How traffic tribunals end-run the rule of law

Legal minds have been applied to evading constitutional requirements for due process

Free our streets together

I have a video tribunal hearing for a traffic penalty coming up at the end of January, and I wish to make my case based on higher forms of law (equity, constitutional limits on power, international treaty obligations). The matter is of considerable public interest, since fundamental principles of liberty are at stake. Do we have any redress against local authorities and the commercialised state when it overreaches its power, and treats us differently in exercising fundamental rights, without any balancing public interest?

I wrote to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal asking some elementary questions:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Q1. Can you confirm that adjudicators operate under the standard judicial oath issued by the Lord Chancellor to uphold English law? (If you have a copy to hand that’s a bonus, but not essential.)

Q2. Can you point me at the rules that the tribunal operates under? As these are civil cases, do the Civil Procedure Rules still apply, or is there a different set of rules on evidence, due process, appeals, etc.?

Q3. Specifically, what is the accommodation for observers on the video hearing? “Publicity is the very soul of justice” as the famous saying goes!

Thank you for your assistance.

Martin Geddes

My assumption was that these were operating as “lightweight” courts of law, but I was wrong! Here is the response:

Dear Mr Geddes,

Thank you for your email.

The adjudicators are lawyers appointed under the terms of The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013.

The adjudicators form a local authority tribunal, they are not part of HM Court and Tribunal Service  and do not take a judicial oath.

The relevant regulations and more information can be found by visiting our website at

We confirm that the hearings are public hearings and any member of the public may observe a hearing on request.

Yours sincerely,

The Traffic Penalty Tribunal

Note the standard tactic of no real man or woman being accountable for what is said. So we have lawyers who are moonlighting as quasi-judges, paid for by one side of the case, and who have taken up no oath or obligation to uphold the law. They also fail to give actual instructions on how observers may join, just to leave more hurdles to cross.

The regulations list a series of reasons why adjudicators might dismiss the penalty charge, but there is no room to challenge the lawfulness of the regulations in the first place. As such, these tribunals are treasonous, since they act to strip us of our constitutionally protected right to due process. When a barrister, with an oath to a private guild, acts as adjudicator they are drumming up business for their profession, and proving the form of justice without its substance.

So time to dig deeper…

Thank you for your helpful response. I have read the Regulations you refer to, and have some follow-up questions.

Do adjudicators agree to any undertaking to uphold the law, bearing in mind that the law includes more than primary and secondary legislation (e.g. case law, constitutional law, international law, rules of equity)?

If not, what is the specific remit they are given and agree to?

Is there an “overriding objective” that adjudicators work to, as with CPR Part 1? (See

Are the practise/case management guidelines that adjudicators work to available as a public document?

Are tribunals bound to uphold primary law including the Bill of Rights 1689, Human Rights Act 1998, and international treaty conventions (e.g. ECHR, ICCPR)?

Finally, I would like to invite some observers to act as witnesses, as this is a public interest case. What is the procedure? Is there a view-only link that can be published so anyone can listen in, or do these attendees need to personally reach out and ask? I fully accept that a virtual hearing needs a limit on the number of attendees to be manageable.

Kind regards,

Martin Geddes

Thus the following response, and I am no longer “Dear…” to them:

Mr Geddes,

Thank you for your email of 17th January 2023.

The function of the independent adjudicator is to consider the evidence (and any submissions on the law) make findings of fact and apply the relevant law to those facts.

There are no overriding objectives under the regulations.  The appeal procedures can be found under the Schedule to The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013.

Case management of the hearing is a matter for the individual adjudicator concerned who must conduct the hearing of an appeal in the manner “most suitable to the clarification of the issues and generally to the just handling of the proceedings.”

Any observer may contact the tribunal at and will be provided with the relevant link. Members of the public are welcome to observe hearings on the basis they listen only and do not attempt to take part.

TPT hearings last approximately 15-20 minutes and connect within the Microsoft Team platform, enabling parties to self-connect via web or telephone. The observer will be emailed self-connection instructions for the hearing they have requested to observe.

