PASSuk parents advice on social care.
menu

What is a writ?

Prerogative Writ Explained. 

A prerogative writ is used to direct the behavior of another arm of government, such as an agency, official, or other court. It was originally available only to the Crown under English law, and reflected the discretionary prerogative and extraordinary power of the monarch. There are traditionally six comprising writs that may also be used as an extraordinary writ or extraordinary remedy.
Six writs are traditionally classified as prerogative writs.
Writ of Certiorari...
Latin term for "to be informed of".
The Certiorari Writ is an order used to ask permission or approval from a higher court to direct a lower Court to send them the records of a case that has been ruled and heard at the lower court so that the higher court may review the case themselves.
Writ of Habeas Corpus...
Latin term for "
The Habeas Corpus Writ is used to demand that a prisoner be taken before the court to determine whether there is lawful authority to detain the person.
Writ of Mandamus...
Latin term for "We Command"
The Mandamus Writ is used in a superior or high Court for Judical remedy by ordering or directing a lower court, government official or corporation to order them to perform there mandatory duties correctly and to do a specific act which they are obligated under the law to do and which is in the nature of their public duties.
Writ of Prohibition ...
Latin term for "
The Prohibition Writ is used to direct a subordinate to stop doing something the law prohibits.
Writ of Procedendo ...
Latin term for "
The Procedendo Writ is used in common law Jurisprudence to send a case from an appellate court to a lower court with an order to proceed to judgment.
Writ of Quo Warranto ...
Latin term for "By what warrant"
The Quo Warranto Writ is used to order a person requiring them to show evidence of what right or authority they have to exercise a power that they claim to hold.

Writ of Election

In the United Kingdom, a writ of election is the only way of holding an election for the House of Commons. When the government wants to or is required to dissolve Parliament, a writ of election is drawn up for each constituency in the UK by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. They are then formally issued by the monarch.

Quo warranto Uk...

Medieval Latin for "by what warrant" requiring the person who it is directed to show what authority they have for exercising some right or power they claim to hold

1. If the Crown Prosecution Service is under the Monarchy by Common Law and bound in office of the constitution to the sovereign oath, then why does it use “statute law” (i.e. admiralty law- a fiction) to prosecute? Common law states: “not to enter into mischievous contracts or promises”. Yet, they do so with The Law Society that operates using legalese, i.e. a style that uses the abstruse (Difficult to penetrate; incomprehensible to one of ordinary understanding or knowledge) technical vocabulary of the law in order to confuse the layman. This is not constitutional.

2. If it is under the Crown Temple (a corporation-a fiction) and the UK is also a corporation as registered on “Dun and Bradstreet”, then the Attorney General’s Office would also come under the corporation of The Ministry of justice and is also registered as such. It appears that these two corporations are in co-conspiracy as corporate revenue collection companies using “Statute ACTS “ (the force of law yet a fiction) and administering and manipulating justice in corporate courts as arbitrators not judges by deceiving the people using admiralty law.

Where can the justice be if pecuniary deception in order to obtain advantage is the motivation, and they are deceiving the public by using fictional corporation and fictional statute law above the Common Law?

Given the City of London is a State and a corporation unto itself and separate from England, by what "Quo Warranto" does it have to grant “any authority” as a corporation to The CPS and The law Society (whom are also within the borders of this independent City), to prosecute the people of the land “outside of it's borders” using fictional statute & mercantile law above the common law and who grants this said power and by what right as a fictional corporation?

A company can be party to a criminal conspiracy, but only with at least two other conspirators who are human beings - including at least one who is an appropriate officer of the company and acting within the scope of his authority.

            

                   

Quo Warrant USA.......

A writ of quo warranto is not a petition, but a notice of demand, issued by a demandant, to a respondent claiming some delegated power, and filed with a court of competent jurisdiction, to hold a hearing within 3 to 20 day,Tittle 3 court of Common Laws,No "Bar card" holding Judges, the respondant to the court,to present proof of his authority to execute his claimed powers,if the court fails to hold the hearing, the respondant must cease to exercise the power. If the power is to hold an office, he must vacate the office.

