Simulated justice: nullity of 'ghost courts'

How AI empowers litigants in person to outperform barristers on constitutional law

If you or I put out an invoice with a fake company name at the top, we might expect to be prosecuted for it—because that would be fraud. If we impersonated a police officer, we’d rightly be charged with a crime. But when a tribunal simulates being a magistrates’ court—issuing fines and penalties in the name of a non-existent entity—that, it seems, is “business as usual” in the British justice system.

It’s one standard for the governed, another for the governors: the antithesis of equality under the law. Yet that’s exactly what many of us are having to deal with—so-called “courts” that invoke the full coercive power of the state while providing no reciprocal right of remedy. If the court’s name is fake, I cannot sue it in return. That’s wrong!

This is an article the senior leadership of HMCTS and the Crown Prosecution Service would probably prefer wasn’t published—which is precisely why it must be. I’ve undertaken a full statutory analysis of what I call “ghost courts”—entities that present themselves in the format “FAKE COURT sitting at REAL COURT.”

This formula is legally absurd. A court may sit at a venue—but it cannot sit at another court. Nor does it acquire jurisdiction from the building it borrows. In principle, a properly constituted court could sit in a Tesco car park—but it would still need statutory authority. And it could not invoke the Tesco staff handbook as law.

---

Methodology: AI-Enhanced Legal Analysis

Here is the procedure I followed to conduct this statutory deconstruction—something that would cost £10,000–£20,000 to produce professionally (if you could even find a KC willing to challenge the mass simulation of justice):

1. Primary Statutory Scoping via AI Query

• Used ChatGPT to identify all relevant statutes, statutory instruments, and explanatory notes based on the fact pattern: Single Justice Procedure, court identity, jurisdiction, due process.

• Cross-validated the AI results against manual search logic and Grok’s independent scan.

2. Source Text Acquisition and Parsing

• Downloaded full legislative texts from legislation.gov.uk, including:

  • Courts Act 2003 (with explanatory notes)

  • Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980

  • Criminal Procedure Rules (CrimPR)

  • Relevant statutory instruments (e.g., The Criminal Procedure Rules SI 2020/759)

3. First-Pass Extraction of Legal Provisions

• Ran each statute through ChatGPT to:

  • Identify sections directly applicable to the case

  • Highlight jurisdictional thresholds, procedural mandates, and public authority duties

4. Cross-AI Quality Review

• Passed each statute and ChatGPT’s interpretive summary to Grok for a parallel analysis to:

  • Validate coverage

  • Flag weak inferences

  • Suggest overlooked angles or case law

5. Synthesis of Interpretations

• Requested ChatGPT to fuse both analytical threads (its own + Grok’s) into an integrated commentary per statute to ensure structural soundness and doctrinal depth.

6. Doctrine Abstraction Framework

• Developed a schema to transition from Act-by-Act to Doctrine-by-Doctrine structuring, e.g.:

  • Jurisdiction

  • Standing

  • Service

  • Judicial Oath

  • Article 6 ECHR compliance

7. Recasting by Doctrine

• Reformulated all statute-grounded material into a doctrinally structured legal memo, identifying points of systemic failure such as:

  • “Constructive Jurisdiction Fraud”

  • “Ghost Court Doctrine”

8. Iterative Legal Drafting and Refinement

• Multiple redraft cycles between ChatGPT and Grok, converging on:

  • Legal tone

  • Structural precision

  • Evidential support

9. Final Sanity Pass via Gemini

• Ran a third-model sweep using Gemini to:

  • Catch hallucinated citations

  • Confirm statute text fidelity

  • Identify missing footnotes or references

---

Deliverable: Public Legal Brief

The output below is the result: a publicly shareable legal briefing. UK readers may reuse and adapt it to void any prosecution issued in the name of a ghost court. Use at your own risk—but feel free to improve it with your own AI passes. This briefing can be included in:

• Judicial Review bundles

• Applications under s.142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980

• JCIO complaints

• Parliamentary submissions

• Press or civil liberties campaigns

It is a tactical and doctrinal tool for real-world defence against procedural simulation.

---

GHOST COURT BRIEFING

THE NULLITY OF ‘NORTH AND WEST CUMBRIA MAGISTRATES’ COURT (1752)’ AND THE COLLAPSE OF THE SINGLE JUSTICE PROCEDURE PROSECUTION

Date: 26 July 2025
Purpose: To demonstrate, by statutory analysis, procedural rules, and relevant precedent, that the proceedings initiated under the name "North and West Cumbria Magistrates' Court (1752)" are void ab initio, incurable at law, and unsupported by any lawful constitution or jurisdiction.

