Evidence Blogs and Remedy

What a World we find ourselves in with treachery and abuse by those who should serve the people.

By Jon Shackelton

"An in depth understanding of the current situation"-The CommunityTrusts

I totally believe, and have proof, that the system has been corrupted and now people are being used, in slavery, to create mass wealth for the elite. This in itself goes against the very nature and the rule of Law and our constitution. The Courts have become financial institutions that are no longer interested in Justice but more so for Financial gain. Even a High Court Judge stated that Child Protection in Court is more about money, then the welfare of the child. 

We now find ourselves in dark times were Judges ignore the rule of Law and act on demand from, what would seem to be, their pay masters, without our consent. People, including whistle blowers, are being placed in Prison or intimidated by local Councils, Police and Members of Parliament. The whole Country knows Westminster are hiding crimes against humanity, as well as creating false inquiries and cover ups. It's a sad state of affair and very worrying, when the Police have also been found with their hands in the cookie jar. Examples are Rotherham, South Yorkshire Police and Nottingham, that's not forgetting Elm House B&B - of course this is being investigated by, yes, the Police.  

So were is the Justice when every governmental department is seemingly involved. As a nation we have a responsibility, surly, to protect the vulnerable. The police are informed that they just do as they're told and don't understand the Law. The Crown Prosecution Services have been openly criticised for being inept and, at times, unlawful. Although we all know the CPS are another financial institution who aren't interested in justice. I may go into a few cases in the future, to discuss some ''legal'' cases that are anything but legal.

Misconduct in Public Office is one of the more serious indictable offences in English Law and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. As well as any private prosecution against the officers for Misconduct in Public Office, anyone assisting should also face the consequences of their actions for the offence of Pretending to Be Acting Under the Authority of A Court and stripped of their offices.  

The bill of rights which is Constitutional Law clearly states;   "grants and promises of fines or forfeitures" before conviction are void.

no excessive bail or "cruel and unusual" punishments may be imposed.


All Acts of Parliament are ‘statutes’ known variously as legislation, regulations or rules. Don't let them be confused as law although the Government, as well as the Civil Service, would like you to think of them as such. Statutes are incorrectly referred to as laws, mainly by Individuals who have been trained by governmental bodies or the like. A correct interpretation would be black letter law which are distinguishable from law for example, ''common law''. If an Act of Parliament was indeed law surly they'd be called Laws not Acts, wouldn't they.  

Another example would be to look at any Act of Parliament and what do we first notice, the very absence of the word Law. Parliamentarians know the distinction between Statutes and Laws as they use it for their own personal benefit, as do corporations. Let me also draw you to the Petition of Rights 1628, the Magna Carta & the Bill of Rights, as well as the provisions of Oxford. What have all these constitutional documents got in common? Freedom from en-slavery! yes that's right I said slavery in modern Britain. How, why what! Well by creating Legislation that, they suggest, doesn't need your consent when it actually does. All our Constitutions clarify that we are free, as long as we do no harm to another. I know that's very basic but it's true, we are free. What man, woman or child has the right to tell you how to live, eat and what to pay.

A Statute is defined as a rule or regulation of a society, should it have the consent of the people, this is individual consent and not collective consent, something Roger clarified at last years BCG conference.We belong to what ever club (society) we choose, not what others choose. Statutes can be made to favour one sector of society over others, for example, Council Tax Legislation that enables MP's and Civil servants to a nice private pension fund, thanks to the already burdened Tax Payer. To ad, politicians have also given themselves special dispensations with their expenses, which the rest of us do not have – Is that a fair and equal society. I'd like someone to pay for my private pension, wouldn't you.

Again back to consent: Any individual can withdraw their consent to being governed by a statute. Consent has to be given by the individual and not by a collective on behalf of the individual, we are not a dictatorship, or are we. There is no freedom in having to do what a particular party is telling you, especially one that isn't democratically elected. The very basis of our constitution is individual freedoms. Should any party or organisation try to bring you into slavery, then they are breaking the law.

