimant