22nd May 2025 Southampton Magistrates Court……court 3 published hearing listed two court names: Southampton Magistrates Court & West Hampshire Magistrates Court. I recorded this evidence. Under WHMC administrative hearings, under SMC criminal hearings. When the lead Legal admin was asked to provide an explanation…., nothing was offered and as Sian Jones was cc’d the JCS guidance of Friday and my many WDTK FOI’s was the result. Sian’s email text has the same derision as throughout her hastily written hit piece: "Dear Mr D’Souza,
I said I’d send it to you when I finished it, and here it is, enjoy.
Cofion, Regards,
Siân Jones
Head of Legal and Professional Services | Secretary, Justices’ Legal Advisers and Court Officers’ Service (formerly the Justices’ Clerks’ Society)
National Legal Operations | Operations Directorate | HMCTS | Postpoint 6.10 |102 Petty France | London | SW1H
how many professionals do you know that would start an email reply like this….
Dear Mr D’Souza,
What is the point? You won’t accept anything I say if it doesn’t accord with your desires.
Parliament has decreed, in section 67B of the Courts Act, that HMCTS staff can exercise judicial functions. Any Act overrides caselaw, so Gateshead JJ is as dead as the dodo. However I think you could usefully read the case properly, rather than cherry-picking sentences out of context, as you will see that what the case actually decides is that a justices’ clerk (not a member of the judiciary) could grant a summons, but he couldn’t delegate that to someone else. So ,it doesn’t support your case at all – it says that an office-holder, who hasn’t taken the judicial oath, can issue summonses. What’s happened since is that after Gateshead JJ Parliament gave justices’ clerks the power to delegate and that’s repeated for Heads of Legal Operations in the 2003 Act.
It’s a standard of statutory interpretation that a newer statute overrides an older one if there is a conflict (Bennion, Bailey and Norbury on Statutory Interpretation, section 8.4) . So if there is a conflict between the 1980 Act and the 2003 Act, it should be resolved in favour of the 2003 Act.
The explanatory notes to the 2020 Rules don’t confirm “that section 144 of the MCA1980 and section 40(1) of the Tribunal and Court Act 2007 do not confer authority to delegate any judicial functions”. In fact they say the opposite:
Section 67B of the Courts Act 2003 (c. 39) (“the 2003 Act”) provides for rules of court to be able to provide for the exercise of relevant judicial functions (as defined in section 67A of the 2003 Act) by members of court staff who have such qualifications as are required by the rules and who are authorised by the Lord Chief Justice to perform relevant judicial functions,
Section 67C requires rule committee to consider a right of reconsideration. But there is no rule committee for civil proceedings in Magistrates’ Courts, so the issue doesn’t arise – there is no right of reconsideration from the exercise of these functions. Nor in criminal proceedings in fact, as the Rule Committee considered it and decided against it; there is a right of reconsideration in other courts and tribunals.
JCS has not been disbanded, it has been reconstituted and renamed.
Regards,
Siân Jones
Head of Legal and Professional Services | Secretary, Justices’ Legal Advisers and Court Officers’ Service (formerly the Justices’ Clerks’ Society)
Legal Operations Team | Operations Directorate | HMCTS | Postpoint 6.10 |102 Petty France | London | SW1H
There is an article in JCS Matters Vol 4 Iss 2 February 2022 at page 3. We dispute the information published as follows:
ISSUING of SUMMONS for council tax complaints
1. The question - Magistrates’ Courts (Functions of Authorised Persons – Civil Proceedings) Rules 2020 [“MCFAPCPR2020”] provide authority for an authorised court officer to issue a summons in council tax proceedings.” is this lawful and legal?
2. The law is clear in R. v Gateshead Justices Ex p. Tesco Stores Ltd, [1981] Q.B. 470 and expresses:
“...The wording of the section "may.. issue a summons" and "if it appears to the justice necessary or expedient, with a view to the better administration of justice" makes it clear that the power was discretionary and that the discretion had to be exercised by the justice acting judicially and therefore personally, since the judicial function can never be delegated”.
2.1. The legislation is clear in Magistrates Court Act 1980 at 51 which states to issue a summons:
“Where a complaint relating to a person is made to a justice of the peace, the justice of the peace may issue a summons to the person requiring him to appear before a magistrates' court to answer to the complaint.”
2.1.1. The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 at 34(2) complies with the primary legislation:
“The application is to be instituted by making complaint to a justice of the peace, and requesting the issue of a summons directed to that person to appear before the court to show why he has not paid the sum which is outstanding.”