NOTE: Governments are elected into office and not into power, the people are the power, we just need to start standing up for what is right and, what is clearly wrong. We have never given government power, we merely give them authority to act on our behalf, in accordance with Law. A rejection of a statute is a rejection of governance, or in this instance a dictatorship. Surly each MP or anyone in office must act to a code of practice, it is for those governing to make sure statutes are made within a structure of the Law.

With the Council Tax they justify this legislation with The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. Totally ignoring the consent of the people, fairness or your constitutional rights. They also (the council) print their own liability orders and hire a court room for the day, yes that's right. In doing this they are indeed breaking the Law, acting as a Court official. The County Court Act 1984 clearly shows this to be unlawful.

When a service is provided by an organisation, be it a council or other, they have to act within the Law (Contract). When there is no contract with yourself and the council, who are employed as civil servants to administrate, then mass corruption explodes, as there is no rule of law being followed. The terms of any agreement must be sufficiently certain, or the agreement is void due to uncertainty. Where a contract is void it is automatically of no effect from the very beginning – basic contract Law.

In Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21 the House of Lords confirmed that a void act is void from the outset and no Court – not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) - has jurisdiction to give legal effect to a void act no matter how unreasonable that may seem, because doing so would mean reforming the law which no Court has power to do because such power rests only with Parliament. The duty of the Court is to interpret and apply the law not reform or create it.  

Just quickly on their Acts/Legislation: the Local Govt. Act 1888 chapter 41 part V: proceedings of a council and committees Section 79 subsection 2 - Your liabilities are covered by the Council according to law. This has never ever been repealed as it's the Councils lawful obligation. So one might say that if you have a liability then the Council have a legal responsibility, in law, to cover it.  

To add another favourite of mine:

Lord Diplock in Att-Gen v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1974], ante, outlines the various ways which the due administration of justice might be prejudiced: "The due administration of justice requires first that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionally established courts of criminal or civil jurisdiction for the determination of disputes as their legal rights and liabilities; secondly, that they should be able to rely upon obtaining in the courts the arbitrament of a tribunal which is free from bias against any party and whose decision will be based upon those facts only that have been proved in evidence adduced before it in accordance with the procedure adopted in courts of law; and thirdly that, once the dispute has been submitted to a court of law, they should be able to rely upon there being no usurpation by any other person of the function of the court to decide according to law. Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these requirements or to undermine public confidence that they will be observed is contempt of court"

I'm just making these examples to show you what is Lawful and what isn't. A government or organisation can't enforce you into paying something, without consent. If there is no contract in place how can they invoice for a service? In fact many don't even provide the basics a contract would require, under Law. An invoice has to be clear, stating what you're gaining for your finances. It also has to have terms of conditions that both parties must agree to.   

Law refers to common law although the Courts like to stay clear of the bedrock of our society. Laws should always be just as they protect our rights and freedoms, when that is breached society starts to crumble. Law is basically based on principles where as statutes are based on social practicalities.

Laws have taken time to evolve through our rich history, and remain so for long periods of time. Statutes can be here today and gone tomorrow depending on such things as poverty, war and so forth. Two areas people confuse are ''Lawful'' and ''Legal'' Lawful refers to the, yes you guessed it Law. Legal refers to the legislation or Acts at any given time, passed down through Parliament.  

Nobody is above the law the law applies equally to us all

I'm always asked, what is Common law? Is it trumped by statutes. The current legal profession, who are in disarray, have been heard to take a view that common law is no longer applicable: common sense clearly tells us that common law is superior to Acts and Legislation. If a government passed legislation that stopped freedom of speech, as they are currently trying to do, declaring itself a dictatorship, the people could act within their common law right to withdraw their consent to being governed. We are the many who create a, hopefully, balanced society – we must make a stand. Remember history, something they try and ignore or manipulate. Hitler was a Socialist Politician then, he became a Dictator, burning books and stopping freedom of speech, as well as free movement – remind you of any Political Party?

