We are called to stand together in support when needed and Physical and Spiritual support are both equally important at this time. I hope the hearing room tomorrow is spacious. ❤️
Martin, I don't understand this: “The MOJ does not hold any information in the scope of your request. This is because we are not the appropriate authority on this matter.” How could they not be the appropriate authority on this matter? If they aren't, then which organization could possibly be the appropriate authority? Here in the US we say, "You can't tell the players without a scorecard." Who are the possible players in this convoluted mess of various organizations at various levels, and which of them has appropriate authority for what responsibilities? Is the MOJ actually the appropriate authority and know this and are trying to push away potential liability? Or are the players so numerous and so poorly defined as to their individual authorities and responsibilities that even the MOJ doesn't know which organization (even themselves) actually is the authority for this?
Here in the US, the Supreme Court is defined in the Constitution, but it is the Congress which is responsible for setting up and monitoring the lower courts, the responsibility of the President to nominate people to be judges in that system, and the responsibility of the Congress to impeach and remove corrupt judges. It's round-about but relatively clear, yet even so, many of these have shirked those defined responsibilities for political reasons recently. Our Justice Department has nothing to do with this structure but rather is charged with enforcing the law using this structure of courts and judges.
The use of the term "Ministry of Justice" for the UK can confuse US folks, because it sounds like our term covering the "Justice Department" which has nothing to do with the Judicial System per se. So can you put together a "scorecard" that defines the UK judicial structure for us ignorant rubes in the US so we can follow the players and understand you when you FOI some part of that system for specific information - and don't get that information when you should? Which are confused, which improperly defined, which acting outside of any remit, which avoiding/evading responsibility, which pushing away liabilities, etc.?
Our lovely Sian Jones has a foot in MoJ, HMCTS & Justices Clerks Society….it is the likes of her and colleagues that bat FOI’s around and around with no straight answer, when an answer is provided it is quickly torn apart as garbage, so desperate are they to maintain the lush empire they have created. What we don’t yet know is the driver for any of this (WEF springs to mind, or Tavistock perhaps)
Suspect a big driver is to dehumanise the system , Blair is one of the big players behind this and has done numerous talks on the subject.
Interesting to note that he is currently NOT in the government🤔
The NHS, justice system etc will be run by AI ,hence the need to cover the country in data "farms🤔" all planned for this parliament.
The elephant in the room is what to do with all the people, especially given the rapid changes in 🇬🇧 population and a shrinking jobs market with forever increases in taxation and cost of living.
Exercise Pegasus is planned here in the 🇬🇧 Autumn and the last time they did one of these we had Convid19👍🤝
Thank you for your email dated 22 August 2025, attaching the guidance document titled “Challenges to legality based on court names, LJA titles, and alleged errors in process in magistrates’ courts” (dated August 2025, issued by the Justices’ Legal Advisers’ and Court Officers’ Service, formerly the Justices’ Clerks’ Society). I appreciate you sharing this as “recorded information” in response to ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and correspondence.
However, upon careful review, the guidance appears to be an interpretive opinion piece rather than a definitive legal analysis supported by explicit statutory authority. It dismisses legitimate concerns as “pseudo-legal challenges” and “misunderstandings,” while evading the core question: the absence of legislative basis for using Local Justice Area (LJA) names as court titles (e.g., “East Hampshire Magistrates’ Court”) on summonses and documents, despite hearings occurring at statutory courts like Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court. This practice raises serious issues of procedural validity, transparency, and potential jurisdictional fraud, particularly in revenue-driven Single Justice Procedure (SJP) cases.
To further illustrate these concerns, I attended Southampton Magistrates’ Court on 22 May 2025 and observed two separate court lists posted for the same Courtroom 2: one titled “Southampton Magistrates’ Court” (the statutory name) and the other titled “West Hampshire Magistrates’ Court” (an LJA-derived name). This dual listing exemplifies the vague and inconsistent naming practices your guidance fails to address, providing corroborated evidence of how LJA titles are used interchangeably without statutory justification, potentially misleading litigants and obscuring public accountability.
Below, I provide a structured critique of the guidance, organized by its key sections, now incorporating this Southampton instance as evidence. My analysis draws on statutory references (e.g., Courts Act 2003), case law, prior FOI responses (including yours, Ref 250709054, admitting no recorded information on LJA naming lawfulness), HMCTS/PMC emails (e.g., 3 March 2023 and 15 July 2025, instructing councils without authority), and parallels with Martin Geddes’s Substack articles on “ghost courts” (e.g., “Who Really Runs Our Courts” and “A Dicey Proposition,” highlighting similar jurisdictional anomalies in SJP enforcement).
