2025-12-24
The question mark at the end of the title is wearing rather thin nowadays.
Martin Geddes in his quest to establish the lawfulness of the Single Justice Procedure has been trying to get some confirmations from the High Court that the court naming conventions (if that's what they can be called) are often unlawful.
All this arose from his "conviction" by the Single Justice Procedure for a "parking offence" which he disputed.
With his background in IT (computers are nothing if not logical, so IT people who work with computers must work entirely with evidence and logic if they wish to solve IT problems).
Unfortunately the Justice System in the UK apparently hasn't kept up with the times in this regard ... even though it does make use of IT for administrative purposes.
So he recently submitted two legal requests to the High Court (after exhausting other channels), one for Judicial Review to confirm the law (still outstanding but if precedent has any relevance it will probably be rejected unheard) and one to stay the sentencing for his disputed conviction pending the outcome of the other.
" ... the system no longer requires coercive acts of the state to flow from personally attributable judicial acts with demonstrable authority ... "
" ... authority is assumed systemically, inferred from abstract frameworks rather than evidenced by traceable decisions ... "
In other words, not founded in actual law.
The verdict is not in as the Court has refused a hearing.
So we remain for now in no-mans-land, where the Justice system offers no redress against judgements by unqualified courts. Perhaps any quasi-authoritative charlatan (a local authority for example?) could therefore take advantage, set up an entirely bogus "court" "prosecute" and "convict" people or produce "court orders" on wholly specious grounds?
If we cannot trust the Courts to comply with the law, then whom can we trust?