3. Therefore Parliament’s expressed will is lawful, namely it complies with the common law in Gateshead, and legal having legislative authority via statutory law.
4. It is agreed that secondary legislation derives its authority from primary legislation, as evidenced in its introductory text.
5. Authority for an “authorised court officer” is from secondary legislation, namely The Magistrates’ Courts (Functions of Authorised Persons – Civil Proceedings) Rules 2020, relying on schedule rule 2 where at 1(d) “An authorised court officer may— (d) issue a summons at the request of a public authority;”
6. The Magistrates’ Courts (Functions of Authorised Persons – Civil Proceedings) Rules
2020 in their introductory text claim authority from primary legislation Magistrates Court Act 1980, section 144, and section 67B which is subject to 67C of the Courts Act 2003.
7. The Magistrates’ Courts (Functions of Authorised Persons – Civil Proceedings) Rules 2020 explanatory notes confirms that section 144 of the MCA1980 and section 40(1) of the Tribunal and Court Act 2007 do not confer authority to delegate any judicial functions.
8. The Magistrates’ Courts (Functions of Authorised Persons – Civil Proceedings) Rules 2020 claim powers to delegate “relevant judicial functions” are provided by Parliament via section 67B of CA2003.
9. Firstly, in order to establish whether the Magistrates’ Courts (Functions of Authorised Persons – Civil Proceedings) Rules 2020 express Parliament’s will, it is the duty of the court to determine what is “an authorised court officer”? (not the duty of the disbanded JCS)
9.1. Rule 1(2)(b) of The Magistrates’ Courts (Functions of Authorised Persons – Civil Proceedings) Rules 2020 defines:
“authorised court officer” means a person authorised under section 67B(2) of the 2003 Act by the Lord Chief Justice (or the Lord Chief Justice’s nominee under section 67B(5) of that Act);”
9.2. Section 67B(2) of CA2003 expresses:
“A person may exercise functions by virtue of subsection (1) only if authorised to do so by the Lord Chief Justice.”
9.3. Subsection (1) of section 67B CA2003 expresses:
“Rules of court may provide for the exercise of relevant judicial functions by persons who— (a) are appointed under section 2(1) of this Act or section 40(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and
(b) satisfy any requirements specified in the rules as to qualifications or experience.”
9.4. Section 2(1) of CA2003 expresses:
“(1)The Lord Chancellor may appoint such officers and other staff as appear to him appropriate for the purpose of discharging his general duty in relation to the courts.”
9.4.1. This only confers powers to “appoint such officers and other staff”, and hence does not confer any powers to delegate “relevant judicial functions”, but only to employ them (“appoint”).
9.4.2. Section 1 of the CA2003 defines the general duty at (1) that:
“The Lord Chancellor is under a duty to ensure that there is an efficient and effective system to support the carrying on of the business of—(c) magistrate’s courts”.
9.5. Therefore, section 67B of CA2003 does not authorise the delegation of any judicial
function to “authorised court officers”, and thereby complies with the common law, affirming the will of Parliament expressed in the MCA1980 and in CTAER1992 are lawful.
10. The law is clear regarding the delegation of judicial decisions to non-judicial officers who have not sworn an oath to the law; this is unlawful as affirmed in R. v Gateshead Justices Ex p. Tesco Stores Ltd, [1981] Q.B. 470 and illegal as affirmed in section 51 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 and section 34(2) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 and hence is in defiance of the will of Parliament.
Thus we have researched this topic as it is fundamental to establish whether Law is being followed or whether administration is assuming powers that are not conferred.
It would help us in knowledge to have sight of a typical appointment letter from the Lady Chief Justice, for if this document contains other references than we have identified, we are happy to be corrected.
Your considered view and corrections to our understanding are sought, or your acknowledgement of our position.
This is written from a private email and copied to members of Lawful Enforcement Alliance (South), rather than WDTK as we are aware of your dislike of public forums.
Joseph D'Souza LEA
(South)
This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
On this same day…DJ Calloway whom is the subject of JCIO complaint for his behaviour…made a comment which at the time (and right until an hour ago), seemed to confirm the old fool didn’t know what type of hearing he’d just ruled upon by asking the court "is this a criminal matter?"
now thinking back to the court listings for his day, it was a mix of admin (WHMC) and criminal (SMC) and he’d lost track of which hat he was to wear at that moment.
