Wet Signatures -Magistrates Courts

by Kestrel Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:56 pm

It is my understanding that a wet signature is always needed on any warrant & without throwing a spanner in the works i came across the below, although it appears to be relevant to Magistrates Courts & Council Tax debt unlike other debt which appears to be dealt with at County Court (Northampton).

So please fire away, hoping to clarify rather than throw a spanner in.

Signature of magistrates' court forms by justices' clerk

5.3.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2) below, where any form prescribed by these Rules contains provision for signature by a justice of the peace only, the form shall have effect as if it contained provision in the alternative for signature by the justices' clerk.

(2) This rule shall not apply to any form of information, complaint, statutory declaration or warrant, other than a warrant of commitment or of distress.

(3) In this rule where a signature is required on a form or warrant other than an arrest, remand or commitment warrant, an electronic signature incorporated into the document will satisfy this requirement.

[Note. Formerly rule 109 of the Magistrates' Court Rules 1981(30)).]
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/384/made

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/justices_clerks_society_procedur_2
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/council_tax_171

by Guest Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:19 pm

Hi Kestrel

Well, first of all it's just rules - not even pretending to be law. Secondly i would suggest looking at it with a more critical eye.....

While you're doing that i'll draft a reply as to what i think is going on there (if you don't mind the wait).

Cheers!

by Guest Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:40 pm

Hi Kestrel

OK, the first bit is saying that the clerk is the real power in that court, with the magi being fall guy.

Part 2 confirms this by pointing out that the clerk is only to be bothered in matters of common-law where physical action needs to be 'authorised' against a 'man'. The clerk is not to be given liability in any other cases - that's the strawman/fall guy/magi's job.

Part 3 says anything that needs a signature for action against a 'person' (rather than a 'man') an electronic signature will do.

Any clearer? Of course it's only my opinion.

Cheers!

by Kestrel Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:26 am

Thanks iamani, yes i'm understanding of the difference lawful/legal, man/person, just better to be better informed for any potential conflict with criminal gangs, i know our common law trumps any statute regardless what the criminals say.

Possibly another way to look at it is that in Council Tax debt a civil matter becomes transformed into a criminal matter (those imprisoned 'unlawfully' for non payment) so any warrant would require a signature anyway going by their own 'rules' as they make it criminal.

Another reason i asked is because of the constant denial of the police that a signature is required when they frequently act outside their oath of office not only by becoming involved in civil matters but also upholding unlawful warrants.

by Sponsored content

Wet Signatures -Magistrates Courts

Wet Signatures -Magistrates Courts

Re: Wet Signatures -Magistrates Courts

Re: Wet Signatures -Magistrates Courts

Re: Wet Signatures -Magistrates Courts

Re: Wet Signatures -Magistrates Courts