GRIMSBY AND CLEETHORPES Application to start a prosecution MAGISTRATES’ COURT (s1 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980) (Code 1940) Listed: 26 April 2016 v Humberside Police Defendant EXHIBIT 11 Internet forum “Screen shots” Screen shots of two internet forum posts (contents of letters):- i) Admin Leeds 20 Nov 2013. Original letter [Exhibit 13] ii) Admin Leeds REPLY 25 Nov 2013. Original letter [Exhibit 14] Internet address: http://legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?36444-Council-Tax-Liability-Order- Applications-Court-Costs-%96-Test-Case/page7Soe rr outlawigo oe eee ‘Senior Member Thanks (Given): 338 oso ‘Thanks (Received): 314 Mentioned. 12 Postle) = Re: Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs - Test Case Admiristrative Court Offce at Leeds Leads Combined Court LOxford Rowe Leeds ‘Your ref C0/7281/2013 20 November 2013 Dear Sir/Madam Re: The Queen on the application of [ 2 1 ¥ GRIMSBY MAGISTRA TES COURT lim asked te advise the court whether! will be withdra ving this jusicial re view claim as it deems there to be ne longer a need for further action on the part of the High Court. Representations have been made upon the draft case though I've neither entered into a recognizance nor since been asked to. ‘The purpose of the jucicial re wew claim vas, | baie ved, to mandate the justices to state the case vithout being subject to terms of 3 recognizance had viewed that agreeing such terms vould pose risks, potentially greater than subjecting myself to forfeiture of the proposed ~ if, for example, to avoid a penalty the appeal vias prosecuted kno ving that the stated case omitted the points inlaw! vas questioning. In terms of successfuly appealing the decision | vould be disadvantaged from the outset and dsproportionstely ‘exposed to the financial riske of incurring costs, It could be argued that in these circumstances. requiring recognizance vould either be denying my access to justice or unduly burdening me Snancially, as prasently I'm in receipt of no income, Although the daim prompted service of the draft case, it stl remains that delivery of the final signed case has. in accordance vith CrimPR Part 64, rule 64,17]. overrun by approxmately tv months, Presumably then, the agreement detaied in the ackno viedgement of service vas only to serve the draft case. |Lam therefore in the same position now as | vas before the claim fo! deliver the signed case unless recognizance is entered into wandatory order as t seems the Justices vil unlikely Howaver. where my queries vith the Magistrates’ court went unansvered. the judicial re view process succeeded in dra ving from tthe Clerk that if! had appeared be fore the court to enter into a recognizance, its appropriateness and/or the amount could have been considered. This is exactly the information | vas seelong and vould never have obtained had | not proceeded vith this claim for judicial reve ve Kno wing as | do now, that 2 possibilty exists to negotiate terms which are mutuaty acceptable, it seams arranging to appear before the court to enter into a recognizance is noW appropriate Inlight of the Justices expressing regard for the Administrative Court's time and public money. it vould also seem appropriate. if. whist appearing before the Magsstrates' Court to agree terms of @ recognizance, | also seek agreement to terms of an order that ‘the court consiger the matter on the papers and that there be no order as to costs, as the case involves a matter of general pubic importance. ‘After considering the options that appear available to me nov, please take this as formal notice that | am vsthdrs ving this judicial review csim. Yours sincerelypry outlawigo tore ae £ Senior Member Thanks (Given): 138 od reat Thang tsecened!: 52 acedneas a2 nase Re: Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs - Test Case HM Courts & Tribunals Service Administrative Court Office at Leeds Leeds Combined Court 1 Oxford Row Leeds West Yorkshire 181386 25 November 2013, (Our ref. €O/72812013 Your ref Dear SirfMadam Re The Queen onthe application of [. MAGISTRATES COURT versus GRIMSBY am writing to inform you that your letter in the above case was received by this office on 22/112013. Uniess you hear from us within four weeks fram the date of this letter, you can assume that your letterto withdraw has been accepted and the Caurt file has been closed Please ncte that ali copy documents in the above matter will be destroyed immediately Follawing the closure of the case unless you have already notified the court that you would like them returned. if you require any further information please cortact the Administrative Court Office General Office on 0113 306 278 Yours Faithfully For Court Manager Back almost to square one. Atthough the judi | review clsim for mandatory order vas not entirely successful in mandating the Magistrates’ Court to state tthe case (other than the draft). vould never have been known there vas a possibilty to negotiate the terms of a recognizance at the hearing. It took this process to prompt a response from the Justices at Grmsby Magistrates’ Court ‘The next move then vil be to arrange to appear before the Magistrates’ Court to agree terms of 3 recognizance, «a Reply GI Reply With Quote,