If we go back to what Lord Diplock says, in 1974: "The due administration of justice requires first that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionally established courts of criminal or civil jurisdiction..." - and we note "constitutionally established" - we can ask ourselves: "What IS a constitutionally established Court?". The only possible answer is: "One defined by the Constitution". So the question then moves to: "What IS the Constitution?"

Halsbury's Laws of England purport to be the overall authority on 'legal' (Note: Not 'law', because it is choc full of references to Statutes ... it is as badly-named as one would expect from such an impressive tome ... here's why). Under "STATUTES (VOLUME 44(1) (REISSUE))/1. NATURE OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION/(2) DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION/(iii) Particular Types of Act/A. CONSTITUTIONAL, TREATY AND FINANCIAL ACTS/1221. Constitutional Acts", we see:

(iii) Particular Types of Act

A. CONSTITUTIONAL, TREATY AND FINANCIAL ACTS

1221.  Constitutional Acts.

The British Constitution is said to be 'unwritten'. This only means that, unlike most countries, the United Kingdom does not possess a single comprehensive constitution and much of its constitutional principle is embodied in the common law. There are nevertheless a number of historic statutes regarded as embodying and setting forth the state's constitutional principles¹. Any modern Act which amends or adds to these may also be regarded as a constitutional Act². The main significance of classing an Act as a constitutional Act lies in the nature of the interpretative criteria which then apply to it. In particular, the rights the Act confers, having the quality of constitutional rights, will be regarded by the courts as fundamental and not to be displaced except by clear words³.

1      See eg Magna Carta (1215); the Bill of Rights (1689); the Act of Settlement (1700); the Septennial Act 1715.

2      See eg the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949; the Crown Proceedings Act 1947; the Representation of the People Acts 1949 to 1983; the House of Commons Disqualification Acts 1957 and 1975; the Crown Estate Act 1961; and the Supreme Court Act 1981.

3      See para 1299 text and note 5 post.

UPDATE

1221  Constitutional Acts

note 2--Supreme Court Act 1981 now cited as Senior Courts Act 1981: Constitutional Reform Act 2005 Sch 11 para 1 (in force on 1 October 2009: SI 2009/1604).

This (glibly) says that the Constitution derives from the Magna Carta 1215 - and also the Bill of Rights (1689); the Act of Settlement (1700); the Septennial Act 1715.- as well as Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949; the Crown Proceedings Act 1947; the Representation of the People Acts 1949 to 1983; the House of Commons Disqualification Acts 1957 and 1975; the Crown Estate Act 1961; and the Supreme Court Act 1981.

Now, since the Magna Carta 1215 TREATY is the best-known start to a written Constitution that we have, where do 'Bill of Rights (1689) ... etc ... the Supreme Court Act 1981' obtain their Constitutional legitimacy? The Magna Carta 1215 says NOTHING about any legitimacy for any Parliament - nor (obviously) for any Acts of Parliament. In point of fact the Magna Carta 1215 specifically states that any attempt to supersede it is null & void.

The only way anything could gain Constitutional legitimacy is if The People decided it was to be that way (by overwhelming majority, based on the best-known facts). The circumstances surrounding the Magna Carta 1215 were about as close as one could come - bearing in mind the communications available at the time - to a People's Referendum. What subsequent Referendum (of Magna Carta 1215-size) gave Constitutional legitimacy to any 'experiment in Human Relations' known as a Parliament? The Civil Wars? The conflict there was, basically, Parliament .vs. Monarch ... i.e. One falsehood .vs. Another falsehood ... One 'power-grabbed' Illegitimacy .vs. Another 'power-grabbed' Illegitimacy.

In other words: 'Bill of Rights (1689) ... etc ... the Supreme Court Act 1981' HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL LEGITIMACY ... and no legitimacy for making THEMSELVES Constitutional ... let alone any subsequent ones. Indeed even the Bill of Rights (1689); the Act of Settlement (1700); the Septennial Act 1715 cannot claim any Constitutional legitimacy. Possibly the Declaration of Rights could make a Constitutional legitimacy claim (but very tenuous, since it was An Illegitimacy inviting A Substitute Monarch to the English throne. It all rather depends on whether or not one believes in the "Divine Right of Kings" ... which this Author does not. Unfortunately the British do LOVE their Monarch ... well ... except those who've had their heads chopped off, that is).

('Parliament' has simply self-aggrandised itself. When were The People of England asked if it was Constitutionally-acceptable to create any kind of Court de Facto? When did The People agree another TREATY - such that was OK to create a Parliament? It's all been plucked out of multiple backsides. And the Magna Carta 1215 specifically prohibits ANY of this arse-plucking)

Thus we are clearly left with the Magna Carta 1215 (and possibly the Declaration of Rights) defining the Constitution. And the only type of Court thus defined is ONE WITH A JURY. In other words: A Court of The Common Law.

It is doubtful that Lord Diplock meant to exclude all other types of Courts, but he did when he used the words "constitutionally established".

Added to this we have John Donaldson, Master of the Rolls (mine's a cheese & onion!) saying: "Mens rea in the law of contempt was something of a minefield. The reason was that it was wholly the creature of the common law ...", which also points us fairly & squarely back to Common Law Courts with a Jury (for resolving Contempts of Court).

In summary, ALL Courts de Facto are UNconstitiutional, as are ALL Acts of Parliament (most of which TRY to support such Courts ... FROM AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BASIS IN THE FIRST PLACE!)

And applying UNconstitiutional demands - with menaces - is defined as TREASON.

Treason against The People of England (and hence the United Kingdom as a whole - assuming Wales, Scotland and Ulster would be happy to accept the Magna Carta 1215 ... they would be daft if they did not).

IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, WHETHER A JUDGE IS ACTING UNDER HIS OATH OR NOT - IF HE IS TRYING TO RUN A COURT DE FACTO (ONE WITHOUT A JURY OF 12)  - THEN HE IS COMMITTING TREASON.

Only a Judge presiding over a Common Law Court is acting Constitutionally.

And that's where all the corruption lies.

Veronica (21st April, 2011)

FW 6411

http://contempt.fmotl.com/#BM1