Section 142: A lawful answer to an unlawful system

A template for collapsing mass prosecution regimes through precision, truth, and moral force

I may be the first person in the UK to weaponise a minor motoring charge — within a visibly corrupted legal system — as the launchpad for a constitutional challenge to the entire automated prosecution regime. To my mostly American readers — thank you for staying with this. Think of it as a prototype you’re invited to adapt, even if your statutory framework differs. What I am doing is offering myself as “bait” in the system, making all the lawful challenges in good time (which are ignored), documenting everything, deconstructing every procedural misstep with AI, and then using every single tool available to amplify the boomerang.

When you are convicted in a magistrates’ court in England you have two appeal routes — via Crown Court (focused on merits and facts), or a “Case Stated” to High Court (on law only). There is a third way that precedes these, Section 142, which allows you to apply to the lower court to set aside the order in the interests of justice. Usually this is when there has been some procedural mistake, like you have been convicted in your absence but you never got the paperwork as you had a house fire. I am doing something unusual, if not unprecedented — interrupting the conveyor belt of unlawful prosecution by hitting the “emergency stop” constitutional objection button.

Below is an AI-generated introduction to my Section 142 application, then a lightly edited version for public use that you can recycle as you see fit. The Single Justice Procedure is being used to inflict fines and criminal records on the people via non-courts for non-crimes with non-prosecutions; a total inversion of justice. It doesn’t take many of us to “innovate” with the existing lawful tools to trigger collapse or reform; HMCTS simply don’t have the resources to field an army of senior attorneys dealing with constitutional pushback on minor motoring offences. This is not disrupting the rule of law, but restoring it, when authorities have abandoned truth and morality.

Over to ChatGPT…

---

A Section 142 application is not normally newsworthy. It’s a little-known provision in the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 that allows a magistrates’ court to “reopen” a case and correct a mistake after conviction. In routine cases, it is used sparingly — a forgotten plea, a postal mix-up, or a minor procedural error.

But this one is different.

What follows is not a humble appeal for clemency. It is a publicly published, constitutionally grounded demand to undo a conviction obtained by fraud — fraud not of intent, but of process.

This application challenges the lawfulness of the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) at its foundation: an unsigned, unsealed, and untraceable notice from an unidentifiable sender, instructing a response to a fictitious court name (“North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court”) that does not exist in law. The subsequent summons comes from a similarly unconstituted entity (“North & West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)”) — another legal fiction, unlisted in the statutory court directory, and untraceable to any valid source of judicial authority.

The entire process — from SJPN to conviction — is a simulation of legality, resting on no identifiable court, no signature, no seal, no clerk, no judicial officer, and no due service. These are not trivial irregularities; they are foundational defects that vitiate jurisdiction.

Not a Loophole — a Lens

This is not a “gotcha” or technicality. It is a forensic lens on how administrative convenience has replaced the rule of law. The SJP has become a mass-processing conveyor belt where the identity of the prosecuting authority is obscured, the venue issuing the notice is fictitious, and the burden of asserting legality falls on the accused — inverting the presumption of innocence and negating the safeguards of adversarial justice.

What happens when millions of convictions are issued under conditions no bank, landlord, or school would tolerate on an invoice? What does it say about a nation’s justice system when not even the name of the court is clear?

This application argues that a conviction without lawful origin is no conviction at all. If the court never existed, then the entire process is void ab initio.

Why Publish This Now?

We are entering a new era — one where the automation of state power collides with a rising consciousness of its abuse. This published s142 application is not an act of personal escape or procedural gamesmanship. It is an act of sacrifice — placing myself in harm’s way to expose a procedural charade the public was never meant to see. This is the template of a clean-signal resistance movement: lawful, peaceful, forensic, and deeply moral.

What happens when hundreds or thousands of defendants, armed with AI tools and legal awareness, begin filing their own Section 142 applications? What if these are not drafted in desperation or ignorance, but with surgical precision and public visibility?

The answer is: institutional collapse, or institutional reform. Either the courts double down on fiction and lose legitimacy, or they face the lawful reckoning they have long deferred.

Implications: From Dissidence to Doctrine

This s142 is not just an individual objection; it is the spearhead of a constitutional countermeasure — a doctrine of procedural repair available to every citizen wrongly processed. It proves that you do not need a lawyer, a donor, or a media campaign to fight back. You need only truth, precision, and the moral courage to stand on the record.

When the system forgets its covenant with the people — due process, transparency, justice under law — then the people are obliged to remind it, not with violence or evasion, but with the unrelenting assertion of lawful limits.

What Follows

The application below has been edited for clarity and privacy. It maintains all relevant legal argument and factual claim. Its logic and structure are offered for study, adaptation, and reuse.

If you have been convicted under the SJP — especially without knowing which court tried you, or without signed judicial paperwork — this may apply to you.

It is time we reminded the courts: only lawful authority can produce lawful outcomes. Anything else is just theatre.

---

If you’ve received an SJP conviction — with no traceable court, no seal, no judge, and no proper service — you are not alone. What follows is one template for turning silent compliance into lawful defiance. Reuse it. Share it. Refuse to be processed.

