A belief in the Rule of Law stands on the principle that the system of justice is sound, fair, and accessible. Recently, our challenge regarding council tax reached the High Court for a permission hearing for judicial review, bringing to light a fundamental and widely misunderstood issue. The problem we face is not with the design of our legal system—which is incredible—but with the human element: the operators who have been entrusted to run it.
The Scientific Approach to Law
Our work at PeaceKeepers began over three years ago, not as a random complaint, but as a structured, evidence-based process. We started by researching acts of parliament and case law to form a theory on how the system should operate. But a theory is only a starting point. It must be tested. This is the scientific principle in action: we test the theory, gather feedback from those courageous enough to challenge the system, and modify our understanding based on the results. This iterative process of test, feedback, and modification has been central to refining our focus and identifying the true nature of the problem. Law is a science, not a subjective art.
The Core Problem: The System vs. The Operators
Through this rigorous testing, a clear picture emerged. The system itself is not the problem; the problem is the operators of the system. This includes judges, but also solicitors and barristers who, as officers of the court, have a primary duty to uphold the Rule of Law.
Under the Legal Services Act 2007, these legal professionals are duty-bound to provide the court with all relevant law to assist in resolving a dispute. Their duty is first to the court and the constitutional principle of the Rule of Law, and only then to their client. However, we are witnessing a systemic failure in this duty. Arguments are presented without legal authority, and judges are not holding these officers to account for their failure. The result is a breach of the profound trust we, the public, have placed in them to operate the system lawfully.
The Illusion of Parliamentary Supremacy
This operational failure is propped up by a pervasive myth: the absolute supremacy of Parliament. The judiciary itself has, by its own admission, breached its constitutional duties of independence and separation of powers by deciding that Parliament is the supreme creator of law. This contradicts the principle that everyone is equal under the law. The courts have a statutory duty, instructed by Parliament in acts like the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, to determine the lawfulness of acts of Parliament. The judiciary’s role is to act as the scales of justice, ensuring those who govern do so lawfully. By abdicating this duty, they have failed.
A Case Study: The Council Tax Judicial Review
Our application for judicial review in the High Court is a direct challenge to these operational failures. The initial application was refused on paper on four grounds:
- Lack of Standing: The argument that PeaceKeepers has no right to bring the case.
- Delay: An allegation that the claim was not filed in time.
- Alternative Remedy: The claim that the matter should have been taken to a different venue, like the Valuation Tribunal.
- No Perceptible Merit: A declaration that the remaining grounds were effectively a waste of the court’s time.
Our recent in-person hearing was a renewal of that application, where we had the opportunity to address these points directly before a judge. It is through these focused, evidence-based challenges that we can begin to expose the operational failures and compel the system to run according to its own rules. The goal is not to break the system, but to force it to work as it was designed—justly, accountably, and for the people.
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/.