Courtserve.net only lists hearings under the correctly named court; Southampton Magistrates Court and no entries for hearings using WHMC, a question to Sian me thinks.
22nd May 2025 Southampton Magistrates Court……court 3 published hearing listed two court names: Southampton Magistrates Court & West Hampshire Magistrates Court. I recorded this evidence. Under WHMC administrative hearings, under SMC criminal hearings. When the lead Legal admin was asked to provide an explanation…., nothing was offered and as Sian Jones was cc’d the JCS guidance of Friday and my many WDTK FOI’s was the result. Sian’s email text has the same derision as throughout her hastily written hit piece: "Dear Mr D’Souza,
I said I’d send it to you when I finished it, and here it is, enjoy.
Cofion, Regards,
Siân Jones
Head of Legal and Professional Services | Secretary, Justices’ Legal Advisers and Court Officers’ Service (formerly the Justices’ Clerks’ Society)
National Legal Operations | Operations Directorate | HMCTS | Postpoint 6.10 |102 Petty France | London | SW1H
gov.uk/hmcts"
And as for Pseudo-law…
how many professionals do you know that would start an email reply like this….
Dear Mr D’Souza,
What is the point? You won’t accept anything I say if it doesn’t accord with your desires.
Parliament has decreed, in section 67B of the Courts Act, that HMCTS staff can exercise judicial functions. Any Act overrides caselaw, so Gateshead JJ is as dead as the dodo. However I think you could usefully read the case properly, rather than cherry-picking sentences out of context, as you will see that what the case actually decides is that a justices’ clerk (not a member of the judiciary) could grant a summons, but he couldn’t delegate that to someone else. So ,it doesn’t support your case at all – it says that an office-holder, who hasn’t taken the judicial oath, can issue summonses. What’s happened since is that after Gateshead JJ Parliament gave justices’ clerks the power to delegate and that’s repeated for Heads of Legal Operations in the 2003 Act.
It’s a standard of statutory interpretation that a newer statute overrides an older one if there is a conflict (Bennion, Bailey and Norbury on Statutory Interpretation, section 8.4) . So if there is a conflict between the 1980 Act and the 2003 Act, it should be resolved in favour of the 2003 Act.
The explanatory notes to the 2020 Rules don’t confirm “that section 144 of the MCA1980 and section 40(1) of the Tribunal and Court Act 2007 do not confer authority to delegate any judicial functions”. In fact they say the opposite:
Section 67B of the Courts Act 2003 (c. 39) (“the 2003 Act”) provides for rules of court to be able to provide for the exercise of relevant judicial functions (as defined in section 67A of the 2003 Act) by members of court staff who have such qualifications as are required by the rules and who are authorised by the Lord Chief Justice to perform relevant judicial functions,
Section 67C requires rule committee to consider a right of reconsideration. But there is no rule committee for civil proceedings in Magistrates’ Courts, so the issue doesn’t arise – there is no right of reconsideration from the exercise of these functions. Nor in criminal proceedings in fact, as the Rule Committee considered it and decided against it; there is a right of reconsideration in other courts and tribunals.
JCS has not been disbanded, it has been reconstituted and renamed.
Regards,
Siân Jones
Head of Legal and Professional Services | Secretary, Justices’ Legal Advisers and Court Officers’ Service (formerly the Justices’ Clerks’ Society)
Legal Operations Team | Operations Directorate | HMCTS | Postpoint 6.10 |102 Petty France | London | SW1H
Web: www.gov.uk/hmcts
Here is how HMCTS uses personal data about you.
Dyma sut mae GLlTEM yn defnyddio data personol amdanoch chi
From: legal <legal_enquiry@protonmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 5, 2024 12:09 PM
To: legal.operations <legal.operations@Justice.gov.uk> Subject: Request for proof of claim
Lawful Enforcement Alliance PO BOX 388
Romsey
Hampshire
SO51 1FE
Dear Siân Jones
There is an article in JCS Matters Vol 4 Iss 2 February 2022 at page 3. We dispute the information published as follows:
ISSUING of SUMMONS for council tax complaints
1. The question - Magistrates’ Courts (Functions of Authorised Persons – Civil Proceedings) Rules 2020 [“MCFAPCPR2020”] provide authority for an authorised court officer to issue a summons in council tax proceedings.” is this lawful and legal?