---

THE COURT STYLED AS NORTH AND WEST CUMBRIA MAGISTRATES’ COURT
IN THE MATTER OF:

The Application of Martin Royce Geddes under Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980

Case Number: [REDACTED]

INTRODUCTION

Background

The Applicant, Martin Royce Geddes, was convicted on 11 June 2025 for an offence under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in respect of failing to provide details of the driver of a vehicle. The conviction was imposed following a trial originally referenced as being before the North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court, which was styled as the forum for the case. However, the trial was conducted at Carlisle Magistrates’ Court, raising questions regarding the court’s jurisdiction and the procedural correctness of this shift. The Applicant now seeks to have the conviction set aside under Section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 due to procedural irregularities and non-disclosure of material evidence.

Grounds for Application

The Applicant submits that the conviction is unsafe due to the following grounds:

• Non-disclosure of exculpatory evidence (Ground 1).

• Procedural defects in the service and authenticity of the Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) (Ground 2).

• Failure of the court to address a pre-trial Motion to Dismiss for Abuse of Process (Ground 3).

• Jurisdictional challenge based on the non-existence of a properly constituted court (Ground 4).

GROUNDS FOR APPLICATION

Non-Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence (Ground 1)
a) Pre-Trial Submission: The Applicant submitted a letter to the Chief Constable dated 14 August 2024 raising substantial objections to the validity of the NIP (Exhibit A). This letter highlighted critical issues that impacted the validity and service of the NIP, which were never considered at trial.
b) Failure to Consider: The letter was acknowledged by the court as a "courtesy copy" attached to other correspondence but was not given due weight during the trial. The failure to disclose or properly consider this letter prejudiced the Applicant’s defence by preventing the opportunity to challenge the NIP’s validity, as it was the prosecution’s responsibility to disclose all relevant evidence. This non-disclosure directly impacted the conviction (Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, Criminal Procedure Rule 15.2). This non-disclosure also violates the disclosure duties under R v H and C [2004] UKHL 3, which upheld the importance of providing all material evidence.
c) Prejudice: Had the letter been fully considered, the NIP’s authenticity would have been questioned, and the conviction likely would not have been secured as there was a reasonable excuse for non-compliance. The failure to disclose this material constitutes a denial of a fair trial, violating Article 6 ECHR.

Procedural Defects in the NIP (Ground 2)
a) Service and Issuance: The NIP was issued by the Central Ticket Office, a non-legal entity. This is not a legally valid issuer under Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, s1(1)(c), which stipulates that notices must be served by an officer with legal standing.
b) Failure of Service: The NIP was served in a window envelope without recorded delivery, contrary to the requirements of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The prosecution failed to provide evidence of proper personal service within the required 14-day period, instead demonstrating that lawful rejection of commercial bulk mail had occurred.
c) Burden of Proof: The prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving the NIP’s proper personal service. According to R v Gidden [2009] EWHC 2923 (Admin), irregularities in NIP service are grounds for challenging the conviction.

Failure to Address Pre-Trial Motion to Dismiss for Abuse of Process (Ground 3)
a) Motion to Dismiss: The Motion to Dismiss filed on 28 February 2025 (Exhibit B) raised challenges regarding the summons’ compliance with CrimPR 7.3 and the court’s unclear status under the Courts Act 2003. The motion raised fundamental issues regarding the proper service of the summons and the legal authority of the court.
b) Failure to Address: The court failed to address the motion adequately. This omission constitutes a denial of the Applicant’s right to a fair trial, breaching Article 6 ECHR (the right to a fair hearing).

Jurisdictional Challenge Based on Non-Existent Court (Ground 4)
a) Freedom of Information (FOI) Request: The Applicant submitted an FOI request to HMCTS (Exhibit C). The FOI response dated 14 May 2025 revealed that the North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752) lacks statutory designation under the Courts Act 2003, raising significant jurisdictional doubts. This raises a fundamental jurisdictional issue.
b) Court’s Jurisdiction: The summons and proceedings relied on the existence of a non-existent court, a constitutional defect that cannot be cured by administrative discretion. This lack of statutory authority appears to lack statutory designation, raising significant jurisdictional doubts, and the conviction should be quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Setting Aside the Conviction
The Applicant seeks the following relief from the Court:

• The conviction dated 11 June 2025 under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is set aside.

• The proceedings are reopened due to procedural irregularities, non-disclosure, and jurisdictional errors.

• The case is referred to the High Court via Case Stated if jurisdictional issues cannot be resolved.

No request for costs is made at this stage.

Referral to High Court via Case Stated
Should the Court find that the jurisdictional challenge cannot be resolved, the Applicant requests that the case be referred to the High Court via Case Stated under s.111 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 to resolve the legal question regarding the court’s constitution and authority.

Exhibits

• Exhibit A: Letter to Chief Constable, 14 August 2024

• Exhibit B: Motion to Dismiss for Abuse of Process, 28 February 2025

• Exhibit C: FOI Response, dated 14 May 2025

---

As a final closing thought — this approach “works” because I raised lawful objections early and often, not as a last-minute tactic. I have given the authorities every opportunity to take the exit ramp. My aim is not to humiliate or punish, but to uphold truth and justice.

There is no underlying crime to answer for. No personal accusation. No evidence of harm. No report of loss or injury. No identified victim. So there is no counter-narrative that I am evading justice — and that matters. The key facts are “theirs”, via a Freedom of Information response, hence uncontested.

Don’t use this method if your case is messy. Where the state acts within its lawful remit, its authority deserves respect, even if its processes are imperfect. This kind of constitutional pushback is for those moments when the state steps outside its lawful bounds — and refuses to step back.

Beside the Riven Gaunless in the deer park at Bishop Auckland — phone pic!