The PeaceKeepers organisation is relentlessly dissecting the High Court judgment, preparing for a monumental appeal to the Court of Appeal. Our latest focus is on a truly profound constitutional question: Can a court legally ignore a 300-year-old ruling from the highest court in the land?
Our legal system is founded on the promise of certainty and stability, with the doctrine of stare decisis (precedent) serving as its bedrock. This means that lower courts must follow decisions made by higher courts. However, what happens when a court bases its decision on a flawed precedent—one made in ignorance of actual, binding law? This is precisely the fundamental constitutional argument PeaceKeepers put before the High Court, as well as to District Judge Healey before that.
The Invisible Law: A Precedent Ignored
We contended that the Kofa case, heavily relied upon by councils and enforcement agents, is fundamentally flawed. It was decided per incuriam—a legal term meaning it was made in ignorance of a binding authority from a higher court. Yet, Judge Dame Hill, much like District Judge Healey and other legal professionals involved, simply ignored this crucial argument. It was as if our submissions were invisible, our voices unheard.
Judge Dame Hill’s response was not to engage with the substance of our argument. Instead, she pointed to Kofa itself, stating it had already decided the issue. This is a classic example of circular reasoning, highlighting a profound irrationality. She effectively said, “Your argument is unarguable because Kofa says so,” even though our entire submission was that Kofa was wrongly decided precisely because it failed to consider a superior, binding precedent. You cannot use a precedent to dismiss a challenge when the very challenge questions the integrity of that precedent. By doing so, Judge Dame Hill failed to address the real question before her.
The Overlooked House of Lords Ruling: Ashby v. White (1704)
The binding authority that Kofa case—and now, astonishingly, Judge Dame Hill—overlooked is the final resolution in the House of Lords in the landmark case of Ashby v. White (1704). While Kofa considered the original 1703 judgment, it ignored the subsequent 1704 ruling by the House of Lords, which at the time was the highest court in the land, equivalent to today’s Supreme Court.
This 1704 ruling contains a critical clarification: it clarifies restrictions on Parliament’s power. While parliamentary power is vast, it is not absolute and cannot be used to arbitrarily control the common law or infringe upon the private property of individuals. This resolution fully aligns with and reinforces the principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights 1688. This 300-year-old binding authority from the highest court was never considered in the Kofa case, and the High Court has now similarly refused to consider it.
This is not merely an oversight; it represents a wilful refusal to address binding law. Despite explicit references to the 1704 House of Lords appeal in our submissions and during the High Court hearing, the judgment makes no mention of it. This pattern of avoidance by legal professionals and judges, as opposed to engaging with the substance of the issue, is deeply concerning. The fact that Judge Dame Hill certified this highly arguable constitutional point as “totally without merit” further underscores the problem.
The Fight for Constitutional Integrity and Judicial Accountability
Our appeal is not just about this specific legal point; it is about the fundamental right to have a genuine, arguable case heard by the courts. We are demanding that the Court of Appeal correct this profound error and affirm a simple, vital principle: No court can be allowed to ignore binding law.
This case goes to the very integrity of our judiciary. Judges take a solemn judicial oath to “do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.” If judges are willingly ignoring binding precedent and abdicating their duty to the people by simply claiming “Parliament said so,” it represents a serious breach of trust and their judicial oath. We have repeatedly demonstrated that Parliament, notably through the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, has empowered judges to uphold these fundamental constitutional principles, including judicial discretion, open justice, and court transparency. The judiciary’s continued reluctance to embrace these principles, often citing “Parliament’s decision” when it suits, is an abdication of their crucial role as the balance between the governing and the governed.
This is not a justice system when fundamental constitutional principles are cast aside. This is a system that, in many instances, prioritizes revenue generation over the rule of law. We, the PeaceKeepers, will continue to expose these practices and demand that the judiciary stands up, holds its officers accountable, and truly returns to the principles of lawful governance. It is time for accountability for those who refuse to acknowledge and apply the clear law of the land.
Feeling frustrated by the system is a sign that you know something is wrong. We’ve created a free online course to give you the knowledge to turn that frustration into effective action. Claim your free spot at https://peacekeepers.org.uk/enrol/.