1. Introduction and Overall Framing
• Guidance Claim: Challenges based on court/LJA names are “pseudo-legal,” waste court time, and stem from “misunderstandings” or “invented technicalities” (e.g., no requirement for “official names”).
• Critique: This dismissive tone mischaracterizes genuine inquiries as frivolous, potentially breaching HMCTS’s duty of candor and public accountability. My concerns are not “invented” but evidence-based: summonses (e.g., my 2023 Fareham Borough Council case) use non-existent LJA titles without statutory backing, leading to unlisted hearings on Courtserve.net and “star-chamber” opacity in SJP processes (3.1 million cases, 2019-2023). The Southampton dual lists corroborate this vagueness—using “West Hampshire” alongside “Southampton” for the same courtroom suggests arbitrary rebranding, not “misunderstandings.” Geddes’s work documents identical “ghost court” tactics in parking fine enforcement (e.g., North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court), arguing violations of ECHR Article 6 (fair trial) and Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (jurisdictional errors). Your guidance provides no explicit legislation authorizing LJA-as-court naming, relying instead on interpretation—consistent with prior evasive FOI responses admitting “no recorded information held.”
2. Summary Section
• Guidance Claim: Magistrates’ jurisdiction is national (post-Courts Act 2003); courts are defined by justices, not buildings; LJAs are for assignment, not jurisdiction; summons rules are minimal, with extras as “surplusage”; errors don’t invalidate (MCA s.123(1)); court names have “no legal significance.”
• Critique: While national jurisdiction is accurate (Courts Act 2003 s.1, amending Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980), this does not justify fabricating LJA titles as courts. Section 8 of the Courts Act 2003 defines LJAs as administrative divisions for organizing magistrates’ work, not judicial entities. No provision (nor in The Local Justice Areas Order 2016) permits their use as court names. Claiming names have “no legal significance” begs the question: why instruct councils (per PMC emails) to use them if insignificant? The Southampton lists show this in practice—parallel titles for one courtroom highlight vague practices that could mislead on court identity, creating procedural defects under CPR Part 7.2 (starting claims) and risks invalidating summonses. MCA s.123(1) protects against “defects in substance or form,” but inventing non-statutory courts exceeds mere error—it suggests systemic fraud for revenue opacity (£100m+ in Southampton courts, 2023-2024). Case law like R v Brentford JJ ex p Catlin [1975] QB 455 confirms jurisdiction from the complaint/charge, but not if the summons cites a fictional court, potentially ousting jurisdiction per Anisminic.
3. The Law - Jurisdiction
• Guidance Claim: Historical territorial limits removed; any court can handle any case; enforcement transferable between LJAs.
• Critique: Agreed on national scope, but irrelevant to LJA naming. The guidance conflates jurisdictional flexibility with naming authority. Transfer protocols (e.g., Cross LJA Protocol) allow movement, but do not authorize rebranding courts. In my case, directions (Amended directions.pdf) inconsistently named “East Hampshire Magistrates Court” and mislabeled as “criminal proceedings” (admitted error by DJ Robinson), highlighting defects. The Southampton example evidences this vagueness—dual LJA/statutory titles for the same session suggest jurisdictional blurring. Geddes notes similar “ghost court” transfers mask accountability, violating constitutional principles (Constitutional Reform Act 2005, Lord Chancellor’s administrative role).
4. The Law - Courts and Justices
• Guidance Claim: Magistrates’ court is the justices (MCA s.148); location determined by Lord Chancellor (Courts Act 2003 s.30); case allocation by directions (s.30(4)), overrideable.
• Critique: True that the court is the justices, not the building—but this underscores the issue: why use LJA titles if the “court” is portable? The guidance evades how this justifies non-statutory names on official documents. S.30 directions specify premises (HMCTS-provided or shared), but no mention of naming. If location is “immaterial,” why not use the actual statutory court (e.g., Portsmouth or Southampton)? The Southampton dual lists demonstrate vague practices, enabling unlisted SJP hearings and eroding public scrutiny.
5. The Law - Court Names
• Guidance Claim: Names have “no legal significance”; standardized for CJS data/computerization (CJS Data Standards Forum); civil parties not bound, obsolete names irrelevant if Rule 98 met.
• Critique: If names are insignificant, why mandate them (per PMC instructions to councils)? CJS standards are for data consistency, not legal creation of entities—yet summonses treat LJAs as courts, implying existence. Rule 98 requires identifying the court office/address, but using fictional LJA names misidentifies the court, potentially violating the rule. In civil cases (e.g., council tax), this isn’t “obsolete” but deliberate: my summons omitted the statutory court, using “East Hampshire” without basis. The Southampton “West Hampshire” list corroborates this vagueness, showing LJA titles used publicly without clear authority. HMCTS’s use of Libra/Common Platform doesn’t legitimize it.