For additional information on our hearings, please visit

Most people will pay the £12.50 clean air zone charge to get a quiet life. Of those who appeal, the vast majority are only interested in not paying the penalty charge. In my case, the charges themselves are an irrelevance; my only concern is to expose the unjust, unreasonable, and unconstitutional nature of these administrative tribunals. After all, as with the council tax, they have been condemned by the highest legal authorities in the past as being unlawful and a precursor to extortion.

Now it’s time to engage “beast mode” and really get to the heart of its all:

Thank you once again for your prompt and efficient response, which addresses most of my questions. It is normal to correspond with a fellow man or woman — do you have a name?

My understanding based on what you state is that there are no written undertakings, training materials, or directions given to adjudicators beyond what is stated in the legislation empowering the tribunal. If this is incorrect, then please let me know.

I do notice that you have not responded to the most important question, which is whether adjudicators have a duty to uphold the law, all law, including constitutional law such as the Bill of Rights 1689, and the Human Rights Act 1998 including reference to ECHR Article 6 on due process. In the absence of a duty to uphold the law, adjudicators have been given discretion to decide which law to uphold as “most suitable to the clarification of the issues and generally to the just handling of the proceedings” in their personal opinion.

This personal discretion opens the door to elevate statute law above constitutional and international law. This in turn appears to be an invitation to circumvent the law, daring the appellant to seek judicial review as the sole remedy to violation of his or her civil, constitutional, and human rights. In the absence of any statement to the contrary, I am presuming your acquiescence to the following statement: “adjudicators are not under a duty to uphold the law, and are not under an obligation to uphold the Bill of Rights 1689 or EHCR Article 6”.

Section 16 of the Regulations — “Recovery of amounts payable under an adjudication” — states that tribunal adjudications are to be treated as equivalent to county court adjudications. This could be construed as a means of “end running” the requirement for lawful due process in accordance with our constitution. County court judges are under a public oath to uphold the law, and are bound to act by their highest oath of public office. The difference would, on the face of it, compromise the enforceability of adjudications where matters of superior law are brought into play, and not merely administrative fact (like a sign being unreadable due to being plastered with snow, for instance, but a PCN is still issued).

In the event that an adjudicator, not bound to uphold the law, uses their discretion to violate my civil rights and aids the claimant to take what is not lawfully due, am I able to make a claim against the adjudicator? Is there a bond or indemnity insurance policy that adjudicators carry?

Is my assigned adjudicator under any other form of oath? This would include an oath to a private guild, which could be seen to be a conflict of interest to serving the general public.

Finally, what are the rules on recording of tribunal hearings? Is there a facility for myself as appellant to have a recording as a matter of normal procedure in the Microsoft Teams platform?

I believe that this goes beyond my individual case, and is a matter of public interest. No doubt many others are affected in a similar manner. Given the potential impact on others and the general public, it is crucial to address these issues in order to safeguard the integrity of the legal system and protect the rights of all parties involved.


Martin Geddes

It is only when you push back and hold them fully accountable for their actions that change happens. Until you assert your rights as a living and breathing man or woman with a soul, they will continue to take your tacit consent to slavery as a reason to financially rape you and destroy your inalienable rights. Clean air zones are legally little more than adverts at the side of the road, but Costa Coffee doesn’t get to say “£4 a cup unless declined” when you whizz past the motorway services, and post you an invoice for nothing after the fact.

The reality is that these charges are a form of fine or forfeit, and without due process they are unlawful. They are being justified based on the hidden necromancy of demoting the living into legal fictions, so that conscience and morality are no longer applicable. The state shows as evidence a “vehicle” crossing its boundary mark, but ignores that there is a man or woman at the wheel, and they deserve equitable treatment. It’s all a massive scam aligned to the fascist-communist fusion of low traffic neighbourhoods and 15 minute cities, via pervasive surveillance and control.

The elevation of the group’s purported interests over the individual’s rights, in order to enrich the administrative class at the expense of the public, is contrary to our history and culture, as well as the law. Time to revolt!