I was recently in Bournemouth County Court were a Judge, who was in contempt of Court, stated that Common Law doesn't exist and as such it isn't recognised. If that was to be the case then we wouldn't have a legal system at all, as the very foundation of Law is, common Law. Even the new Supreme Court acknowledge Common Law so why would a circuit judge ignore it. Sadly, and factually, the Courts have become financial institutions who are only interested in fees. The Andrew Mitchell ''Pleb gate'' incident clearly showed that money was on trial, as were the Police. The Plebgate libel case has been amazing to watch, because of what it revealed about the attitude of the British judiciary towards police officers, and how much Justice costs (Govt Courts Gain).  

Mr Justice Mitting at the Royal Courts of Justice said: “I am satisfied at least on balance of probabilities that Mr Mitchell did speak the words alleged or something so close to them as to amount to the same, including the politically toxic word 'pleb'", he wrote in a written judgment. In Justice Mitting’s eyes, Rowland’s account of the notorious events at the gates of Downing Street had been accurate. Andrew Mitchell’s had not.

Remember this is about an offensive word – let's use common sense! The Judge so makes a Judgement but the real crime is the case costs: Court sources say that case could leave MP with £3million of legal costs, yes 3 Million over a libel matter. So what's wrong here then, a Court becoming a massive revenue service, similar to other ''government'' departments – i'll let you decide for yourself what you think.

NOTE: - If anybody tries to deny you your common law rights in court – they are in contempt of court… and that includes judges.

The highest court in the land (UK) is the Supreme Court of Justice. This relatively new Court is very much a UK institution with a unique, uncodified, constitutional status. It does not form any part of either the Ministry of Justice or the Courts Service of England and Wales or the Courts Services of the other UK jurisdictions. However, the removal of the buffer of the House of Lords

has pushed the Court’s administrative limb into a much closer, and sometimes strained, relationship with the Ministry and the Treasury. In the language of Whitehall, the Court is a nonministerial government department; i.e. a separate, small department of state, with its own budget and the Chief Executive as its accounting officer – Sounds like a Corporation eh

During the Court’s first few years, some officials in Whitehall struggled to understand its status, and treated the Court as akin to an executive agency that is tasked with delivering a service under the control of central government. Understandings of the Court’s status have improved in recent years. Created under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Court is a creature of statute. The Act maps the responsibilities of and relationships between the Lord Chancellor, the Court’s President and the Chief Executive. Main source: Supreme Court of the UK: Fifth Anniversary Seminar.

 I never completely trust a system that was, in essence, set up by Tony Blair's government. The Court admits that its operating costs are higher than those of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. However, this was always going to be the case since many of the costs of the Appellate Committee were subsumed with the total running costs of the wider House of Lords. They say, one benefit of the new funding arrangements is that there is greater transparency about the total cost of running the UK’s top court. Inevitably, this makes it easier for people to criticize the Court as expensive. However, as one participant put it, if the UK wants to have a supreme court the country needs to be willing to pay a modest amount for it. I disagree as per the ''pleb gate'' saga that was all about the money. When a Court is financially driven, with targets, then how can it deliver impartiality as well as justice.

Our American Cousins have very similar issues as well virtually mirrored on our legal system but, with one big difference. They have a codified constitution that most Americans are very proud of, as they should be. The problem is the Judges are told what to do and our infiltrated by the Banking system and Politics.

To give you an example of this: In January 2010, the Supreme Court of America upheld the right of corporations to spend money influencing political campaigns, ruling that these entities ought to have the same First Amendment rights as individuals to engage in "political speech." The historic — and, in some quarters, infamous — Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision fell to a tight 5-to-4 vote. Its implications are huge: superseding earlier understandings, the court deemed corporate money, funneled by lobbyists and special-interest groups into politics, equivalent to any individual donation — even though, by many people's reckonings, a corporation with its resources and focused agenda is hardly the same thing as an individual person. President Obama, for one, was scathing about the verdict, saying "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself." But such prominent First Amendment advocates as Floyd Abrams — often associated with defending journalists' rights — argued vociferously that the court did the right thing by preserving the guarantees of the amendment. Source: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission  

I could discuss Canada, New Zealand and many other Countries but we'd be here for a very long time. So what's next as we can't seem to rid ourselves of the greedy corporates who line the pockets of the Politicians. They are in a position were they feel Government has the right to introduce or overrule Law, they believe they are Sovereign and above all others.  

