Cotter: This is not a conflict litigants will win
A High Court judge has condemned ‘Freeman of the land’ theories used by litigants in person to try and get themselves out of legal difficulties as “offensive to the rule of law”.
Mr Justice Cotter said the idea that Trevor Hadjimina, a man with an “extensive history” of trying to build an upper storey extension without planning permission, could “simply chose to ‘opt out’ of the requirements under the Town and Country Planning Act was “hopelessly misconceived”.
Cotter J went on: “For those who consider themselves Freeman, statutes enacted by Parliament provide only a smorgasbord from which they select and agree to be bound.
“This argument is offensive to the rule of law and democracy within which Trevor choses to live. In our democratic society, all citizens are equal under the law and all are subject to the law.
“Indeed it is because of the need for compliance with the rule of law that we enjoy freedom from chaos and tyranny.”
The High Court heard that Southwark council in south London applied to commit Mr Hadjimina, who preferred to be known and was referred to by the court as Trevor, for contempt of court in October last year for breaching an injunction dating back to 2018.
The order prohibited Trevor from carrying out unauthorised development at his house in Peckham. The council alleged in its application that Trevor had undertaken “substantial development” at the property in clear breach of the order.
In a letter to the court earlier this month, the council alleged that Trevor “had recommenced his unlawful building works and was adding to the development at pace”.
Cotter J said that although he “did not, and do not” understand the meaning of some of the assertions made by Trevor in correspondence and at hearings, he recognised them as “broadly in line with arguments raised by litigants who consider themselves to be Freemen of the land”.
The judge described it as “a pseudo-legal belief system claiming that individuals are sovereign and only bound by contracts they explicitly sign and/or laws the expressly content to”.
Those advancing these arguments were usually defendants seeking to avoid the jurisdiction of the court, most often in debt and possession cases.
“There is often use of what look like legal phrases/maxims, but which are either meaningless or used out of their proper context, and references to various statutes, contained within verbiage set out in lengthy documents.
“Clearly to some the content appears impressive and an answer to the problems a claim against them brings. Sadly the internet provides a wealth of suggestions of words and phrases that it is claimed can, simply by their use, stop a court in its track and bring any proceedings to an end.
“The reality is very different. The advice proffered from a range of sources is to advance arguments which have no validity and will not provide the protection promised or hoped for.
“As I have pointed out many times before I am unaware of any occasion in any claim in any jurisdiction (indeed in any Commonwealth jurisdiction) when such arguments have been found to have force.”
Delivering judgment, Cotter J said Trevor had not applied for planning permission and it appeared that he did not intend to do so, “as this would somehow contravene his beliefs as a Freeman, essentially because he would be engaging in statutory process set out in an Act to which he did not consent.
“He is caught in a dilemma; if he accepts the due processes under the Act by applying for planning permission he axiomatically accepts the authority of the claimant to enforce a breach of planning law.
“It is yet another example of the severe difficulties engagement with these wholly misconceived beliefs can lead to.”
Cotter J added: “I repeat that this is the danger of the various Freeman of the land theories; they bring the defendants into conflict with the rule of law.
“It is not a conflict that they will win and in the process they frequently, as with Trevor, act to their own very significant detriment.”
Trevor was jailed for six months for contempt of court.
Leave a Comment