What do I know?
What I believe to be true, what I know to be true and what I suspect to be true relating to English Common Law
I use 3 criteria when trying to understand English Common Law.
1. ‘English common law should be simple enough for the common man (or woman) to understand it’. It is because of this phrase that I discount any silly plays on words (e.g. understand/stand under, whether to use the word person, lore v law, etc) and the like. I heard this phrase in a video which I incorporated in virtually my first article. You can see the 60 second video here:
2. I am more inclined to believe people who are trying to help other people than those in whose interest it is that English common law remains confusing and beyond the reach of the common man. I include in this group the powers-that-be and some lawyers (more of one of those in a moment).
3. Since buying my own copy and starting to read The History of English Law by Pollock and Maitland I take everything that is written in that book to be true. This is because, as well as being a meticulously researched and scholarly work, it is referenced by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales in the first point of his judgement for R v W [2010] EWCA Crim 372
By the way, shortly after I had published my previous article, one of my readers, who goes by the name 98th Monkey, made a quip about the phrase ‘I require’ and likened it to wet lettuce. What he wrote reminded me of that phrase about people who represent themselves in court which goes, something like, ‘a man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client’.
What I suspect
1. That Mr Monkey is a lawyer. The reason I think that is because his first reaction to my writing that I was going to use the phrase ‘I require’ to the magistrate, was to try to protect the livelihoods of lawyers who make they living by misleading the public.
2. That both those phrases were coined by the same person who was himself a lawyer
3. That the purpose of both phrases is to deter the common man from doing what is in his best interest (i.e. to represent himself in court, as a litigant in person, and to use the phrase ‘I require’).
It just occurred to me that perhaps Mr Monkey is an agent of our corrupt and evil State. Whether he is or not, he’s certainly doing its bidding.
Regardless and in any event, I will be testing out that phrase when I am prosecuted for non-payment of road tax. If the ‘I require’ phrases work, as I am becoming more and more certain they will, and my case ends up being heard in front of a jury in the King’s Bench division of the High Court, I will test just how imaginative I can be with my requirements (see a later article perhaps).
It should be noted that the reason I am writing this article is as a direct result of Mr Monkey’s comments. I wanted to set out precisely what I know, believe or suspect. I have reached all these conclusions without any discussion with anyone else, be it in coffee shops virtual or real, but by careful consideration, cogitation and thought over many months.
What I believe to be true
I have been told that if you are prosecuted under legislation, you can seek to convince the jury to use its power to annul that legislation.
I suspect that all juries have this power and that any legislation can be annulled by a jury provided you convince it to do it.
What I know to be true
The King’s Bench was established in the reign of Henry II (1133 - 1189). The powers-that-be will tell you that the King’s Bench division of the High Court is only concerned with civil law. In fact, it is the common law division of the High Court.
As to the history of Trial by Jury: juries were first seen in the 9th century in the Frankish Empire. They were brought to England by William the Conqueror in 1066. Juries similar to the ones we have today were widespread throughout England in 1164 (i.e. during the reign of Henry II).
By the way, I had thought that the phrase ‘I require you to place my case before the King’s Bench’ meant that you would also get a Trial by Jury. It was following Tommy Robinson’s judicial review that I revised this to add, ‘and I require a Trial by Jury’.
Why is the history of trials by jury important? Because much weight is put on tradition and custom in English Common Law. If something has happened for a long time, a government cannot suddenly introduce legislation which is contrary to it.
For example, for over eight hundred years if someone were to start a private prosecution its natural conclusion was a Trial by Jury. The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (section 6 subsection 2) grants the Director of Public Prosecutions the power to terminate private prosecutions. In other words, rather than reaching its natural conclusion, which it had done for over 800 years, the legislation grants a single individual the power to terminate a private prosecution. I think this is grounds for seeking to convince a jury to use its power to annul that legislation.
Similarly, I believe it could be the basis for seeking to annul the various Magistrates’ Courts Acts since a single individual (the magistrate) decides the fate of the defendant rather than a jury.