Lady Hale, of the Supreme Court of England, gave The Bryce Lecture in 2015 and this is what she stated:   

 (1) that Parliament is sovereign and can make or unmake any law; and  

(2) that everyone is subject to the same rule of law; this includes the Government and public

officials, who must act within the powers which the law has given them.

Scary that someone who is a very senior Judge actually doesn't understand how Parliament actually works, and what the difference is between Law and Legislation. I did contact the Supreme Court to qualify Lady Hale's remarks, before publishing, but hit a brick wall. This is all part of the problem though as they don't listen and as such won't learn. The Lady goes on further to say we have an unwritten constitution, I think she meant uncodified, as it is clearly written down. Am I just being picky, well no as this is about our freedoms and liberties.  

A court should not be a financial institution, as that's not what it was set up to be. It should be about justice with well trained staff who have a solid understanding of Constitutional Common Law. We are, well should be, governed by Consent in a Democratic country, but we are not. With only a 65% General Election turnout in 2010 no party carried power so a coalition was formed, with the Liberal Democrats. Since then it's been like watching a bunch of overpaid Millionaire Yuppies argue shamelessly whilst destroying the very fabric of society for example: In 2010, when the coalition came into office, there was well over 40 thousand food banks. Jump ahead to 2013 and then there was well over 346 Thousand, yes 346 thousand people desperate for food. Source: Trussell Trust  

This has mainly been blame on the Department of Works & Pensions who quite clearly tried to drive the poor and vulnerable into poverty, with benefit sanctions. In fact the figures clearly show that this was the actual case for over 30% of the people using food banks.  

Now I don't know about you, or your tax affairs, but who in their right mind would abuse society vulnerable, including our Disabled. Even the United Nations have prompted an investigation into the British Government who are constantly enslaving society, whilst they dine at the top tables, funded by Billionaire hedge funders – Money talks not Justice or Equality.

Then we could turn our heads to who the people are who our stealing resources, printing money and creating Debt slavery. The Chancellor, George Osborne, has created the greatest debts this country has ever seen. He has stated many things including a promise to bring the National Debt down, and failed, as the figures show below:

FY 2015 £1.36 trillion

FY 2014 £1.26 trillion

FY 2013 £1.19 trillion

FY 2012 £1.10 trillion

FY 2011 £0.91 trillion

FY 2010 £0.76 trillion

Now what is debt as it's something we must ask ourselves or, even better, what is money. Mr Osborne uses the word austerity which, by DEFINITION means a state of reduced spending and increased frugality in the financial sector. Austerity measures generally refer to the measures taken by governments to reduce expenditures in an attempt to shrink their growing budget deficits.

There is nothing frugal, let me assure you, about this coalition. The combined wealth of the Cabinet is nearly 70 Million and, According to Wealth-X, the richest person in the Commons is Zac Goldsmith, whose £284 million fortune is described as an “inheritance from financier father”

George Osborne’s personal finances came under fierce scrutiny after he insisted he was not wealthy enough to pay the 50p tax rate. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer earns a Cabinet salary of £134,565 plus expenses and, during a series of interviews, Mr Osborne failed to mention an additional six-figure annual income he and wife Frances receive from letting their £3million home in Notting Hill, one of the wealthiest parts of London.

Mr Osborne’s tax return for 2010-11 would not have included the lucrative rental income that began flowing into the Osborne bank account months later. Family fortune: The Chancellor's father 17th Baronet Sir Peter Osborne (standing) and Anthony Little, the co-founders of Osborne & Little design Family fortune: The Chancellor's father 17th Baronet Sir Peter Osborne (standing) and Anthony Little, the co-founders of Osborne & Little design Nor did he talk about his shareholding in the family’s upmarket fabrics and wallpaper firm Osborne & Little, reputed to be worth more than £4million source: By MICHAEL SEAMARK FOR MAILONLINE

So we can see what society is up against, the real benefit cheats of Britain. Don't get me wrong i'm not against making money it's just how you're making it and who you are harming along the way.