A right under the Ninth Amendment, which was understood and presumed by the which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officialsand agents. Revival of the writs must be combined with reviving standing for private prosecution of public rights, subverted by the "cases and controversies" doctrine and the decision in Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)

These writs are called prerogative writs because they are supposed to be docketed ahead of all other cases except other prerogative writs. The demandant represents the sovereign, the people., The writ is unlike a petition or motion to show cause, because the burden of proof is on the respondant, not on the demandant.The right involved is that of the respondant to present his evidence.

I have Reasoning that all offices are merely imposers of the offices in Place as they have shown incompetency of knowing the basic Supreme Laws and Refuse to support the Federal Constitution and the Supreme Laws of This Land and do not operate with the intent of the court policy's in place nor do they Preserve Justice in any court

The Habeas corpus act 1679..

During the reign of king Charles II

It was passed by what became known as the habeas corpus parliament.

The writ of habeas corpus has existed in various forms in England though at least 5 centuries before this is thought to have originated in the 12th century assize of clarendon, It was guaranteed, But not created, by the magna Carta in 1215.

It was passed that "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor will we send upon him except upon the lawful judgement of his peers or the law of the land."

In criminal matters other than treason and felonies, the act gave prisoners or third parties acting on their behalf the right to challenge their detention by demanding from the Lord Chancellor, Justices of the King's Bench, and the Barons of the Exchequer of the jurisdiction a judicial review of their imprisonment.

The act laid out certain temporal and geographical conditions under which prisoners had to be brought before the courts. Jailors were forbidden to move prisoners from one prison to another or out of the country to evade the writ. In case of disobedience jailers would be punished with severe fines which had to be paid to the prisoner.

Old tendencies towards Catholicism and absolutism proved little diminished, however, and a prudently watchful parliament determined to pass an Act enshrining Habeas Corpus.

This was an ancient English right that, if a man was imprisoned by a local lord, his friends could request the king to issue a writ commanding the man who "have the body" (Habeas Corpus) of the prisoner to bring the prisoner before a magistrate for a proper trial. Under a tyrannous king, such as Charles I, the process could be willfully ignored. In 1679, Parliament passed the Habeas Corpus Act against future abuse.

Basically the habeas corpus act is protected by the kings bench it cannot be abused or the act squashed.

The king gave royal assent before proroguing " the king has the veto power in parliament or other legislative assembly" to PASS the act where it can never be dissolved.

The following are the main provisions:

Whereas great delays have been used by sheriffs... to whose custody any of the king’s subjects have been committed for criminal or supposed criminal matters... by their yielding obedience to [writs of Habeas Corpus],

contrary to their duty and the known laws of the land, whereby many of the king’s subjects have been...

long detained in prison in such cases where by law they are bailable

For the prevention and a more speedy relief of all persons imprisoned for any such criminal or supposed criminal matters; be it enacted by the king’s most excellent Majesty, by and with the consent of the lords... that whensoever any person or persons shall bring any habeas corpus directed to any sheriff (judge)... that the said officer... shall WITHIN 3 DAYS ... bring the body of evidence who has been committed... before the lord chancellor... unless the commitment body by in any place beyond the distance of 20 MILES from the place where the person is or shall be residing, and if beyond the distance of 20 MILES and NOT OVER 100 MILES then within 10 DAYS and not longer.

Unless approved by the authority before hand, that if any officer or officers... shall neglect or refuse to bring the prisoner before hand... [he]shall for the first offence forfeit to the prisoner or the person acting on the prisoners behalf the sum of £100 approved by the authorities stated before hand, that no prisoner detained unlawfully shall be delivered or set at large upon any habeas corpus,

The prisoner shall not at any time after again be imprisoned or committed for the same offence ... other than by the legal order and process of such [appropriate] court...( hence the double jeopardy law)

be it further approved by the authorities agreed before hand , that it shall and may be lawful to and for any prisoner as agreed before hand to move and obtain his habeas corpus as well out of the high court of chancery or court of exchequer as out of the court of king’s bench or common pleas...

