Today, Friday 19 December 2014, Henry Bellingham’s P.A., Eileen, informed Brian Freeman that she had passed on a birthday card to Sorrel Birch (whose birthday is tomorrow) and to Emily Birch (whose 16th birthday is on 31 December), as well as Christmas cards to all the family, including son-in-law Paul Birch, granddaughter Lauren Birch (13) and grandson Joseph Birch (8).
It was necessary for Mr Bellingham’s office to intervene in what is essentially a normal family occurrence because the State has interfered in not only Brian’s life for the past 8 years, but also his entire family’s lives.
On 01 November 2011, a single Magistrate found Brian guilty of the harassment of his daughter and elder granddaughter, but neither appeared in Court against him and neither had made statements against him. The Restraining Order issued by the Court was therefore immediately void because it had no legal effect. The Court made an error. Please note the following, and especially the comments by Henry Bellingham, MP, a former practising barrister:
1. The Hearing was nothing more than a simulacrum of a trial.
2. It is evident that there were a significant number of Abuses of Process in this Matter which had the effect of rendering the trial a nullity in and of itself.
3. It is evident that the finding by Bexley Magistrates’ Court was made in error by an unqualified Justice of the Peace and, having been made in error, it has no legal weight. I refer to Lord Denning:
4. A void order does not have to be obeyed because, for example, in Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions  2 AC 299, it was stated that if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is no real order of the Court. (The emphasis is mine – although the Court might produce a document which has the appearance of being a real order of the Court, it is, in fact, not bona fide and it carries no legal weight whatsoever.)
5. A void order results from a ‘fundamental defect’ in proceedings (Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard (deceased)  1 Ch 502 and Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis  3 WLR 1) or from a ‘without jurisdiction’/ultra vires act of a public body or judicial office holder (Lord Denning in Pearlman v Governors of Harrow School  3 WLR 736).
6. A ‘without jurisdiction’/ultra vires act is any act which a Court did not have power to do (Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis ).
7. Similarly, if the higher Court’s order is founded on a lower Court’s void act or invalid claim then the higher Court’s decision will also be void (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd.  3 All ER).
8. A void order or claim has no legal effect ab initio (from the beginning/outset) and therefore does not need to be appealed, although for convenience it may sometimes be necessary to have it set aside (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd.  and Firman v Ellis ). A void order or claim does not have to be obeyed and can be ignored and its nullity can be relied on as a defence when necessary (Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder  A.C. 461)
9. A void order can be set aside by the Court which made the order because the Court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own void order (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen )
10. A void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void. Even a decision of the higher Courts (High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) will be void if the decision is founded on an invalid claim or void act, because something cannot be founded on nothing (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. ).
11. It is never too late to raise the issue of nullity and a person can ignore the void order or claim and raise it as a defence when necessary (Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder  A.C. 461; Smurthwaite v Hannay  A.C. 494; Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard (deceased) ; Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. ).
12. In Bellinger v Bellinger  UKHL 21 the House of Lords confirmed that a void act is void from the outset and no Court – not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) – has jurisdiction to give legal effect to a void act no matter how unreasonable that may seem, because doing so would mean reforming the law which no Court has power to do because such power rests only with Parliament. The duty of the Court is to interpret and apply the law not reform or create it.
13. In his book The Discipline of Law, Lord Denning stated: “…(any tribunal, court or public authority) which falls into an error […] does exceed its jurisdiction and I am quite clear that at the same time it falls into an error of law too: for the simple reason that it has ‘not determined according to law’…”
14. Denning added: “…If it went wrong in law, it went outside the jurisdiction conferred on it. Its decision was therefore void. It had jurisdiction to decide or act rightly but no jurisdiction to decide or act wrongly…”
15. Furthermore, Lord Denning has stated: “…It is beyond doubt that, if a tribunal, court or public authority fails to observe the rules of natural justice, or is biased – its decision is a nullity and void; and it can be quashed on certiorari; or declared void by a declaration to that effect…”
16. The Bexley Magistrates’ Court clearly fell into error and it therefore exceeded its jurisdiction because it did not determine ‘according to law’. Because it went wrong in law, it went outside the jurisdiction conferred on it. Its decision was therefore void. It had jurisdiction to decide or act rightly but no jurisdiction to decide or act wrongly. It is beyond doubt that, if a tribunal, court or public authority fails to observe the rules of natural justice, or is biased – its decision is a nullity and void; and it can be quashed on certiorari; or declared void by a declaration to that effect.
17. Given that these proceedings are based on a previous trial on an index offence which is in itself a nullity and void it stands to reason that this Trial is also a nullity since something cannot be founded on nothing. (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. ).
18. And given that on 14 July 2013, I Served on Bexley Magistrates’ Court a Notice of a Void Order – which I was not according to law required to do since the Order was inherently void – it is apparent under the Rule of Law that these present proceedings have no legal merit in and of themselves since they are based on a nullity.
19. And given that any ill-founded order of the Court can be set aside by the Court that made it upon application to that Court and a person affected by the order has a right – ex debito justitiae – to have it set aside.
20. I took the legal steps – according to due process – to write to Bexley Magistrates’ Court and have the Order against me set aside. I did not hear back from the Court and thus my application for set aside was not rebutted and it therefore stands in Law.
21. And given that a person affected by a void order has the right – ex debito justitiae – to have the order set aside (which means that the Court does not have discretion to refuse to set aside the order or to go into the merits of the case) (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen  KB 256 CA).
22. And given that on 09 October 2014, my Member of Parliament, Henry Bellingham, (himself a barrister) stated to me in the presence of witnesses that the conviction for Incitement at Southwark Crown Court in 2009 and the conviction for Harassment of my daughter and granddaughter, Emily, were both “…clearly deeply flawed…”, it is self-evident that the current charge of Harassment brought against me by the State has no legal merit whatsoever.
23. For these reasons, there is no case to answer and the charge against me should be dismissed under the Rule of Law.
24. The Crown is invited to make an Application for a Notice of Discontinuation.
25. Lord Nicholls in Majrowski v Guy’s and St. Thomas’s NHS Trust  1 A.C. 224, HL (at ) stated that it is “tolerably clear” that the perpetrator of harassment may be a corporate body.