• Critique: Reinforces LJAs as administrative (s.10(3)), yet ignores their misuse as judicial titles. “Elastic” arrangements allow cross-LJA sitting, but not re-naming. This section admits no jurisdictional tie, making LJA naming gratuitous and potentially fraudulent. The Southampton evidence—LJA title alongside statutory for the same courtroom—highlights inconsistent practices lacking statutory support.
7. The Law - Form of the Summons or Requisition
• Guidance Claim: Rules spare (CrimPR 7.4 for criminal; Rule 98 for civil); extras “surplusage”; no signatures/seals required (Rule 98(3)).
• Critique: Rules specify essentials (e.g., offence, court office), but LJA names aren’t “extras”—they falsely represent the court, exceeding surplusage. Absence of signatures is fine, but inventing courts isn’t. In my bundle (2951915 - Bundle D Souza bundle_ 14 Nov 2023), LJA naming without authority compounded errors. Southampton’s dual lists extend this vagueness to public displays.
8. The Law - Summons or Requisition with Errors
• Guidance Claim: MCA s.123(1) conclusive; jurisdiction from information/complaint; case law (Argos [2022], Chopstix [2022], Brentford [1975]) confirms rules non-jurisdictional.
• Critique: S.123(1) covers defects, not inventions. Case law addresses summons flaws (e.g., non-compliance with Rule 7.4), but not fabricating courts. If a summons cites a non-existent entity, it may fail to “procure presence” validly, per MCA. Geddes argues such “ghost courts” constitute jurisdictional fraud, especially in bulk SJP revenue cases. The Southampton instance corroborates systemic vagueness in naming.
In summary, your guidance is interpretive “waffle” lacking statutory proof for LJA naming, relying on evasion and dismissal. The Southampton evidence strengthens this, showing real-world vague practices that undermine transparency.
Writing to Lord Chancellor is a fruitless as writing to Lady Chief Justice…they don’t respond other than through filing your enquiry with the shills at Petty France
We are called to stand together in support when needed and Physical and Spiritual support are both equally important at this time. I hope the hearing room tomorrow is spacious. ❤️
Martin, I don't understand this: “The MOJ does not hold any information in the scope of your request. This is because we are not the appropriate authority on this matter.” How could they not be the appropriate authority on this matter? If they aren't, then which organization could possibly be the appropriate authority? Here in the US we say, "You can't tell the players without a scorecard." Who are the possible players in this convoluted mess of various organizations at various levels, and which of them has appropriate authority for what responsibilities? Is the MOJ actually the appropriate authority and know this and are trying to push away potential liability? Or are the players so numerous and so poorly defined as to their individual authorities and responsibilities that even the MOJ doesn't know which organization (even themselves) actually is the authority for this?
Here in the US, the Supreme Court is defined in the Constitution, but it is the Congress which is responsible for setting up and monitoring the lower courts, the responsibility of the President to nominate people to be judges in that system, and the responsibility of the Congress to impeach and remove corrupt judges. It's round-about but relatively clear, yet even so, many of these have shirked those defined responsibilities for political reasons recently. Our Justice Department has nothing to do with this structure but rather is charged with enforcing the law using this structure of courts and judges.
The use of the term "Ministry of Justice" for the UK can confuse US folks, because it sounds like our term covering the "Justice Department" which has nothing to do with the Judicial System per se. So can you put together a "scorecard" that defines the UK judicial structure for us ignorant rubes in the US so we can follow the players and understand you when you FOI some part of that system for specific information - and don't get that information when you should? Which are confused, which improperly defined, which acting outside of any remit, which avoiding/evading responsibility, which pushing away liabilities, etc.?
Our lovely Sian Jones has a foot in MoJ, HMCTS & Justices Clerks Society….it is the likes of her and colleagues that bat FOI’s around and around with no straight answer, when an answer is provided it is quickly torn apart as garbage, so desperate are they to maintain the lush empire they have created. What we don’t yet know is the driver for any of this (WEF springs to mind, or Tavistock perhaps)
Suspect a big driver is to dehumanise the system , Blair is one of the big players behind this and has done numerous talks on the subject.
Interesting to note that he is currently NOT in the government🤔
The NHS, justice system etc will be run by AI ,hence the need to cover the country in data "farms🤔" all planned for this parliament.
The elephant in the room is what to do with all the people, especially given the rapid changes in 🇬🇧 population and a shrinking jobs market with forever increases in taxation and cost of living.