If the law still stands many victims have a legal criminal case against Childrens services opreating for your local council;Child-stealing.E+W+N.I..Whosoever shall unlawfully, either by force or fraud, lead or take away, or decoy or entice away or detain, any child under the age of fourteen years, with intent to deprive any parent, guardian, or other person having the lawful care or charge of such child of the possession of such child, or with intent to steal any article upon or about the person of such child, to whomsoever such article may belong, and whosoever shall, with any such intent, receive or harbour any such child, knowing the same to have been, by force or fraud, led, taken, decoyed, enticed away, or detained, as in this section before mentioned, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be kept in penal servitude for any term not exceeding seven years . . . F2 or to be imprisoned . . . F3. Provided, that no person who shall have claimed any right to the possession of such child, or shall be the mother or shall have claimed to be the father of an illegitimate child, shall be liable to be prosecuted by virtue hereof on account of the getting possession of such child, or taking such child out of the possession of any person having the lawful charge thereof.

HABEAS CORPUS

Contents of this Part

Title

NumberI – SCOPE AND INTERPRETATION

Scope and interpretation of this Part

Rule 87.1II – APPLICATIONS TO THE HIGH COURT FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR RELEASE

How to make the application for the writ of habeas corpus for release   

Rule 87.2Initial consideration of the application by a judge   

Rule 87.3Initial consideration of the application on paper   

Rule 87.4Consideration of the application at a hearing   

Rule 87.5Order for release: sufficient authority to release detained person   

Rule 87.6Applications involving protected parties   

Rule 87.7Form and directions as to the return to the writ   

Rule 87.8Service of the writ   

Rule 87.9Return to the writ   

Rule 87.10Procedure at hearing of the writ   

Rule 87.11III – WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO GIVE EVIDENCE OR TO ANSWER A CHARGE

Writ of habeas corpus to give evidence or answer a charge   

Rule 87.12I SCOPE AND INTERPRETATION

Scope and interpretation of this Part

87.1 This Part contains rules about applications to the court as follows —

(a) Section 2 relates to applications for a writ of habeas corpus for release; and

(b) Section 3 relates to applications for a writ of habeas corpus to give evidence or a writ of habeas corpus to answer a charge.

(The Family Procedure Rules 20101 contain rules about applications for a writ of habeas corpus for release in relation to a minor.)

(2) In Sections II and III—

(a) “judge” means a judge of the High Court; and

(b) “court” means the High Court,

unless otherwise specified.

Back to top 

II APPLICATIONS TO THE HIGH COURT FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR RELEASEHow to make the application for a writ of habeas corpus for release

87.2

(1) The applicant must make the application by filing—

(a) a claim form under Part 8; and

(b) a witness statement or affidavit.

(2) The witness statement or affidavit must—

(a) state that the application is made at the instance of the person being detained;

(b) set out the nature of the detention; and

(c) subject to paragraph (3), be made by the detained person.

(3) If the detained person is unable to make the witness statement or affidavit, the witness statement or affidavit—

(a) may be made by some other person on behalf of the detained person; and

(b) must state the reason why the detained person is unable to make the witness statement or affidavit.

(4) The claim form must be filed in the Administrative Court.

(5) The application may be made without notice.

(6) In cases of urgency, the judge—

(a) may dispense with the requirement that a claim form must be filed; and

(b) must give directions for the conduct of the application.

Back to top 

Initial consideration of the application by a single judge

87.3

(1) A judge may consider an application under rule 87.2 initially on paper.

(2) If an application has not been considered initially on paper, it must be considered—

(a) by a judge sitting in court, unless rule 87.7 applies; or

(b) if no judge is sitting in court, by a judge otherwise than in court.

