In our last update, we called it “half-time” in our crucial High Court battle. The judgment is now in, and while our application was refused, let us be clear: this is unequivocally not the end. The ruling by Judge Dame Hill has highlighted clear errors of law, compelling us to continue our fight to the Court of Appeal.
At its heart, PeaceKeepers stands for more than just individual tax bills. We stand for fundamental principles that safeguard us all from arbitrary power: the right for justice to be done fairly, openly, and according to law; the right to know your judge; and the absolute necessity for public bodies to adhere to legislation, not invent their own rules. Judge Dame Hill’s decision dismissed our arguments without full consideration, a decision we believe is deeply flawed.
Flagrant Errors in the High Court Ruling
The judgment from Judge Dame Hill reveals several profound errors of law and a concerning disregard for foundational principles of justice:
- Undermining Open Justice: District Judge Healey refused over 70 members of the public entry to our hearing, despite empty seats and a prepared video link. His reason? It would take “too long” to set up. Judge Dame Hill astonishingly deemed this a “rational decision,” despite the law dictating that departures from open justice are only permissible when strictly necessary, not for convenience.
- Denial of Accurate Record: District Judge Healey also refused to allow a personal recording of the hearing. In magistrates’ courts, where official transcripts are non-existent, such a recording is the only way to guarantee an accurate record for appeal. His refusal was based on a “speculative risk of misuse”—a far cry from the clear and cogent evidence required by law to restrict open justice. These were not mere case management decisions; they were an unlawful erosion of our constitutional rights.
Councils Acting Outside the Law
Parliament creates legislation, and public bodies, including councils, have a duty to follow it precisely. Yet, in our case and countless others across the country, councils ignore specific legislative requirements:
- Unlawful Demand Notices: Legislation explicitly requires councils to issue a demand notice before taking individuals to court. Instead, councils often send a “council tax bill,” openly admitting this is for “psychological reasons” – to imply agreement rather than a legal demand. The High Court found this acceptable because it wasn’t explicitly prohibited by legislation. This turns the law on its head. As established by Entick v. Carrington (1765), a public body can only do what common law and legislation expressly permit.
- Anonymous Summonses: Even more concerning, the summons to court was not issued by a Justice of the Peace, as the law requires. Instead, it came from an anonymous administrative officer. The High Court accepted that a fundamental judicial act could be delegated without clear parliamentary authorization. This constitutes a severe overreach of power, allowing officials to rewrite legislation to suit their own convenience.
Weaponizing Costs and Denying Reasoned Judgments
Judges have a fundamental duty to act fairly and explain their decisions. District Judge Healey, in our case, arguably failed on both counts:
- Unjustified Costs: Despite disputing the council’s costs, District Judge Healey awarded nothing to us when the council failed to provide proof for their claimed expenses. However, he approved enormous barrister fees without question. In our bulk list hearing, over 2,500 people were summoned, leading to magistrates granting £200,000 in council costs at that single hearing. With two such hearings monthly in Liverpool, this equates to £400,000 per month, and approximately £2.5 million annually from the most vulnerable. Across England’s nearly 500 billing authorities, this could mean £1.2 billion annually taken from those struggling most, all due to magistrates failing to reasonably determine costs. This tactic weaponizes cost awards to financially coerce individuals into compliance.
- Absence of Reasoned Judgment: Worse still, District Judge Healey failed to provide a properly reasoned judgment at the time of his decision. Judge Dame Hill excused this, claiming reasons were effectively given later in a separate document. This is unlawful. Justice demands a decision is properly explained when made, not patched up after the fact.
The Unconstitutional Anonymous Judge
A cornerstone of judicial accountability is knowing who made the order against you. Yet, in our case and thousands of others, the answer is “we don’t know.” The liability order was an anonymous entry in a court register, lacking the names of the judicial officer or the lay bench, including the legally required legal advisor. While our specific case uniquely included District Judge Healey’s name, the High Court under Judge Dame Hill astonishingly deemed this process “fair and sufficiently open” and failed to address the fundamental legal principle: there is no such thing as an anonymous Justice of the Peace. An anonymous, unreasoned order is not justice. You have the right to face your accuser and know which judge decided your case. This practice fundamentally risks the integrity of the entire judicial process and must be stopped.
The Overlooked Constitutional Precedent
The most profound issue, which Judge Dame Hill refused to even consider, was our argument that the current council tax scheme relies on a flawed legal precedent, the Cofer case. We argued Cofer was wrongly decided because it ignored a binding 300-year-old resolution from the House of Lords (then the highest court). Judge Dame Hill dismissed this by simply citing Cofer itself, a circular argument that avoids the core constitutional question. This refusal to even assess the arguability of our case, a point of profound constitutional importance, was unlawfully certified as “totally without merit.”
The Fight Continues to the Court of Appeal
Despite the refusal, and the baffling “totally without merit” certification (which is, in reality, useless for stopping an appeal), our fight will continue to the Court of Appeal. We won ground three—the valuation tribunal is not an alternative remedy, which means these arguments must now be heard in magistrates’ courts, spreading vital knowledge and returning us to the rule of law.
This is a game of chess, and we believe the state has lost a significant piece in this battle. In just over three years, we’ve achieved more than has been seen in decades of injustice. When we began, a retired High Court judge told us we’d never win, as we were trying to overturn 300 years of injustice. Yet, our simple challenge – “Where is my obligation?” – continues to remain unanswered by the courts. We set out to drive this message home, and we will.
The fight isn’t over. We lost on one ground, but we won on three others, and on every ground, we should have won. Make of that what you will.
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/.