Procedural silence is confession of guilt

How my parking case turned into a constitutional meltdown of national significance

Most readers will be familiar with the saga that began when I parked my van next to a bush — a notorious non-crime — triggering a criminal prosecution that has since exposed a theatre of legal simulation. I received notices purportedly from the police with no issuing name or institution; a notice that might be from a court, and asks for personal information, but doesn’t reveal who the sender is or who is processing my data; and a summons from a “court” that is in name only, not in law. I started asking awkward questions last December, pushed harder in March, and now in May I am days away from filing a Judicial Review in the High Court.

There is a two month blackout of meaningful communications from the police, court, and prosecution — the case has self-evidently collapsed as I have exposed foundational voids in both jurisdiction and standing, let alone the lack of evidence of a crime to answer for. The state’s machinery of automated revenue enforcement is exposed as a scam. Normally, when confronted with stonewalling like this, ordinary people give up, or comply to make it go away. My job is to be “not ordinary”, and document the institutional silence as a form of confession to guilt. It is painful to endure: the case should have been dropped ages ago.

Anyone bringing this case to trial under these circumstances risks professional rebuke for misconduct, civil liability for acting ultra vires, and even criminal exposure for misfeasance and fraud.

Yesterday’s surprise wrinkle was discovering American two-hole paper punches have a different spacing to European lever arch folders. Can’t buy an 80mm one locally. It wasn’t easy to find something online that would do the job and could be delivered quickly enough. Each day’s admin is a slow grind through complex PTSD from years of trauma and mind games. What keeps me going is not to get justice for myself, but to do my bit to protect others from this kind of predatory and unethical behaviour. All I did was ask the police to authenticate ambiguous correspondence, the court to prove its lawful existence as it was unlisted, and the prosecution to prove their standing. They instead chose to steamroller me and seek conviction via procedural fraud.

Oops.

Here’s the opening statement in my Judicial Review. Should catch the attention of a High Court judge!

---

FRAMING STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM
(Geddes v Justices at Carlisle – URN 03NN0597324)
A Constitutional Moment in the Administrative Court

To the Honourable Judge of this Review:

This is not merely a dispute over a traffic summons. It is a constitutional test of whether the administrative justice system of England and Wales is operating within the rule of law — or simulating it under colour of process. The following points are not allegations but formally evidenced findings, including direct confirmation by HMCTS via Freedom of Information Act response (Ref: 250429009, dated 14 May 2025):

1. The court named on the summons, “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752),” has no lawful existence. In a formal FoIA response, HMCTS confirmed that no statutory instrument exists establishing such a court, and no internal records are held documenting its creation or operation. This is not a procedural defect — it is a jurisdictional void ab initio.

2. No valid Fixed Penalty Notice, Notice of Intended Prosecution, or Single Justice Procedure Notice exists with a named, lawful issuing authority. Each document is unsigned, unauthenticated, and statutorily defective under CrimPR 4.7, 7.3, and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

3. The CPS assumed prosecution without any documented handover, prosecutorial signature, or evidence of Full Code Test compliance — a breach of R (DPP) v Chorley Justices [2006]. CPS has remained entirely silent in response to a Motion to Stay, a Pre-Action Protocol letter, and a formal complaint (CRN00055557).

4. HMCTS has failed to clarify the constitution of the issuing court, name the data controller, or justify the coercive demand for financial data — in breach of s.86 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR.

5. A Mention hearing was held without jurisdiction, without admissible evidence, and in the absence of prosecutorial standing. A full trial has now been scheduled despite the pre-existing procedural collapse and verified absence of a valid court.

This case — URN 03NN0597324 — is not an isolated error but an exemplary collapse. The flaws identified are not clerical but structural. They reveal a systemic vulnerability in the Single Justice Procedure that risks rendering up to 1 million convictions null, especially where ghost courts or unlisted venues were used as issuing entities.

The relief sought includes:

• Quashing of the proceedings;

• Declaration that the issuing “court” is void;

• Disclosure of the lawful court listing and CPS prosecutorial assumption documentation;

• Systemic review of SJP compliance with the Courts Act 2003 and Criminal Procedure Rules.

This Judicial Review is a legal rod from God — not a challenge to clerical oversight, but a strike at the subterranean architecture of simulated justice. The judge who hears this may determine the fate of a national prosecution regime.

The Claimant submits this application as a litigant in person, currently outside the UK and under extreme duress. He is involved in a live U.S.-based child trafficking case involving judicial misconduct, while cohabiting with a hostile party in a compromised setting. These conditions may hinder full compliance with HMCTS and High Court formatting conventions. The Claimant requests reasonable latitude on form, and that the Court focus on the serious legal and jurisdictional issues raised.

Respectfully submitted,
Martin Geddes

Even the trees are bent