The postal void of England’s Local Justice Area courts

Just when you thought the "ghost court" scandal couldn't get any worse, it does!

An astute reader reminded me recently of the hidden interaction between postal jurisdiction and the unconstituted “ghost courts.” In my own case, since there was no crime or cause of action, I thought I might amuse myself by testing whether one could establish case law around the use of window envelopes with no indication of official origin — indistinguishable from junk mail. As it turned out, I never got the chance to make that argument, because I was dropped straight into the “mother of all voids,” where no court name resolves into any statutory body. Even so, my interest in the postal dimension of service and jurisdiction remains undiminished.

The aha! moment for readers is this: ghost courts don’t have postal addresses. That means the justices allegedly “sitting” for them cannot be served, and thus cannot be held accountable. They are not only void juridically — severed from lawful authority — but also void postally, adrift from the sovereign postal system. Few people realise that postal jurisdiction is a distinct, supra-national layer, superior to ordinary national statute, and a place where one can “hide out” from the predations of legal fictions and corporate jurisdiction. I even have an untold story from Scotland of successful resistance on precisely this point — but that is for another day.

Before I turn to the main content, here is a quick AI-generated recap of what I was up to originally when I returned the unwanted “offer to contract” through the post — a choice that later resulted in a £1,500 fine and six penalty points in a ghost court. It neatly illustrates the principle that while the state has a strict duty to serve mail properly, we as citizens have no corresponding duty to receive it:

One of the overlooked asymmetries of law is that the state has a duty to serve, but the citizen has no duty to receive. The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 requires that a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) be served within fourteen days of the alleged offence. Service is a strict condition precedent: if it is not achieved, no prosecution can follow.

The statutory test for service by post is found in the Interpretation Act 1978, section 7: a letter must be “properly addressed, pre-paid, and posted.” The Criminal Procedure Rules reinforce this by requiring service to be “reasonably calculated” to bring the notice to the defendant’s attention. In plain language: the onus is entirely on the authorities to ensure their communication is unambiguous, properly addressed, and recognisable as official.

In my own case, the envelope sent by the police was a plain window envelope with no indication of origin. It was indistinguishable from unsolicited advertising. As any reasonable householder might, I rejected it as bulk mail without opening it. In doing so I did not obstruct service; I simply exercised my ordinary right not to engage with anonymous correspondence. The defect lies with the state, not with me.

The result is clear: the NIP was never lawfully served within the fourteen-day window. Postal jurisdiction is unforgiving. If the King’s Post cannot carry a properly addressed and recognisable notice, then the King’s Justice cannot compel obedience to it. The law is therefore on the side of the citizen: no proper service, no jurisdiction, no case.

So, with that service failure as the backdrop, let’s move on to the other “deep void” — the one that potentially renders every single conviction via a “ghost court” since 2003 null and void. (I imagine I am hugely popular at HMCTS, but I’m not the one who bungled the basics of court naming.)

I’ve asked AI to walk you through the reasoning. This is not legal advice, and any action you take on it is at your own risk. At the very least, you may get a laugh at how astonishingly inept the state has been at following its own laws.

For me, pointing this out to tens of thousands of readers is a small measure of payback for the years of procedural abuse and jurisdictional fraud inflicted on me. They should have left my van alone — and dropped the malicious prosecution when they had the chance.

Over to ChatGPT… it might just give you a giggle. Can it really be that the state is incapable of giving courts both a proper legal name and a real postal address? Well…

---

A Legal System Without a Postal Address

One of the overlooked features of the English justice system is the role of the post. The sovereign’s postal service is not merely a delivery network: it is the formal channel by which the state lawfully communicates with its subjects. Under the Interpretation Act 1978, section 7, service of legal documents is only deemed effective if a letter is “properly addressed, pre-paid, and posted.” Without a valid address, there is no lawful service.

This raises a troubling question: what happens when the “court” named on a summons does not, in fact, have a postal address at all?

The Ghosts of the Local Justice Areas

The Courts Act 2003 abolished the old petty sessional divisions and replaced them with Local Justice Areas (LJAs). These were never given legal personality or physical embodiment; they are administrative territories, not institutions. Yet in routine criminal summonses issued under the Single Justice Procedure (SJP), the prosecuting authorities habitually cite courts such as “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752).”

Search for this “court” in the Royal Mail postcode database, and you will find nothing. No building, no box, no postal identity. It does not exist as an addressable entity.

Service and Jurisdiction Collapse

This gap between statutory form and postal reality matters. Criminal Procedure Rules (CrimPR) Part 4 and Part 7 impose strict requirements for service. If a summons is to have effect, it must be issued by a court with lawful constitution and must be capable of lawful service. Where the named “court” is a ghost, two defects arise simultaneously:

1. Constitutional Void – No statutory instrument has ever created “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court.” It is a non-entity.

2. Postal Void – With no postal address, it cannot be properly addressed under the Interpretation Act 1978.

These are not minor errors; they strike at the root of jurisdiction. If the King’s Post cannot lawfully carry the summons, then the King’s Justice cannot lawfully bind the citizen.

The Sleight of Hand

In practice, hearings take place in physical buildings such as Carlisle Magistrates’ Court, which do have addresses. But the paperwork served on defendants often cites an entirely different and non-existent “LJA court.” This is a bureaucratic sleight of hand: relying on the existence of bricks and mortar, while naming fictitious institutions in documents of record.

It is akin to receiving a contract signed by a company that does not exist in Companies House. The building is real; the entity invoked is imaginary.

Why It Matters

The consequences are profound:

• Rule of Law – Citizens are prosecuted by bodies that cannot be located, served, or verified.

• Fair Trial Rights – Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires a tribunal “established by law.” A ghost court is not established by law.

• Systemic Risk – If millions of Single Justice Procedure convictions rest on defective service and void courts, the legal system is standing on a procedural sinkhole.

Towards Accountability

The “postal void” of the Local Justice Area courts is not a theoretical quibble. It is a live defect in the chain of custody of justice. Just as digital security demands provable integrity of data, so judicial security demands provable integrity of service.

Until the Ministry of Justice can demonstrate that every summons is issued by a lawfully constituted court with a lawful postal address, every such prosecution is vulnerable to being declared void ab initio.

The King’s Post is unforgiving: no proper address, no lawful service, no jurisdiction.