The way it works is that applicants can phone the High Court at any time during the night and speak to the security who will put you through to the clerk of the judge who is on duty.
The duty judge's clerk will ask you to provide him with all the details of your case and what it is you would like the judge to do for you and why you believe it is urgent.
After you have finished speaking with the clerk he will take your phone number and he will promise to pass it on to the duty judge for you.

The clerk then phones the judge who sometimes gets woken up in the middle of the night or in the early hours of the morning to listen to your problems.
After the clerk has explained your situation the duty judge will phone you personally and ask you to explain why he should grant you an injunction or a stay of execution in your court case.
If the judge is satisfied that there is a case to answer and you have a reasonable argument and a chance of success with another court hearing he will grant you a stay of execution and outline to you what you must do next.

Sometimes the judge will tell you that both parties to the dispute must attend before him in his court room at 10.30 the next morning to argue out the case and possibly to get his decision immediately.
In the case of the St Paul's protest camp the legal reasons for requesting a stay of execution are that some of the defendants were prevented from attending their own hearing by the High Court security on 19 December 2011, thus denying them their Magna Carta right to a fair trial, and not all the defence evidence was presented to the court.

There is also new evidence that the land the camp is occupying was gifted to the Church of England years ago and it does NOT belong to the City of London Corporation and it is NOT a “public highway” as they claimed in their witness statement.
It is also claimed that at least one of the St Paul's defendants is actually squatting inside the Cathedral itself which means that Section 12 of the Criminal Law Act 1976 applies and the tents outside cannot be removed without a possession order being obtained for the building by the owners themselves.

There is also the question of hardship to some of the homeless people camped outside the Cathedral which is an argument that is relevant to the Human Rights Act which guarantees certain rights to everyone, including vulnerable people and women and children especially.
There is also the argument that the City of London Corporation is a massive criminal organisation which includes their partners in the banks who have been robbing the public of vast sums of money by engaging in the criminal practice of “flash trading” which is effectively theft from the ordinary investors on the stock exchange by making guaranteed profits with automated trading creaming off cash like a crooked gambling casino.

This fraudulent activity and all the other crimes the City of London have been and still are committing means they are not legally entitled to proceed with an order for possession of the tents of the protesters who have been exposing them to the full glare of press and public scrutiny.
There should be a retrial of the St Paul's case and the judges must be asked to instigate a criminal investigation of the City of London Corporation and their partners in the banks.
All of these legal points should be presented to the High Court emergency duty judge tonight on the phone in the hope of obtaining a stay of execution of the imminent eviction of the St Paul's protest camp.

If the duty judge does grant an emergency stay of execution tonight he will make sure that his order is passed on to all the relevant authorities, including the Metropolitan Police who know that they cannot disobey an order from a High Court judge, and they will therefore not continue with an eviction until there is another court hearing.
The City of London Corporation will be obliged to attend the High Court to face the defendants once again and explain to a judge why they have lied to the court and why they still believe they are entitled to proceed with an eviction based on an unjust order for possession.

During the road protests in the 1990s the eco-warriors managed to obtain last minute stays of execution on evictions by phoning the High Court duty judges during the night before the riot police were due to come and evict us the next morning.
In the case of the St Paul's protest camp we are asking everyone else involved to also call the High Court tonight in an effort to stop the imminent eviction of the protesters which we believe would be unjust and illegal.
At the very least the defendants are entitled to a fair trial and to have all their evidence heard by the High Court which is why a retrial of the case is necessary under the law.