This document may be appended to Judicial Review applications, statutory voiding motions under s.142 MCA 1980, or any communication challenging the validity of Single Justice Procedure proceedings issued under a fictitious court name. It may also be referenced in Parliamentary or public accountability contexts.

The Claimant seeks declaratory relief as to the nullity of the underlying proceedings, an order to stay enforcement, and, in the event of unreasonable conduct, costs pursuant to section 141 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

---

I. CONSTITUTIONAL EXISTENCE OF THE COURT

1. Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 s.150 defines a "magistrates’ court" as one “constituted under” the Courts Act 2003. This is not satisfied by mere nomenclature, venue, or administration.

2. Courts Act 2003 s.4(1), read with Schedule 1, requires that magistrates’ courts be established and maintained by statutory instrument (SI), properly issued, and situated within a valid Local Justice Area (LJA). There is no SI or other instrument constituting the entity styled “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)”.

3. MCA 1980 s.16A (inserted by CJA 2003 Sch.3, as amended by JRCA 2022 Sch.2 para.3 to enable online SJPNs) presupposes the existence of a validly constituted magistrates’ court as a prerequisite to issuing Single Justice Procedure Notices (SJPNs). The statutory regime cannot operate without a court in law.

4. Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 r.7.2(3)(b) mandates that a written charge must state “the name of the magistrates’ court” to which the charge is to be brought. A misnamed or fictitious court fatally undermines the charge and renders the process void from inception.

5. Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 enhances digital procedures but does not authorise new courts and, per s.10, mandates compliance with MCA s.150/Courts Act s.4. Its procedural updates (Sch.2) assume the existence of a court constituted by statute—not one that merely exists on HMCTS letterhead.

6. Crime and Courts Act 2013 Sch.10 abolished commissions of the peace but preserved the need for valid judicial structures. It offers no authority for informal or hybrid court designations.

7. There exists no statutory instrument, ministerial order, or Order-in-Council establishing “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)”. Consequently, the purported “court” is not one known to law and does not satisfy the definitional threshold of s.150 MCA 1980.

8. A review of extant statutory instruments governing the territorial constitution of magistrates’ courts—including The Local Justice Areas Order 2015 (SI 2015/1506) and The Local Justice Areas (No. 2) Order 2015 (SI 2015/1870)—confirms that no such Local Justice Area or court entity styled “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)” has been lawfully designated. These instruments enumerate all valid Local Justice Areas (including “North and West Cumbria”) and their corresponding court venues. NWCMC does not appear in any such instrument.

9. This absence is confirmed by a Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) response (14 May 2025, Ref 250429009) from Siân E. Jones, Head of Legal and Professional Services, HMCTS. The FOIA response referenced The Local Justice Areas Order 2014 (SI 2014/1899), which—while defining Local Justice Areas—does not constitute any court. Thus, the statutory precondition for court creation remains unmet.

10. To the question:

Please provide any internal HMCTS documentation, including administrative records or notices, confirming the operational creation, merger, consolidation, or lawful designation of “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752).

The above cited FOIA response states:

The MOJ does not hold any information in the scope of your request. This is because there is no legal or business requirement for MoJ to do so. It is likely that there were internal communications at the time of the merger in 2014, but there was no need to retain them once the changes were in effect and a search has not revealed any.

11. This evades the request for evidence of a lawfully constituted court, as SI 2014/1899 only establishes the LJA “North and West Cumbria” and does not create or name a court styled “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752).” The response’s admission that no statutory or administrative records exist confirms the entity is a non-statutory label, failing MCA 1980 s.150 and Courts Act 2003 s.4(1).

Legal Precedents:

• Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 at 171, holding that errors as to jurisdiction render the entire determination a nullity.

• R v Hill [1983] 1 AC 328 at 335 holding defective summons renders proceedings void ab initio.

• R (Sunderland City Council) v PS [2018] EWHC 2974 (Admin): Defects in court designation or misidentification render orders unlawful.

II. LAWFUL SITTINGS AND VENUE FALLACY

1. Courts Act 2003 s.30(1) and MCA 1980 s.121(1) state that a magistrates' court may sit anywhere in England and Wales, but sitting at a venue does not create a court.

2. The use of “Carlisle Magistrates’ Court” as a venue in procedural correspondence does not cure the void naming or court constitution failure.

3. Venue is not identity: A court must be constituted first; only then may sit at venues. As a trial in a town hall does not create a ‘Town Hall Court,' so too sitting at Carlisle Magistrates’ Court does not imbue the name 'North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)' with legal force.