Back to top 

Initial consideration of the application on paper

87.4

(1) Where the judge considers the application under rule 87.2 on paper, the judge may—

(a) make an order for the issue of the writ;

(b) adjourn the application to a hearing;

(c) direct that the application be considered by a Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division;

(d) direct that the application continues as an application for permission to apply for judicial review;

(e) give such other directions for resolution of the application as may be appropriate; or

(f) dismiss the application.

(2) Where the judge dismisses a paper application, the applicant may request the decision to be reconsidered at a hearing.

(3) A request under paragraph (2) must be filed within 7 days after service of the order dismissing the application.

(4) The applicant and the respondent must be given at least 2 days’ notice of the hearing date.

Back to top 

Consideration of the application at a hearing

87.5 Where the judge considers the application under rule 87.2 at a hearing, including a hearing ordered under rule 87.4(1)(b) or a hearing requested under rule 87.4(2), the judge may—

(a) make an order for the issue of the writ;

(b) adjourn the application to a further hearing;

(c) direct that the application be considered by a Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division;

(d) direct that the application continues as an application for permission to apply for judicial review;

(e) give such other directions for resolution of the application as may be appropriate;

(f) dismiss the application; or

(g) order that the detained person must be released.

Back to top 

Order for release: sufficient authority to release detained person

87.6 An order made under rule 87.5(g) is sufficient authorisation for a governor of a prison, police officer or other person to release the detained person.

Back to top 

Applications involving protected parties

87.7 Any application made on behalf of a protected party must initially be considered by a judge otherwise than in court.

Back to top 

Form and directions as to the return to the writ

87.8

(1) A writ of habeas corpus for release must be in Practice Form No. 89 as set out in Practice Direction 4.

(2) A court or judge issuing a writ of habeas corpus for release must give directions as to the court or judge before whom, and the date on which, the writ is returnable.

Back to top 

Service of the writ

87.9

(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the applicant must serve the writ of habeas corpus for release personally on the respondent.

(2) If it is not practicable to serve the writ personally, or if the respondent is the governor of a prison or other public official, the applicant must serve the writ by leaving it with an employee or agent of the respondent at the place where the detained person is being held.

(3) If there is more than one respondent named in the writ, the original writ must be served according to this rule on the first-named respondent, and copies must be served on the other respondents.

(4) The court must notify all parties–

(a) of the court or judge before whom, and the date on which, the writ is to be returned to the court; and

(b) that in default of obedience, proceedings for committal of the party disobeying may be taken.

Back to top 

Return to the writ

87.10

(1) The return to a writ of habeas corpus for release must—

(a) be indorsed on or annexed to the writ; and

(b) state all the causes of the detention of the detained person.

(2) The return may be amended, or another return substituted for it, by permission of the court or judge before whom the writ is returnable.

(3) The return must be filed and served upon the applicant in accordance with the directions of the court issuing the writ.

Back to top 

Procedure at hearing of the writ

87.11 At the hearing of the writ an application may be made—

(a) to discharge or remand the detained person; or

(b) to amend or quash the return.

Back to top 

III WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO GIVE EVIDENCE OR TO ANSWER A CHARGEWrit of habeas corpus to give evidence or to answer a charge

87.12

(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus to give evidence or a writ of habeas corpus to answer a charge must be made to a judge and be supported by a witness statement or affidavit.

(2) A writ of habeas corpus to give evidence must be in Practice Form No. 91 as set out in Practice Direction 4.

(3) A writ of habeas corpus to answer a charge must be in Practice Form No. 92 as set out in Practice Direction 4.

(4) An application for an order to bring up a prisoner otherwise than by writ of habeas corpus, to give evidence in any criminal or civil proceedings before any court, tribunal or judge, must be–

(a) made to a judge or, in the case of an application for an order under section 57 of the County Courts Act 19842, a judge of the County Court; and

(b) supported by a witness statement or affidavit.