A debt generally refers to money owed by one party, the debtor, to a second party, the creditor. Debt is generally subject to contractual terms regarding the amount and timing of repayments of principal and interest.[1] The term can also be used metaphorically to cover moral obligations and other interactions not based on economic value Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt

Notice 'contract' and 'money owed' but, were is the money? I pull out a bank note and it clearly states, 'A Promise to pay' so, that's a promissory note right. The definition of a 'PROMISSORY NOTE' is:

A financial instrument that contains a written promise by one party to pay another party a definite sum of money either on demand or at a specified future date. A promissory note typically contains all the terms pertaining to the indebtedness by the issuer or maker to the note's payee, such as the amount, interest rate, maturity date, date and place of issuance, and issuer's signature. The 1930 international convention that governs promissory notes and bills of exchange also stipulates that the term “promissory note” should be inserted in the body of the instrument and should contain an unconditional promise to pay.

That's fair enough as we do need some type of 'instrument' to exchange for goods such as food and goods. So what's backing up this promise, as the UK has sold all it's Gold reserves, so is it an 'I Owe You' that can't generate anything, without you. The banks though seem to add value to it, as does the government. We, the public, pay interest as well as taxation on something that has no real value, it's a promise to pay remember. And what of debt! If, like Mr Osborne did as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, print more money, then were s the debt.

Would a government invent debt to enslave society, surly not. Has the Bank really got the money it lends you for your Mortgage or any particular loan and, what does happen to all those taxes. Remember the Government have reduced spending on the Military, The NHS, Councils and other departmental bodies, whilst lending of Billions, whilst increasing taxation. Ever wondered were all that monies going, or even asked yourself the question and, why are the banks being protected in this Country.

I don't want to go over ground that many others have but I do what to create some realities and truths. The systems, in the UK and in the USA, are created for the wealthy in society. Whilst they tax the middle classes and create, what is, fictional debt. They are clearly doing this for themselves, or the elite in society. I've talked about the Banksters, The Politicians and the Court system. Money is there motivation and we cannot have a just society whilst this is the case.  

If an individual is motivated by greed, as they all are, then Society has a major problem and even worse still, your Children’s children will be enslaved for centuries to come. The Banks are taking peoples property while they still charge them but, again, were is the money? A judgement made by Lord Denning said that a bill of exchange once tendered has to be treated as cash. The principle is that a bill, cheque or note is given and taken in payment as so much cash, and not as merely given a right of action for the creditor to litigate a counterclaim (see Jackson v Murphy [1887] 4 T.L.R. 92).

"We have repeatedly said in this court that a bill of exchange or a promissory note is to be treated as cash. It is to be honoured unless there is some good reason to the contrary" (see per Lord Denning M.R. in Fielding & Platt Ltd v Selim Najjar [1969] 1 W.L.R. 357 at 361; [1969] 2 All E.R. 150 at 152, CA)

 With this is mind does this mean we can also use our own promissory note? If our whole system is built on these promises then surly we can. Aren't we all equal under the eyes of the Law and as such, don't we all have the same rights. I'm not advocating printing your own money as a promissory note is not money, it's a promise. I wonder if the bank of England can actually pay their promissory notes with something of real value, like gold.

What makes this promissory note valuable? In the UK neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities.

Intrinsically, a 5 Pound Note is just a piece of paper, deposits are merely book entry. Coins do have some intrinsic value as a metal but generally far less than their face value. What then makes these instruments - checks, paper money, and coins - acceptable at

face value in payment of all 'debts' and for other monetary uses. Well it's the confidence people have that they will be able to exchange such 'money' for other assets and for real goods and services. Money, like anything else, derives its value from its scarcity in relation to its usefulness.