Legal Precedents:

• R (Sunderland City Council) v PS [2018] EWHC 2974 (Admin): Procedural or venue missteps can render proceedings unlawful.

• Benham v UK (1996) 22 EHRR 293 at para. 42, where the European Court of Human Rights stressed that the appearance of justice must be preserved where liberty is at stake, including in summary criminal proceedings.

III. JURISDICTIONAL PREREQUISITES TO VALID PROCESS

1. MCA 1980 s.1 requires information to be laid before a magistrates' court; this presupposes the court exists in law.

2. Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.29 and Sch.3 prescribe the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) but presume valid court origin per MCA.

3. Courts Act 2003 s.27(1) requires HMCTS to fix the place, date, and time of hearings within a court’s jurisdiction.

4. CrimPR r.7.1(1) and 7.2(3)(b): Proceedings begin with a valid charge to a valid court. An invalid court name renders the process void. The statutory regime under CJA 2003 Sch.3 and CrimPR r.7.2 requires a valid court as the originator. If the charging document fails to name such a court, all proceedings are vitiated ab initio.

Legal Precedents:

• R v Hill (above), holding defective origination vitiates jurisdiction.

• R v Soneji [2005] UKHL 49 at [23], holding non-compliance with statutory procedure voids unless intended otherwise.

IV. PROCEDURAL INTEGRITY AND NON-CURABILITY

1. CrimPR r.3.10 permits courts to remedy procedural errors—but only where a court validly exists.

2. CrimPR r.3.3 imposes a duty on the court to actively manage the case. A ghost court cannot perform this duty.

3. Senior Courts Act 1981 s.29(1) and s.31 provide for quashing unlawful acts or omissions; these are engaged for ab initio nullities.

4. JRCA 2022 s.1(9) lists factors for suspended quashing, which cannot apply to ab initio nullities, as no redress is just.

Legal Precedents:

• Privacy International v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22 at [139]: “A decision made without jurisdiction is a nullity regardless of process.”

V. NO DIGITAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE BASIS FOR CONSTITUTION

1. JRCA Sch.2 makes procedural accommodations for digital case handling but does not create or authorise the constitutional establishment of any court. Section 10 ensures OPRC rules align with existing law, including MCA s.150/Courts Act s.4.

2. The absence of a lawfully constituted court in digital or administrative form, when used to process criminal liability, violates the Article 6 ECHR guarantee to a “fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” See Benham v UK (1996) 22 EHRR 293 at para. 42 (Art.6(1) requiring a tribunal 'established by law').

3. Courts Act 2003 s.109 transitional provisions do not validate fictitious courts.

4. Explanatory Notes to the Courts Act and JRCA confirm that administrative naming or venue management is not equivalent to lawful court establishment.

Legal Precedents:

• Soneji (above): Administrative convenience does not override law.

VI. TACTICAL DEPLOYMENT AND REMEDIES

1. Demand the statutory instrument or Order constituting the named court.

2. Demand evidence of valid Local Justice Area designation.

3. Demand confirmation that any charging document complies with CrimPR r.7.2(3)(b).

4. Where the above cannot be met, relief should include a declaration of nullity, quashing under SCA 1981 s.31, and costs pursuant to SCA 1981 s.141, per CPR 54.10, for unreasonable conduct (e.g., persisting with void process).

5. File for relief under:

   a) s.142 MCA 1980 (to set aside defective or unlawful convictions),

   b) JR via Part 54 CPR (for declaration + quashing),

   c) s.28 Senior Courts Act 1981 (Case Stated for legal error),

   d) ECHR Art.6 claim (where right to fair trial denied).

Tactical Note: "I am not appealing a decision—I assert no court existed to make one."

SUMMARY POSITION

The entire SJP proceeding against Martin Geddes was initiated in the name of a non-existent and unlawful court. There is no statutory authority for the name used, no evidence of a lawful constitution, and no jurisdiction established. All subsequent procedural steps are therefore irreparably defective, and the resulting process a juridical nullity.

This is not a question of administrative error, but of constitutional void. HMCTS claims of 'administrative shorthand' fail, as MCA s.150 mandates statutory constitution (FOIA Ref 250429009).

Accordingly, all orders, notices, penalties, and derivative legal consequences arising from these void proceedings are ultra vires, juridically void, and must be quashed or disregarded under statutory and common law doctrines of nullity.

Prepared by:
Martin Geddes
Litigant in person