Peacekeepers Foundation (Marc Horn) – Written Evidence (ROL0089)
Please find below our group experience over the last 3 years in Magistrates and County courts gathering evidence highlighting actual on goings in breach of the rule of law.
It is the lack of knowledge and positive direct government interference which is threatening the rule of law.
The results are self evident in these are serious undermining of public confidence.
These courts deal with nearly half of all civil cases, which, unfortunately, can be called nothing less than Government Revenue Stazi Star Chambers, resulting from the conflict of interest between those governing and the governed causing the erosion of judicial independence.
Question 3) What threatens the effective operation of the rule of law in the UK?
1. Introduction
1.1 The rule of law is a cornerstone of the UK's constitution, requiring that state power is exercised according to law, that all are equal before the law, and that all have access to fair and transparent justice systems.
This submission identifies key threats to the effective operation of the rule of law specifically within the Magistrates' and County Courts in England and Wales, drawing upon issues highlighted in ongoing cases from firsthand knowledge and experience.
These threats primarily concern access to justice and transparency, procedural fairness and due process, and the certainty and proper application of the law from a large pool of experience evidenced over the last 3 years.
2. Barriers to Access to Justice and Transparency
2.1 A fundamental aspect of the rule of law is open justice, allowing public scrutiny and fostering confidence in the judicial process. The documents reveal significant concerns in this area within the Magistrates' Court:
Restriction of Physical Access: Despite available seating, members of the public are denied entry to observe proceedings without adequate justification which directly contravenes the principle articulated in common law (Scott v Scott [1913]) and statute (Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, s.121(4)) that courts should sit in the open.
Failure to Facilitate Remote Access: Despite when it is convenient for the court, arrangements being made and numerous requests received, remote viewing links (CVP) were not authorised or distributed, citing administrative burden or lack of time thereby discriminating in the use of technology to further open justice. This failure to utilise available technology prevents public observation, particularly given the geographical spread of interested parties, and potentially breaches the court's duty under Magistrates' Court Rules 1981, r.66A(1)(a) and the principles outlined in the Remote Observation Regulations 2022.
Denial of Recording: Requests by litigants to make personal audio recordings to aid understanding and potential appeals were reportedly denied, normally a straight no, but at times citing the presence of a note-taker as sufficient. This hinders a litigant's ability to effectively participate and prepare appeals, arguably infringing Article 6 ECHR rights and ignoring the limitations of manual note-taking as well as the court itself failing to make free recordings available from public resources. While Contempt of Court Act 1981 s.9 restricts recording, it grants judicial discretion, the denial of which requires reasoned justification which are not provided.
2.2 These barriers undermine transparency and accountability, limiting public and media scrutiny of judicial processes and decisions within the Magistrates' Court and higher courts where an unnecessary financial burden is placed on the public by having to pay for transcripts unless financially supported by help with fees.
3. Procedural Irregularities and Due Process Deficiencies
3.1 Several procedural issues in both Magistrates' and County Courts that threaten fair and predictable legal processes have been identified:
Validity of Summonses (Magistrates' Court): Civil summonses being issued by non-judicial 'authorised court officers' and /or without the name of the issuing judicial officer. This challenges the principle that issuing a summons is a judicial act requiring judicial discretion (R v West London Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Kahn [1979]), potentially rendering the process ultra vires under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 s.51 and relevant regulations (CTAER 1992, Reg 34). The lack of a named issuer also hinders accountability (R v Felixstowe Justices, ex p Leigh [1987]).
Validity of Demand Notices (Magistrates' Court): The use of documents titled 'Council Tax Bill' instead of the statutorily required 'Demand Notice' (CTAER 1992, Regs 18 & 19) is challenged. While seemingly semantic, this lack of adherence to precise statutory language undermines legal certainty, predictability, and potentially the validity of subsequent enforcement actions.
Assessment of Costs (Magistrates' Court): The courts fail to properly determine if costs claimed by local authorities are 'reasonably incurred' as mandated by CTAER 1992, Reg 34(7) and detailed in common law (R (Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates [2015]). Failure to scrutinise costs, or awarding them without adequate breakdown or justification, impacts fairness and access to justice, potentially deterring challenges due to fear of disproportionate costs by judicial review. Worse, this failure even when pointed out disproportionately affects those in society who can least afford council tax being encumbered with further undetermined costs.