Exercise Pegasus is planned here in the 🇬🇧 Autumn and the last time they did one of these we had Convid19👍🤝
I’ve got this ready to send to Sian:
Dear Siân Jones,
Thank you for your email dated 22 August 2025, attaching the guidance document titled “Challenges to legality based on court names, LJA titles, and alleged errors in process in magistrates’ courts” (dated August 2025, issued by the Justices’ Legal Advisers’ and Court Officers’ Service, formerly the Justices’ Clerks’ Society). I appreciate you sharing this as “recorded information” in response to ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and correspondence.
However, upon careful review, the guidance appears to be an interpretive opinion piece rather than a definitive legal analysis supported by explicit statutory authority. It dismisses legitimate concerns as “pseudo-legal challenges” and “misunderstandings,” while evading the core question: the absence of legislative basis for using Local Justice Area (LJA) names as court titles (e.g., “East Hampshire Magistrates’ Court”) on summonses and documents, despite hearings occurring at statutory courts like Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court. This practice raises serious issues of procedural validity, transparency, and potential jurisdictional fraud, particularly in revenue-driven Single Justice Procedure (SJP) cases.
To further illustrate these concerns, I attended Southampton Magistrates’ Court on 22 May 2025 and observed two separate court lists posted for the same Courtroom 2: one titled “Southampton Magistrates’ Court” (the statutory name) and the other titled “West Hampshire Magistrates’ Court” (an LJA-derived name). This dual listing exemplifies the vague and inconsistent naming practices your guidance fails to address, providing corroborated evidence of how LJA titles are used interchangeably without statutory justification, potentially misleading litigants and obscuring public accountability.
Below, I provide a structured critique of the guidance, organized by its key sections, now incorporating this Southampton instance as evidence. My analysis draws on statutory references (e.g., Courts Act 2003), case law, prior FOI responses (including yours, Ref 250709054, admitting no recorded information on LJA naming lawfulness), HMCTS/PMC emails (e.g., 3 March 2023 and 15 July 2025, instructing councils without authority), and parallels with Martin Geddes’s Substack articles on “ghost courts” (e.g., “Who Really Runs Our Courts” and “A Dicey Proposition,” highlighting similar jurisdictional anomalies in SJP enforcement).
1. Introduction and Overall Framing
• Guidance Claim: Challenges based on court/LJA names are “pseudo-legal,” waste court time, and stem from “misunderstandings” or “invented technicalities” (e.g., no requirement for “official names”).
• Critique: This dismissive tone mischaracterizes genuine inquiries as frivolous, potentially breaching HMCTS’s duty of candor and public accountability. My concerns are not “invented” but evidence-based: summonses (e.g., my 2023 Fareham Borough Council case) use non-existent LJA titles without statutory backing, leading to unlisted hearings on Courtserve.net and “star-chamber” opacity in SJP processes (3.1 million cases, 2019-2023). The Southampton dual lists corroborate this vagueness—using “West Hampshire” alongside “Southampton” for the same courtroom suggests arbitrary rebranding, not “misunderstandings.” Geddes’s work documents identical “ghost court” tactics in parking fine enforcement (e.g., North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court), arguing violations of ECHR Article 6 (fair trial) and Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (jurisdictional errors). Your guidance provides no explicit legislation authorizing LJA-as-court naming, relying instead on interpretation—consistent with prior evasive FOI responses admitting “no recorded information held.”
2. Summary Section
• Guidance Claim: Magistrates’ jurisdiction is national (post-Courts Act 2003); courts are defined by justices, not buildings; LJAs are for assignment, not jurisdiction; summons rules are minimal, with extras as “surplusage”; errors don’t invalidate (MCA s.123(1)); court names have “no legal significance.”
• Critique: While national jurisdiction is accurate (Courts Act 2003 s.1, amending Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980), this does not justify fabricating LJA titles as courts. Section 8 of the Courts Act 2003 defines LJAs as administrative divisions for organizing magistrates’ work, not judicial entities. No provision (nor in The Local Justice Areas Order 2016) permits their use as court names. Claiming names have “no legal significance” begs the question: why instruct councils (per PMC emails) to use them if insignificant? The Southampton lists show this in practice—parallel titles for one courtroom highlight vague practices that could mislead on court identity, creating procedural defects under CPR Part 7.2 (starting claims) and risks invalidating summonses. MCA s.123(1) protects against “defects in substance or form,” but inventing non-statutory courts exceeds mere error—it suggests systemic fraud for revenue opacity (£100m+ in Southampton courts, 2023-2024). Case law like R v Brentford JJ ex p Catlin [1975] QB 455 confirms jurisdiction from the complaint/charge, but not if the summons cites a fictional court, potentially ousting jurisdiction per Anisminic.
