This from copy of British Weights and Measures newslette. Nov 04
"The Divisional Court Ruling"
A crack has appeared in the February 2002 ruling that convicted Steve Thoburn and fellow traders Peter Collins. Julian Harman, John Dove and Colin Hunt. A supporter "(of BMWA Idris) "who received an order by a local authority to pay a parking fine through the post has staved off collection of the fine by quoting the Bill of Rights Act 1689, "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void." This means that no fines can be imposed unless and until a court of law finds the individual guilty and convicts accordingly.
Of course, under Constitutional law, the Bill of Rights Act 1689 is repealed by the Road Traffic Act 1991"
(comment by Idris In fact the Bill of Rights Act remains in place,as confirmed recently by the House of Lords Library. I take the sentence to mean that the effect of the Bill of Rights on traffic penalties was in effect repealed by the Road Traffic Act 1991)
"This is because the Road Traffic Act provides for fining outside a court of law. Under British law it is always the later Act which takes precedence.
However Lord Justice Laws said in the 'Metric Martyrs' judgement (sections 62 and 63, "We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional statutes". The special status of Constitutional statutes follows the special status of Constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689, The Act of Union........ ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not...." Thus, he said, the European Communities Act 1972, requring metric, could and must repeal the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (allowing lb/oz) because the former was "Constitutional" and the latter "ordinary."
Herein lies the conflict. If the Lord Justice Laws judgement is true, every local authority, Government agency and police force that fines people through the post, or on the spot,, is now acting illegally, since the Bill of Rights Act 1689 was specifically named by Laws as a "a constitutional Act." The Road Traffic Act 1991, by contrast, is an "ordinary" Act. Unless
the Road Traffic Act expressly refers to the Bill of Rights in its text (which it does not) it must fall by the wayside. So the question arises: why are public authorities still collecting revenue in this apparently illegal fashion?
BWMA in collaboration with the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund will be exploring means of bringing this uncertainty to the fore. We ask that any BWMA member who received a parking fine (or similar) please contact us for information on how to ask their local authority some very awkward questions."
BWMA PO Box 590 London WCIX OUB
0208 922 0089
Website www.bwmaonline.com
If this precedence is proven then all fpns ever given out without a court conviction could be null and void....
teabelly
|
haven't been through the Regs re Parking tickets but a FPN issued in respect of speeding etc under Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 Sect 52 (1):
"A FPN means a Notice OFFERING THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE DISCHARGE OF ANY LIABILITY TO CONVICTION OF THE OFFENCE to which the Notice relates by payment of a fixed penalty in accordance with this Part of the Act."
To me that means consent so can hardly see how the above can nullify a Ticket?
DVD
|
|
Afraid I have to agree with DVD here. The £60 or whatever you have to pay for the speeding "fine" is not a fine at all, it is a kind of legit pay-off, if you like.
|
|
Have not time now to look at the detail. Seems to relate to Penalty Charge Notices for parking and other bits of De Crim Enforcement of traffic offences. Not the same thing as a conditional offer for speeding etc.
|
|
|
|
I tend to agree with DVD.
|
I tend to agree with DVD.
I do tend to love lawyer speak !
--
Roger. (Costa del Sol, España)
|
|
|
|
|
Quoting the Magna Carta and other ancient laws to try and avoid everyday fines and penalties is a surefire way of ending up in bankrupcy court after years of legal wrangling and a few richer and happier lawyers.
You'll always find a legal eagle to take your case on, however hopless. They're the ones who can't lose. No government will stand for having to return ten years worth of fines and risk compensation claims for wrongful convictions.
A no hoper.
|
Such challenges occur when you have sloppy law drafting. If the Bill of Rights clearly states you have this right then a following piece of legislation must mention the fact that it is removing that right. Then everyone knows where they stand....
The point is the bill of rights has not been repealed and other rulings have shown constitutional law takes precendence over ordinary law therefore it does need clarifying one way or the other. Offering someone a choice isn't necessarily a way of getting out of the issue as the person making the decision doesn't have all the facts.
teabelly
|
|
Talking about sloppy law writing. Has anyone defined "Fox Hunting" in law? I know it has been banned, but what exactly is it? Will we see a rush of stated cases arising from convictions? "The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible" (Thank you Oscar Wilde for putting it so succinctly!)does not a good legal template make methinks.
|
Foxhunting law .... the non-political motoring link is.....?
|
... that it is illegal for dogs to chase you as you drive past in the car that replaces the VW Lupo.
(I humbly apologise for such a poor attempt at humour. Please ignore what I wrote, I am getting my coat now.)
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
|
|
|
The link is.......These jolly nice people in red coats probably drive Scooby Foresters like mine. They are obviously discerning folk, have fantastic taste and should be allowed the chase whatever they please. Poor link I know, but the best I could think up.
|
|
|
|
tack
www.tinyurl.com/3wowb
all defined in the interpretation section towards the end.
Solicitors are going to make a mint likewise Plod as RD's cancelled and overtime invoked to man PSU's to deal.
DVD
|
Let's keep this motering related please.
:)
Hugo - BR Moderator
|
|
|
|
What sort of vehicle could Plod use to chase down errant hunters across the fields and over fences? Ford Mustang? Ford Puma? Hillman Hunter?
|
So would this also relate to cars that are parked on private property and are removed then a release fee is payable ? Is this the same as a fine ?
or alternativly a private company enforcing council (de-regulated) parking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