Reasoned Judgments (Magistrates' Court): Judgments are criticised for failing to adequately address all key legal arguments and precedents raised by litigants, particularly those concerning fundamental rights or statutory interpretation. This lack of reasoning prevents parties from understanding the basis of decisions (Flannery v Halifax [1999]), hinders appeals, and undermines judicial accountability.
Direct Control of lay Magistrates by MOJ: Through the Justices Clerk Society the executive directly controls legal advisors who manipulate and control lay magistrates to uphold their will, nearly always denying litigants in person to present their defence in the way they believe best protects their interests. Regularly they advise magistrates despite being current statute law some is ‘ancient, archaic, old or irrelevant’. Further when put with case law they fail to provide any higher authorities or reasons for their disregard, and simply tell magistrates they must make the liability order as they are statutorily bound.
Breaches of judicial oath: justices of the peace regularly openly admit breaching their oaths when stating they are ‘statutorily bound to make the order’, which is an admission of unlawful administrative courts which can be called nothing other than Government Revenue Stazi Star Chambers. The judicial oath is to law and that imposes since Case of Proclamations [1610] a duty to Custom, Common Law as well as Statute Law.
Evidence for Bankruptcy, Charging and Sales Orders (County Court): The County Court grants these orders based on council-generated records or court listings rather than perfected liability orders 'made by the magistrates' court', failing to meet the statutory preconditions in CTAER 1992. This raises questions about the legal basis and enforceability of such orders (Leighton v Bristow & Sutor [2023]; Kofa v Oldham MBC [2024]).
3.2 These procedural failings risk arbitrary decision-making, create uncertainty, and potentially deny litigants their right to a fair hearing as guaranteed by common law and Article 6 ECHR.
4. Erosion of Legal Certainty and Judicial Function
4.1 The consistent and predictable application of law is vital for the rule of law. The documents suggest challenges in this area:
Nature of Liability Orders: Confusion persists since the removal of froms A and B in 2003 regarding what constitutes a legally valid liability order – whether it is the ex-tempore pronouncement, the court register entry, or some other document – and what evidence suffices for enforcement in higher court. This lack of clarity undermines legal certainty.
Application of Precedent: Decisions appear inconsistent or fail to engage with relevant, potentially binding, precedent (e.g., regarding the test for setting aside orders (Paling v Ipswich Magistrates Court [2021] vs Brighton & Hove [2004]), or the application of costs principles).
Unlawful Interest: Bankruptcy, Charging and Sales Orders include interest despite High Court authority (Powys CC v Hurst [2018]) that the council tax enforcement scheme is exclusive and does not permit interest under the Charging Orders Act 1979 or Judgments Act 1838.
4.2 These issues erode legal certainty and predictability, potentially indicating a departure from core judicial functions of applying established law consistently.
5. Conclusion
5.1 The effective operation of the rule of law in the Magistrates' and County Courts is threatened by significant challenges relating to access to justice, procedural fairness, and legal certainty. Barriers to open justice limit scrutiny and accountability. Procedural irregularities concerning summonses, demand notices, costs, reasoned judgments, and the evidence base for bankruptcy, charging and sales orders undermine due process and fairness. Ambiguity surrounding liability orders and the inconsistent application of law erode legal certainty.
5.2 Addressing these threats is crucial to maintaining public confidence in these courts and ensuring that justice is not only done but is seen to be done, upholding the fundamental principles of the rule of law.
Question 6) What is the role of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law? Is it performing this role well, and how could it be improved?
Open Justice and Precedent, Horizontal Stare Decisis in Magistrates' and County Courts
1. Introduction
1.1 The rule of law, a foundational principle of the UK constitution, requires justice to be administered fairly, consistently, and transparently. Central to this are the principles of open justice and stare decisis (adherence to precedent). This submission examines the judiciary's role in upholding these specific aspects of the rule of law within Magistrates' and County Courts, assesses potential threats and judicial performance based on the provided case documents, and suggests areas for improvement.
2. The Judiciary's Role in Upholding Open Justice and Precedent
2.1 Upholding Open Justice: The judiciary is responsible for ensuring court proceedings are, as far as possible, open to public scrutiny (Scott v Scott [1913]; Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, s.121(4)). This involves facilitating physical and, where appropriate, remote access, ensuring decisions and decision-makers are identifiable (R v Felixstowe Justices, ex p Leigh [1987]; NA v SSHD [2010]), and balancing transparency with the interests of justice when considering restrictions (e.g., on recording - Contempt of Court Act 1981, s.9). Openness fosters accountability and public confidence (R (Guardian News) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2012]).