2. The law is clear in R. v Gateshead Justices Ex p. Tesco Stores Ltd, [1981] Q.B. 470 and expresses:
“...The wording of the section "may.. issue a summons" and "if it appears to the justice necessary or expedient, with a view to the better administration of justice" makes it clear that the power was discretionary and that the discretion had to be exercised by the justice acting judicially and therefore personally, since the judicial function can never be delegated”.
2.1. The legislation is clear in Magistrates Court Act 1980 at 51 which states to issue a summons:
“Where a complaint relating to a person is made to a justice of the peace, the justice of the peace may issue a summons to the person requiring him to appear before a magistrates' court to answer to the complaint.”
2.1.1. The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 at 34(2) complies with the primary legislation:
“The application is to be instituted by making complaint to a justice of the peace, and requesting the issue of a summons directed to that person to appear before the court to show why he has not paid the sum which is outstanding.”
3. Therefore Parliament’s expressed will is lawful, namely it complies with the common law in Gateshead, and legal having legislative authority via statutory law.
4. It is agreed that secondary legislation derives its authority from primary legislation, as evidenced in its introductory text.
5. Authority for an “authorised court officer” is from secondary legislation, namely The Magistrates’ Courts (Functions of Authorised Persons – Civil Proceedings) Rules 2020, relying on schedule rule 2 where at 1(d) “An authorised court officer may— (d) issue a summons at the request of a public authority;”
6. The Magistrates’ Courts (Functions of Authorised Persons – Civil Proceedings) Rules
2020 in their introductory text claim authority from primary legislation Magistrates Court Act 1980, section 144, and section 67B which is subject to 67C of the Courts Act 2003.
7. The Magistrates’ Courts (Functions of Authorised Persons – Civil Proceedings) Rules 2020 explanatory notes confirms that section 144 of the MCA1980 and section 40(1) of the Tribunal and Court Act 2007 do not confer authority to delegate any judicial functions.
8. The Magistrates’ Courts (Functions of Authorised Persons – Civil Proceedings) Rules 2020 claim powers to delegate “relevant judicial functions” are provided by Parliament via section 67B of CA2003.
9. Firstly, in order to establish whether the Magistrates’ Courts (Functions of Authorised Persons – Civil Proceedings) Rules 2020 express Parliament’s will, it is the duty of the court to determine what is “an authorised court officer”? (not the duty of the disbanded JCS)
9.1. Rule 1(2)(b) of The Magistrates’ Courts (Functions of Authorised Persons – Civil Proceedings) Rules 2020 defines:
“authorised court officer” means a person authorised under section 67B(2) of the 2003 Act by the Lord Chief Justice (or the Lord Chief Justice’s nominee under section 67B(5) of that Act);”
9.2. Section 67B(2) of CA2003 expresses:
“A person may exercise functions by virtue of subsection (1) only if authorised to do so by the Lord Chief Justice.”
9.3. Subsection (1) of section 67B CA2003 expresses:
“Rules of court may provide for the exercise of relevant judicial functions by persons who— (a) are appointed under section 2(1) of this Act or section 40(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and
(b) satisfy any requirements specified in the rules as to qualifications or experience.”
9.4. Section 2(1) of CA2003 expresses:
“(1)The Lord Chancellor may appoint such officers and other staff as appear to him appropriate for the purpose of discharging his general duty in relation to the courts.”
9.4.1. This only confers powers to “appoint such officers and other staff”, and hence does not confer any powers to delegate “relevant judicial functions”, but only to employ them (“appoint”).
9.4.2. Section 1 of the CA2003 defines the general duty at (1) that:
“The Lord Chancellor is under a duty to ensure that there is an efficient and effective system to support the carrying on of the business of—(c) magistrate’s courts”.
9.5. Therefore, section 67B of CA2003 does not authorise the delegation of any judicial
function to “authorised court officers”, and thereby complies with the common law, affirming the will of Parliament expressed in the MCA1980 and in CTAER1992 are lawful.
10. The law is clear regarding the delegation of judicial decisions to non-judicial officers who have not sworn an oath to the law; this is unlawful as affirmed in R. v Gateshead Justices Ex p. Tesco Stores Ltd, [1981] Q.B. 470 and illegal as affirmed in section 51 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 and section 34(2) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 and hence is in defiance of the will of Parliament.
Thus we have researched this topic as it is fundamental to establish whether Law is being followed or whether administration is assuming powers that are not conferred.
It would help us in knowledge to have sight of a typical appointment letter from the Lady Chief Justice, for if this document contains other references than we have identified, we are happy to be corrected.