3. The Law - Jurisdiction
• Guidance Claim: Historical territorial limits removed; any court can handle any case; enforcement transferable between LJAs.
• Critique: Agreed on national scope, but irrelevant to LJA naming. The guidance conflates jurisdictional flexibility with naming authority. Transfer protocols (e.g., Cross LJA Protocol) allow movement, but do not authorize rebranding courts. In my case, directions (Amended directions.pdf) inconsistently named “East Hampshire Magistrates Court” and mislabeled as “criminal proceedings” (admitted error by DJ Robinson), highlighting defects. The Southampton example evidences this vagueness—dual LJA/statutory titles for the same session suggest jurisdictional blurring. Geddes notes similar “ghost court” transfers mask accountability, violating constitutional principles (Constitutional Reform Act 2005, Lord Chancellor’s administrative role).
4. The Law - Courts and Justices
• Guidance Claim: Magistrates’ court is the justices (MCA s.148); location determined by Lord Chancellor (Courts Act 2003 s.30); case allocation by directions (s.30(4)), overrideable.
• Critique: True that the court is the justices, not the building—but this underscores the issue: why use LJA titles if the “court” is portable? The guidance evades how this justifies non-statutory names on official documents. S.30 directions specify premises (HMCTS-provided or shared), but no mention of naming. If location is “immaterial,” why not use the actual statutory court (e.g., Portsmouth or Southampton)? The Southampton dual lists demonstrate vague practices, enabling unlisted SJP hearings and eroding public scrutiny.
5. The Law - Court Names
• Guidance Claim: Names have “no legal significance”; standardized for CJS data/computerization (CJS Data Standards Forum); civil parties not bound, obsolete names irrelevant if Rule 98 met.
• Critique: If names are insignificant, why mandate them (per PMC instructions to councils)? CJS standards are for data consistency, not legal creation of entities—yet summonses treat LJAs as courts, implying existence. Rule 98 requires identifying the court office/address, but using fictional LJA names misidentifies the court, potentially violating the rule. In civil cases (e.g., council tax), this isn’t “obsolete” but deliberate: my summons omitted the statutory court, using “East Hampshire” without basis. The Southampton “West Hampshire” list corroborates this vagueness, showing LJA titles used publicly without clear authority. HMCTS’s use of Libra/Common Platform doesn’t legitimize it.
6. The Law - Local Justice Areas
• Guidance Claim: LJAs for assignment (Courts Act 2003 s.10(3)); magistrates deployable flexibly; Cross-LJA Protocol details.
• Critique: Reinforces LJAs as administrative (s.10(3)), yet ignores their misuse as judicial titles. “Elastic” arrangements allow cross-LJA sitting, but not re-naming. This section admits no jurisdictional tie, making LJA naming gratuitous and potentially fraudulent. The Southampton evidence—LJA title alongside statutory for the same courtroom—highlights inconsistent practices lacking statutory support.
7. The Law - Form of the Summons or Requisition
• Guidance Claim: Rules spare (CrimPR 7.4 for criminal; Rule 98 for civil); extras “surplusage”; no signatures/seals required (Rule 98(3)).
• Critique: Rules specify essentials (e.g., offence, court office), but LJA names aren’t “extras”—they falsely represent the court, exceeding surplusage. Absence of signatures is fine, but inventing courts isn’t. In my bundle (2951915 - Bundle D Souza bundle_ 14 Nov 2023), LJA naming without authority compounded errors. Southampton’s dual lists extend this vagueness to public displays.
8. The Law - Summons or Requisition with Errors
• Guidance Claim: MCA s.123(1) conclusive; jurisdiction from information/complaint; case law (Argos [2022], Chopstix [2022], Brentford [1975]) confirms rules non-jurisdictional.
• Critique: S.123(1) covers defects, not inventions. Case law addresses summons flaws (e.g., non-compliance with Rule 7.4), but not fabricating courts. If a summons cites a non-existent entity, it may fail to “procure presence” validly, per MCA. Geddes argues such “ghost courts” constitute jurisdictional fraud, especially in bulk SJP revenue cases. The Southampton instance corroborates systemic vagueness in naming.
In summary, your guidance is interpretive “waffle” lacking statutory proof for LJA naming, relying on evasion and dismissal. The Southampton evidence strengthens this, showing real-world vague practices that undermine transparency.
Writing to Lord Chancellor is a fruitless as writing to Lady Chief Justice…they don’t respond other than through filing your enquiry with the shills at Petty France