All common law offences carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
The core common law offences (homicide, mayhem, fraud, rape, assault or wounding, false imprisonment, misconduct of royal officials which later became misconduct in public office, etc) were, I think, brought to England in the Norman Invasion. In any event, they were around long before the term ‘common law’ had even been established. The phrase ‘common law’ came about during the reign of Henry III (1216 - 1272) after having been developed through ecclesiastic courts.
On page 475 of volume II of the History of English Law, the authors state ‘Harm is harm and should be paid for. On the other hand, where no harm is done no crime is committed’. I believe this can be used as a defence if you are charged under any legislation. Indeed, when I filled in my Plead by Post form for non-payment of road tax, I wrote, as the reason I was pleading not guilty, ‘I caused no harm and hence committed no crime’. When I am actually prosecuted under that legislation (in front of a jury at the King’s Bench division of the High Court) I might quote that whole phrase or simply say, “I have done no harm so why am I here?”
However I choose to phrase it, I will be using the opportunity that has been presented to me (i.e. I am actually in front of a judge or magistrate from whom I can require certain things like ‘hand deliver my letter to its intended recipient’ and so on) to start a number of private prosecutions of public officials for the common law offence of misconduct in public office.
Currently, these stand at Stephen Parkinson, the Director of Public Prosecutions at the Crown Prosecution Service, and both public officials who failed to deliver my letter to its intended recipient (i.e. a judge who works in the King’s Bench division of the High Court).
Order of business
Just to recap, there are 2 reasons I have chosen to start a private prosecution of Stephen Parkinson, the DPP at the CPS. I formulated this plan last November while I was emailing Tommy Robinson (and our dear eavesdroppers) in prison:
1. It is very easy. It’s the first one I am trying, and it will be proof of concept, so I didn’t want to make it too time consuming and daunting.
Essentially, on both emails I wrote (one to a private solicitor and another to the CPS in April and May 2024) the respondent said that in order to start a private prosecution of a public official for the common law offence of misconduct in public office, I would first need a police investigation. However, what I am (and have been) actually doing is writing directly to a judge who works at the King’s Bench division of the High Court. As soon as the judge sends me a reference number indicating my case is proceeding, it will have solved itself.
However, the second reason is the most important.
2. As mentioned above, legislation grants the Director of Public Prosecutions the power to terminate another private prosecution. If I am able to remove him from the equation (and, for example, require the judge to prevent the appointment of a new DPP for the duration of my case), it would mean he wouldn’t be able to terminate my private prosecution, nor those of any other people.
If, in the interim, I am able to convince a jury to use its power to annul the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which grants him that power, that would be the end of anyone terminating anyone else’s private prosecution.
The question does remain though: should I entrust my letter (starting my private prosecution) to the magistrate who is going to be trying me for non-payment of road tax? Or, should I delay it until I am actually in correspondence with a judge who works at the King’s Bench division of the High Court?
This is one of the things I am debating with myself at the moment.
One final thing
I heard yesterday that Sir Brian Leveson had proposed removing jury trials from cases where the punishment is for less than 2 years inside, I think, because of the massive backlog of cases (which has nothing to do with the amount of legislation nor the greed of the powers-that-be of course).
What difference will it have on me and anyone else who follows the method I am using?
I don’t think it will affect us at all. If the phrases ‘I require you to place my case before the King’s Bench’ and ‘I require a Trial by Jury’ work now (and presumably have worked since both the King’s Bench and Trials by Jury were established in the 12th century), they will work if these recommendations are put in place. It’s just the poor saps who don’t know the phrases and merely plead not guilty to the offences under which they have been charged.
Perhaps someone using my method (i.e. communicating directly with a High Court judge and starting a private prosecution of a public official for the common law offence of misconduct in public office, after having been charged under legislation) should start a private prosecution of Sir Brian for misconduct in public office.
Maybe something for one of my readers to think about.