Your considered view and corrections to our understanding are sought, or your acknowledgement of our position.
This is written from a private email and copied to members of Lawful Enforcement Alliance (South), rather than WDTK as we are aware of your dislike of public forums.
Joseph D'Souza LEA
(South)
This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
Here is the prompt that led to the JCS guidance: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lja_named_as_courts_of_law_for_s/response/3104235/attach/html/4/DSouza%20NFOI%20250709054.pdf.html
Disclosure Team
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Joe D’Souza
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
1st August 2025
Dear Mr D’Souza,
Freedom of Information (FOI) Act Request no 250709054
Thank you for your request dated 9th July 2025 in which you made the fol owing request :
FOI -
1) explain the breakdown of terms in "ha-portsmcprivateprocess" as
used in the FBC/PMC redacted email time stamped 3rd March 2023 15.03
- specifically "ha" & "privateprocess"
2) explain the use of "@Justice.gov.uk" if the answer to 1) is equal to
"no information held"
3) explain the affirmation by redacted name for the use of "East
Hampshire Magistrates' Courts" when the previous WDTK linked above
assured no such process to naming LJA as courts
4) explain the sign-off to redacted email "HMCTS Portsmouth
Magistrates Court, Winston Churchill Avenue, PO1 2DQ Follow us on
Twitter @MoJGovUK" if the answer to 1) & 2) & 3) is "no information
held"
5) explain the actions, disciplinary or otherwise, that Portsmouth
Magistrates Courts and administrative staff and legal advisers and Mrs F
Thornton-Dale will be subject to if by authorising the redacted email
they are acting without jurisdiction in authorising LJA to be named as a
court of law
6) if Portsmouth Magistrates Court staff are correct in providing FBC
with guidance in redacted email, provide the legislative or authorised
documentation or links to such, where LJA rebranding as a court of law
or a court of administration is authorised..
Having assessed the request, I have determined that it does not constitute a valid FOI
request, and therefore we are unable to deal with your enquiry under the terms of the Act.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) can only be used to access recorded
information held by a public body. ‘Recorded information’ is information currently in
existence in the possession of the authority, such as a guidance document or recorded
statistics. It cannot be used to obtain guidance, opinions, legal advice, or statements of the
law. Nor can it be used to answer yes/no questions or to provide confirmation as those are
not recorded information. It cannot be used to answer questions or requests for explanations
unless those questions can be answered by providing recorded information.
The What Do They Know? website is solely for replies to valid Freedom of Information
requests. Other queries are dealt with as routine correspondence and cannot be answered
through What Do They Know?
In your request you are not asking for recorded information but for explanations which
require newly minted replies, and, in question 5, you are asking a newly minted answer to a
hypothetical question posited on a false basis.
If you require a reply to your question, please resubmit it to one of the addresses above,
giving an address (electronic or otherwise) to which we can send the response. Please note
that MOJ is not a free legal advice service or legal publisher, and we cannot provide a
lengthy response. Nor wil we provide replies if they simply repeat advice or information
previously given.
You suggest that my reply to FOI request 240701018 is inconsistent with the existence of
this email. However your request then was for “published guidance”, not recorded
information of whatsoever nature, and an email sent to a single recipient could not be
described as published guidance.
At present we don’t have any recorded information explaining why summonses are lawful
whether or not they display the local justice area, however they describe the court, and other
like queries seeking support for the contention that the council’s summons isn’t lawful.
However, given the volume of requests we’re getting on the point, I’m planning to generate
some guidance which would then be disclosable under FOIA and when I get round to it I’ll
send you a copy.
Yours sincerely
Siân E. Jones LL.B., Barrister, Head of Legal and Professional Services,
National Legal Operations, HM Courts and Tribunals Service
The final paragraph - we don’t have any recorded information at this time….therefore how can HMCTS retrospectively authorise LJA names as courts?
On this same day…DJ Calloway whom is the subject of JCIO complaint for his behaviour…made a comment which at the time (and right until an hour ago), seemed to confirm the old fool didn’t know what type of hearing he’d just ruled upon by asking the court "is this a criminal matter?"
now thinking back to the court listings for his day, it was a mix of admin (WHMC) and criminal (SMC) and he’d lost track of which hat he was to wear at that moment.
Courtserve.net only lists hearings under the correctly named court; Southampton Magistrates Court and no entries for hearings using WHMC, a question to Sian me thinks.
Is everything address to "the occupier" void ab Initio?
👍🤝