Chester Freeman Faces Obstruction Trial

A Chester man faces trial for obstructing a police constable in the exercise of their duty.

Nothing unusual there you might think, and ordinarily you'd be right. What makes this case a little bit unusual is that the defendant, Philip Kevin McLoughlin - or rather Philip of the family McLoughlin - identifies as a freeman on the land.

I'll keep this description brief, as I do not want to make a mistake: Freemen on the land are a group of individuals who believe that they are only bound by those rules of society that they consent to.

As a general rule, freemen do not recognise the legislation that everyone else is bound by or the authorities that enforce or uphold that legislation. They only recognise their own (wayward) interpretation of common law.

Anyway, Philip of the family McLoughlin, 42, of Irving's Crescent, Saltney, appeared at Chester Magistrates' Court on Friday, 6th May 2022.

He is accused of obstructing a police officer during a protest in Chester city centre on Friday, 14th January 2022. This is an offence under section 89(2) of the Police Act 1996. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is one months' custody and/or a fine at level 3 (currently £1,000).

This is not a particularly difficult offence for the prosecution to prove. All the court really needs to be certain of is that the police officer was acting lawfully, in accordance with their duties and that something the accused has done has made those duties more difficult. The relevant legislation is summarised in this earlier article.

McLoughlin, who gave his name to the court simply as "Philip", did not wish to enter a plea to the charge. That being the case, District Judge Owen Jones entered a not guilty plea and set the case down for trial.

As in earlier hearings, McLoughlin, who was unrepresented, refused to stand in the dock and was flippant in his attitude towards the court. He was jailed for contempt earlier this year after attempting his unique brand of advocacy on a Crown Court Judge.

Alan Currums, prosecuting, confirmed that the officer would appear to give evidence in person at the trial.

McLoughlin said he had sent the prosecution video evidence of the police behaving criminally during the protest, adding he "put the police and court on notice".

When informed that the trial would be on the afternoon of Thursday, 28th July, McLoughlin replied: "I refuse to participate".

The Judge granted McLoughlin unconditional bail until the trial, warning him that if he failed to appear matters could proceed in his absence and a warrant could be issued for his arrest.

When told he was free to leave the court, McLoughlin replied to the Judge: "Yeah, I could have done that at any time."

Call it a sixth sense, but I don't think things are going to go too well for McLoughlin.