Unveiling Deceit: PeaceKeepers’ Appeal to Force Judicial Accountability and Uphold the Rule of Law

The PeaceKeepers organization has initiated a pivotal appeal to the Court of Appeal, directly challenging the recent High Court judgment. This critical step stems from a liability order issued against our representative on…

August 12th, and District Judge Healey’s subsequent refusal to provide a properly reasoned explanation. Our ongoing legal battle aims not only to address specific errors of law but also to expose and confront instances of judicial and professional misconduct that undermine the very foundation of justice.

 

The Path to Appeal: Highlighting Early Victories

 

Despite initial perceptions of a setback, our journey through the High Court has already yielded significant victories that pave the way for this appeal:

• Standing: We successfully established that PeaceKeepers had the necessary standing to bring this challenge.
• Timeliness: Our claim was confirmed to have been filed within the required timeframe.
• Alternative Remedy: We decisively demonstrated that the Valuation Tribunal was not an appropriate alternative remedy for the legal arguments we presented, even overcoming the council’s last-minute introduction of new “alternative remedy” arguments.

These early successes underscore the validity of our core arguments, leaving Judge Dame Hill’s blanket refusal—that none of our eight grounds had “perceptible merit”—as the central issue driving this appeal.

 

Challenging Misconduct: Judicial and Professional Accountability

 

Our appeal transcends mere legal arguments; it directly calls into question the conduct of those entrusted with upholding justice:

• Judge Dame Hill’s Misconduct: Our first ground of appeal explicitly challenges Judge Dame Hill’s refusal, citing fundamental flaws in her judgment and concerning aspects of her conduct. We contend that her judgment lacked adequate reasoning, failed to properly analyze common law authorities and statutory interpretation, and deliberately reframed our questions to avoid direct answers. We allege breaches of judicial candor, including accepting unsubstantiated justifications, overlooking contradictory evidence, and making critical errors of fact.
• Barrister’s Breach of Duty: Our second ground of appeal highlights the alleged professional misconduct of Simon Whitfield, Liverpool City Council’s barrister. His primary professional duties are to the rule of law and to the court—duties that stand paramount above his obligations to his client. Despite being explicitly informed of the 1704 House of Lords appeal in Ashby v. White (a monumental constitutional precedent) on at least eleven separate occasions, he failed to bring this critical authority to the court’s attention or address it in his arguments. This dereliction of duty directly impacts the reasonableness of legal costs awarded.

It is abundantly clear that both the judge and the barrister had explicit professional and ethical obligations that, we contend, they failed to uphold.

 

Exposing Judicial Failures: A Ground-by-Ground Analysis

 

Judge Dame Hill dismissed all eight of our substantive grounds. Our appeal meticulously challenges these judicial failures:

1. Open Justice: We argued that District Judge Healey unlawfully restricted public access, both remotely (refusing available video links) and in person (denying use of empty courtroom seats) on flawed or non-existent grounds. Judge Dame Hill erred by applying a low “rationality” test instead of the constitutionally mandated “strictly necessary” test.
2. Right to Record Proceedings: Judge Dame Hill wrongly upheld the refusal to allow personal recordings in Magistrates’ Courts (which lack official transcripts), despite the vital need for accurate appeal records and the precedent set by higher courts that live-stream proceedings. She again misapplied the legal test.
3. “Demand Notice” vs. “Bill”: We contended that Judge Dame Hill inverted the principle of legality. She incorrectly focused on whether using “bill” was prohibited by legislation, rather than whether it was positively authorized, in direct contravention of fundamental constitutional law, especially concerning taxation.
4. Unlawful Summons Delegation: We challenged the delegation of summons issuance to anonymous administrative officers. Judge Dame Hill ignored common law requiring a judicial mind for such acts and misinterpreted delegation rules, wrongly implying that any judicial function could be delegated. She also improperly focused on signatures instead of the required named judicial officers for accountability.
5. Determination of Costs: District Judge Healey awarded Liverpool Council zero costs for summons and hearing, despite clear evidence of reasonable expenses (circa £5-£12), thereby abdicating his mandatory duty to determine reasonably incurred costs. Furthermore, Judge Dame Hill upheld the award of disproportionate barrister fees (£950 for a £75 debt), despite the barrister’s failure to provide relevant legal assistance to the court.
6. Reasoned Judgment: Both PeaceKeepers and Liverpool City Council agreed that District Judge Healey failed to provide a reasoned judgment on key issues. Judge Dame Hill ignored this crucial agreement, falsely claiming the omission “worked in my favor,” disregarding its overarching public importance.
7. Perfected Liability Order: Judge Dame Hill, while misrepresenting some aspects of the law and ignoring judicial officer naming requirements (Rule 66B4), crucially confirmed that a physical liability order from the court is required for council tax enforcement, bringing much-needed clarity to a previously ambiguous area.
8. Constitutionality of Council Tax: Judge Dame Hill deliberately ignored our argument about the binding 1704 House of Lords Ashby v. White appeal, which the Cofor judgment had overlooked. Instead, she deflected by focusing solely on the earlier, non-binding 1703 judgment, demonstrating a willful refusal to engage with critical precedent.

 

The Path Ahead: Forcing Accountability in Higher Courts

 

Having served the appeal documents, our case is now formally before the Court of Appeal. Critically, Grounds 2 (Open Justice) and 3 (Right to Record Proceedings) were not certified as “totally without merit,” which means even if other grounds are dismissed on paper, we are guaranteed an in-person hearing on these fundamental points. This ensures our core arguments for transparency and accountability will be heard.

This appeal is not about a “loss”; it is about strategically pushing for justice through the judicial hierarchy. As a seasoned retired High Court judge once advised us, the likelihood of obtaining a lawful decision increases significantly as one ascends the court system. We are compelled to push this to the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, the Supreme Court, because Magistrates’ Courts often function primarily as revenue collection services rather than true courts of first instance for nuanced legal challenges. We are forcing them to uphold the rule of law.

From this High Court judgment, PeaceKeepers has secured three undeniable victories for the public:

1. A physical, court-issued document is now required for all council tax enforcement.
2. Magistrates’ Courts MUST listen to all your legal arguments (excluding those solely concerning dwelling, liable person, or calculation errors).
3. You are entitled to a reasoned judgment – and you should not leave the court until you receive one!

These pivotal advancements empower individuals, transforming their ability to defend themselves against unlawful enforcement. This is a complex game of chess, and PeaceKeepers is committed to forcing accountability into a system that has historically resisted it.

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/.