Judiciary moving to cancel out self representation?

Judiciary moving to cancel out self representation?











From a Freedom of Information Request by Buzzfeed, we learn of the concerns from Judges over the cuts to Legal Aid as it relates to the rise in Defendants representing themselves.

Naturally the Judges have a plethora of seemingly humanitarian concerns for the Defendant, concerns such as possible ‘miscarriages of justice’ all due to the Defendant not understanding how to operate in Court and in the matter of paperwork and mechanics of the Law Society.

Unfortunately they fail to recognise, or do not want you to recognise, that as a non member of the Law Society the rules do not apply until you consent to the offer of contract.

Having studied the law for over 13 years one thing is clear to my good self, for ‘Acting’ in the capacity of ‘Judge’, a Man is financially compensated in Fees. To ‘Act’ in the capacity of ‘Prosecutor’, again receives a payable Fee, both are members of the Law Society and pay their Dues to the society, therefore both are subject to the rules of the Law Society, and if they are Freemasons, then a dual set of rules are being applied against you without such being clearly offered to you with the invitation or summons offer to contract with the Admiralty Courts.

In essence the guts of the contract are hidden creating controversy.

I on the other hand, like you, if Summoned to Act in the capacity of a Defendant, are offered no Fee and not being a member of the Law Society are not subject to the rules of the same, this positions I at a serious disadvantage not understanding the Jurisdiction Legal. Therefore I would  have to be classed as ‘Incompetent’ at Acting in any capacity within the Jurisdiction Legal.

It must also be understood that in bringing a Legal Complaint against you, if you are not in fact a Legal Person, leaves the Man or Man with a womb, a Woman, bringing the complaint, and the one acting as Prosecutor, Liable for a breech of Encroachment,[1] specifically for Trespass.[2]

It is upon such understanding it would appear to my good self that the real fears of the Judges and all concerned, is not as they are presenting, but is in fact due to the projected lack of funds that will be forthcoming in the refusal for Legal Aid, which will mean more Men will recognise what I have just relayed and cease ever to Act in the role of Defendant.

Thus requiring no Legal Aid at all.

What the Judges Say
The research – commissioned by the government in 2015 to review the impact of cuts to legal aid made in the 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) – featured in-depth interviews with 15 crown court judges and six prosecutors in 2015 to find out their views on the impact of people appearing in court without lawyers.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has kept the contents of the research under wraps until now. When BuzzFeed News first asked for it under freedom of information laws in last April, the request was rejected on the grounds that it “relates to the formulation or development of government policy”.

Following an appeal to the information commissioner, the MoJ finally handed over a six-page “unpublished summary” of the research on Friday night.

It reveals that judges and prosecutors expressed concern that :

People defending themselves without lawyers had “varied but limited understanding” of what was going on in court, a situation that has obvious implications for justice.

Some felt that those without lawyers were more likely to be found guilty.

There could be an impact on witnesses of being cross-examined by the accused.

Unrepresented defendants’ cases resulted in longer hearings and case progression was slower.

All the judges interviewed “stated a very strong preference” to people being represented and would delay hearings to try to make this happen.

There was a potential for those without lawyers to affect the neutrality of a jury in a trial, either, for example, by irritating them by their behaviour or provoking sympathy.

Richard Miller, head of justice at the Law Society, said :

“It is deeply concerning that people are facing serious criminal charges without the support of a solicitor. Unrepresented defendants are often unable to defend themselves effectively – especially in serious cases – and there is a risk of miscarriages of justice resulting. The presence of unrepresented defendants also slows down the justice process because of the additional court time needed.

He said one reason for this was that the upper limit for the means test was set too low. “The means test has not been reviewed since 2010 and it is high time that a review is undertaken. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. But the rule of law is meaningless if there is no access to justice.”


[1] Definition of Encroachment

Judiciary moving to cancel out self representation?











[2] Definition of Trespass

Judiciary moving to cancel out self representation?











Further Study
Rome Controls The New Order : UNIDROIT The Legal Deception
Who Owns Your Soul? Welcome To Cestui Que Vic Trusts
The Legal Person : What Is Its Nature?
Corporate Sentencing Council Moves To Secure Religious Authority In Online Debates
British Law