"The continued supporting of a system such as this is irresponsible and lawless." - The Community Trusts

Guidance from Jon Shackelton
The Court System of England The County Court & the Crown Court/Magistrates Courts are the first layer of our legal system decisions do not bind any other court Legal v Lawful The terms lawful and legal differ in that the former contemplates the substance of law, whereas the latter alludes to the form of law. A lawful act is authorised, sanctioned, or not forbidden by law. A legal act is performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense, illegal approaches the meaning of invalid. For example: a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be regarded as invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful. The Court System of England

The Court System of England

The County Court & the Crown Court/Magistrates  Courts are the first layer of our legal system  decisions do not bind any other court

Legal v Lawful

The terms lawful and legal differ in that the former  contemplates the substance of law, whereas the  latter alludes to the form of law. A lawful act is  authorised, sanctioned, or not forbidden by law. A 

legal act is performed in accordance with the forms  and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this  sense, illegal approaches the meaning of invalid. 

For example: a contract or will, executed without the  required formalities, might be regarded as invalid or  illegal, but could not be described as unlawful.

The Court System of England

The next layer is divided into three although  under the High Courts jurisdiction and these  three are:

● Family Division

● Chancery Division

● Queens Bench Division

Family Division

The Clerk of the Rules provides administrative support  to the President of the Family Division and all of the  High Court Judges within the Family Division. The Family Division of the High Court has Jurisdiction  to deal with all matrimonial matters, the Children Act  1989 and the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985. It  also deals with matters relating to Part IV Family Law  Act 1996(Family Homes and Domestic Violence),  Adoption Section Inheritance Act 1975 applications  and Probate and Court of Protection work.

Chancery Division

The areas of work that it deals with are:

● business and property related disputes

● competition

● general Chancery Claims

● patents claims

● intellectual Property claims

● companies claims

● insolvency claims

● trust claims

● probate claims

● appeals to the High Court, Chancery Division from the lower court

Chancery Division

The Head of Division, The Chancellor of the High

Court, is the Right Honourable Sir Terence Etherton


There are currently seventeen High Court Judges  attached to the Chancery Division. In addition, in the  Royal Courts of Justice in London, there are six  judges referred to as Chancery Masters (one of  whom is the Chief Master) and five judges referred  to as Bankruptcy Registrars (one of whom is the 

Chief Registrar).

Queens Bench

The work of the Queen's Bench Division, not including  the specialist courts, consists mainly of claims for  damages in respect of:

● personal injury

● negligence

● breach of contract,

● libel and slander (defamation)

● non-payment of a debt, and

● possession of land or property.

Queens Bench

Outside London, the work of the Queen's Bench Division is administered in provincial offices  known as District Registries. In London, the  work is administered in the Central Office at the  Royal Courts of Justice. The work in the Central  Office of the Queen's Bench Division is the  responsibility of the Senior Master, acting under  the authority of the President of the Queen's  Bench Division.

Queens Bench

In many types of claim - for example claims in  respect of negligence by solicitors, accountants,  etc. or claims for possession of land - the  claimant has a choice whether to bring the  claim in the Queen's Bench Division or in the  Chancery Division. However, there are certain  claims that may be brought only in the Queen's  Bench Division these are 

Queens Bench

Sheriff's inter pleader proceedings, (see Rule 17 Supreme Court

Rules for further information)

● Enrolment of deeds,

● Registration of foreign judgements under the Civil Jurisdictions and

Judgements Act 1982,

● Applications for bail in criminal proceedings,

● Applications under the Administration of Justice Act 1920 and the

Foreign Judgements (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933,

● Registration and satisfaction of Bills of Sale,

● Election Petitions,

● Obtaining evidence for foreign courts.


Before I go on I need to thank the Ministry of  Justice for some of the information and, of  course, the big books 

Court of Appeal

Now not many people realise this but the Court  of Appeal is the next layer, above the High  Court – it's bound by the House of Lords  (Supreme Court) and decisions normally bind  itself but exceptions apply.

