The Common Law Bombshell

When people discuss how the government is, in some way, limited in its powers through the ‘Constitution’, they often raise slightly vague notions of the separation of the branches of government, and how representatives and/or parties can be voted out at the next election. Not to play down the importance of this, very few understand the real mechanism through which the people have power and authority over their government.

People rarely mention Trial by Jury: the primary mechanism of Common Law. Perhaps they don’t, because most believe that, whilst they admit the concept of Trial by Jury is an important part of our Constitution, it is only there in relation to the accused being judged, but doesn’t appear to affect the control over government. You’ll see this is not the case when we go a bit deeper: it is the ultimate mechanism through which people have power over their government.

The key thing that defines the ‘character’ of our community/country is its laws. That defines what we feel collectively as moral and just. Most believe that our laws are created by government/judiciary and our representatives; those we vote into office. This is only partially true and omits what is supposed to occur under an authentic Common Law Constitution that is sadly not currently operating. It has been distorted through the actions of a treacherous political class over the period of 800 years.

Within the UK Constitution, our government is indeed permitted to create law – but with the key caveat that anything they create must be in alignment with Common Law or it is illegitimate and must be struck off. So, who creates the Common Law?!

‘They’ will tell you that the Common Law is created by judges in the judiciary. This is not actually the case because that would fail the test of equity – in which we are all equal before the law. For equity to be in place, it is the consciousness of the people (not employees of government) that determines our collective moral boundaries. The Common Law is meant to be a consolidation of the judgements of Juries; and the jury is made up of the people. This is how the creation of the laws of the country are directly connected with the people: not merely through political representatives being expected, to interpret our wishes (collectively) through some vaguely ‘promised’ manifesto of their winning party.

Furthermore, it is generally not known that members of the jury can disagree with the current legislation. How? Perhaps the accused has ‘technically’ contravened a piece of legislation. Regardless, if members of the jury feel it would be unfair to pass punishment due to lack of malicious intent, they can still pass a not-guilty verdict – and must do so! This is an absolute bombshell to most people. The process of judgement of one’s peers is done through our conscience: that in-built sense of morality as defined in Universal Natural Law.

The jury have two roles, not one. Yes, they must judge on the guilt of the accused, but, more profoundly, they must also judge on the fairness of the legislation itself. The people are in authority over their country’s laws every day.

If the jury passes a not-guilty verdict despite the accused having technically ‘broken the law’, then that statute is extracted from the statute book! Why? If members of the jury judge that it would be unjust for the accused to receive punishment, then that statute must be defective: it is out of alignment with the consciences of the jurors! Under Common Law, punishment is only ever received through a human moral decision. The jury remains the highest authority in the land. Now you can see how profound this is!

The sovereignty of the people has nothing whatsoever to do with voting-in their favoured representative in elections. When functioning as it should, the power that is invested in the people is purely down to the Jury Trial and the fact that the law itself is also on trial alongside the accused.

The proper name of this fundamentally common law mechanism is Annulment by Jury and is the climax in the understanding of the power of man over his government.

Ultimately, we come to realise that the term ‘Democracy’, etymologically, means ‘The people rule’. This is never achieved by voting for people to represent you. When looking back to early Athens around 508 to 507 BC and the time of Cleisthenes, the primary mechanism of their democratic system involved Annulment by Jury in which the people remained the final arbiter of law through Exhousia rights! That is the true meaning of Democracy.

William Keyte – December 2020