2.2 Adhering to Precedent (Stare Decisis): A fundamental judicial duty is to apply the law consistently and predictably. This requires adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis, where decisions of higher courts (vertical stare decisis) bind lower courts, and decisions of courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction (horizontal stare decisis) should generally be followed unless there is powerful reason otherwise (Willers v Joyce [2016]; Oyston v Blackpool Council [2024]). This ensures equality before the law and legal certainty. Judges must identify and apply the correct legal principles (ratio decidendi) from relevant case law (Ashby v White [1704] HL Appeal; Osborne to Rowlett [1880]).
3. Threats to the Effective Operation of the Rule of Law (Based on Documents)
3.1 Erosion of Open Justice: The open justice principles are under threat in Magistrates' Courts:
Access Denial: Alleged refusal of physical entry despite available space and failure to provide functional remote access (CVP links) despite requests and prior arrangements. This directly impedes public scrutiny.
Lack of Transparency in Process: The alleged use of summonses without identifiable judicial issuers contravenes the principle that justice and its administrators must be identifiable (Felixstowe Justices).
Restrictions on Recording: Refusal to permit personal recording, potentially hindering litigants' ability to challenge decisions or ensure accuracy.
3.2 Inconsistent Application of Precedent: Failures in adhering to stare decisis undermine legal certainty and fairness:
Conflicting Tests: Apparent application of different tests for setting aside liability orders (Paling vs Brighton & Hove) without clear justification.
Ignoring Binding Authority: Alleged failure to address or apply relevant precedents cited by litigants, for example concerning costs assessments (Nicolson; Ewing v Highbury) or the non-delegability of judicial functions (Gateshead Justices).
Horizontal Stare Decisis: The documents imply inconsistencies between decisions of judges at the same level (e.g., differing approaches to costs, evidence for charging orders), suggesting a potential lack of adherence to the principle of following decisions of co-ordinate jurisdiction without strong reason (Oyston).
3.3 Consequences: These alleged failings threaten the rule of law by making justice less transparent, predictable, and potentially less fair. They undermines public confidence and creates barriers for litigants, especially those unrepresented.
4. Assessment of Judicial Performance and Potential Improvements
4.1 Performance Assessment: Based solely on the issues raised the judiciary's performance in upholding open justice and adhering to precedent in these specific Magistrates' and County Court contexts is inconsistent and deficient. While judges operate under significant pressure, the alleged failures to ensure basic transparency (identifiable orders, access) and apply established legal principles consistently (costs assessment, set-aside tests, interest application) raise serious concerns about the effective operation of the rule of law at this level.
4.2 Potential Improvements:
Open Justice Protocols: Implement and enforce clear, practical protocols for managing public access (physical and remote via CVP), including resource allocation and standardised request processes. Develop clear guidelines for judicial discretion regarding personal recording requests. Ensure all court orders clearly identify the issuing judicial officer(s).
Training on Precedent and Stare Decisis: Mandatory judicial training reinforcing the principles of vertical and horizontal stare decisis, the identification of ratio decidendi, and the duty to address relevant authorities cited by parties, promoting consistency in application of case law like Nicolson, Ewing, Paling, and Powys.
Reasoned Judgments: Reinforce the necessity for judgments, even in high-volume courts, to explicitly address key legal arguments and precedents raised, explaining why certain authorities are followed or distinguished.
Consistency Mechanisms: Explore mechanisms to promote greater consistency between decision-makers at the Magistrates' and District Judge level, perhaps through specific judicial guidance notes on recurring issues (e.g., council tax procedures, costs) or enhanced peer review/mentoring.
5. Conclusion
5.1 The judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law through open justice and adherence to precedent is fundamental. The concerns raised in the provided documents regarding access, transparency, consistency in applying precedent (stare decisis), and reasoned judgments highlight significant threats to the effective operation of the rule of law in Magistrates' and County Courts. Addressing these through improved protocols, training, and a renewed focus on judicial scrutiny and consistency is vital for maintaining public trust and ensuring fair and predictable justice.
Marc Horn
Peacekeepers Foundation
22 April 2025