NOTE: Decisions bind all courts mentioned  earlier

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal has two separate divisions

and they are:

● Criminal Division

● Civil Division

Criminal Division

Appealing against conviction You can only appeal against conviction  to the Court of Appeal if you were convicted at the Crown Court. If  you were convicted in the Magistrates’ Court, you need to appeal to the Crown Court (or  possibly to the

Administrative Court) and you should speak to the Magistrates’  Court for advice on how to appeal

Appealing against sentence If you were sentenced at the Crown  Court, you can appeal against your sentence to the Court of Appeal  (even if you were convicted in the Magistrates’ Court). Appeal against a confiscation order If the confiscation order was 

imposed by the Crown Court

Civil Division

The Civil Appeals Office is responsible for the administration of the Court of Appeal.

● The Office supports the Court in making the best use of the judicial resource. To that

end -

● It verifies whether this Court has jurisdiction

● Ensures that all the papers necessary for determining the case are available and in

good order

● Ensures that there is compliance with all procedural steps

● Manages the progress of each case from setting down to disposal

● The Office draws up the constitutions of the Court, and under the Direction of the

Master of the Rolls supervises the allocation of cases to those constitutions

● The Office ensures that orders reflecting the decisions of the Court are properly

drawn; and

● The Office provides assistance to the legal profession and to individual litigants

Civil Court

The Civil Procedure Rules, Part 52.16 (2), provide that  the Master and the Deputy Masters may exercise the  jurisdiction of the Court insofar as it relates to -

● any matter incidental to any proceedings in the Court of


● any other matter where there is no substantial dispute

between the parties; and

● the dismissal of an appeal or application where a party

has failed to comply with any order, rule or practice


Supreme Court

The Supreme court, formerly the House of

Lords, binds lower courts but not itself. The

Constitutional Reform Act 2005 established the

new Supreme Court. It now undertakes the

work of the Appellate Committee of the House

of Lords.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal

in the UK for civil cases, and for criminal cases

from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It

hears cases of the greatest public or

constitutional importance affecting the whole


Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has its own Rules and Practice Directions which replace the Civil, Criminal  and Taxation Practice Directions and standing orders of the Appellate Committee of the House of  Lords.

These Rules are contained in a statutory instrument which was laid before Parliament on 1 July


refer to the full Rules of The Supreme Court 2009 and consult the following sections for detailed


● Applications for permission to appeal: rules 10 - 17

● Commencement and preparation of appeal: rules 18 - 26

● Hearing and decision of appeal: rules 27 - 29

● Further general provisions: rules 30 - 39

● Particular appeals and references: rules 40 – 44

● Fees and costs: rules 46 - 54

● Transitional arrangements: rule 55

Courts of England

I've tried to make this brief so you get a clear  outline of which Court does what and were their  jurisdiction lies. We'll be going into significant  detail for our members in workshops and  through pod casts in the future. Now were does the EU fit in..........

European Court of Justice

You may not know this but the UK Courts are  bound by the decisions of the EJC = European  Communities Act 1972 Yes the Government have clearly allowed a  foreign body to govern the UK 

European Court of Justice

The Court of Justice interprets EU law to make  sure it is applied in the same way in all EU  countries. It also settles legal disputes between  EU governments and EU institutions. Individuals, companies or organisations can  also bring cases before the Court if they feel  their rights have been infringed by an EU 


European Courts of Justice

Each judge and advocate-general is appointed for a term  of six years, which can be renewed. The governments of  EU countries agree on whom they want to appoint. To help the Court of Justice cope with the large number  of cases brought before it, and to offer citizens better  legal protection, a ‘General Court’ deals with cases  brought forward by private individuals, companies and  some organisations, and cases relating to competition  law.

European Court of Justice

The national courts in each EU country are responsible for ensuring that EU law is properly applied in that  country. But there is a risk that courts in different countries might interpret EU law in different ways. To prevent this happening, there is a ‘preliminary ruling 

procedure’. If a national court is in doubt about the  interpretation or validity of an EU law, it may – and  sometimes must – ask the Court of Justice for advice.  This advice is called a ‘preliminary ruling’.

The Courts of Justice

The Court of Justice has one judge per EU  country. The Court is helped by nine ‘advocates-general’  whose job is to present opinions on the cases  brought before the Court.

They must do so publicly and impartially