Looks likely? to be of use for other unlawful fines/threats of etc, by other agencies who may reference other "ordinary statutes" when attempting to extort monies from people, with the use of threats,promises of fines or forfitures etc, before a lawful conviction .
Further thoughts. Does this attempted "criminal theft " ? (of ones monies/rights/other property) , entitle the "victim" to compensation ? Does it constitute Fraud ? Who is liable ? etc etc. (just thoughts that pop up)
Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE)
Introduction
Overview of DPE
In this summary it is intended to give a broad overview regarding the reasons for the Metric Martyrs Campaign drawing attention to Decriminalised Parking Enforcement and then why closer scrutiny of various local authorities failures to implement and operate the technical side of DPE correctly has further increased the pressure on the Governemnt and the Judiciary.
This has led to the claim that many local authorities are acting 'unlawfully' aside from the fact that they are also acting 'unconstitutionally.'
Background
The background for our involvement with DPE goes back to the Metric Martyrs’ case and the Judgment, which was delivered by Lord Justice John Laws at the Supreme Court of Judicature (the Court of Appeal) on the 18th February 2002.
In refusing the Metric Martyrs appeal, Lord Justice Laws delivered a judgment, which stated that there were certain Acts of Parliament, which could be classed as ‘constitutional’ and could only be repealed ‘expressly.’
The doctrine of ‘implied repeal’ could not be applied to ‘constitutional or hierarchical’ statutes in relation to ‘ordinary’ statutes.
Therefore, the 1985 Weights and Measures Act, an ‘ordinary’ Act, did not repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, a ‘constitutional’ Act, which allowed ministers powers to amend future legislation.
As well as the ECA 1972, the Judge said that there were other examples of hierarchical or constitutional statutes. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the Reform Acts which distributed and enlarged the franchise, the HRA, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998.
It was our belief that the Metric Martyrs Judgment (Thoburn vs City of Sunderland) was wrongly decided and therefore it was necessary to engineer a ‘conflict’ by applying and exposing the Lord Justice Laws precedent.
The 1991 Road Traffic Act, which provided Local Authorities with the power to introduce ‘decriminalised’ parking enforcement looked to be the easiest statute to expose because the issue of over zealous parking enforcement was not one which attracted a great deal of public sympathy.
DPE it appears is being introduced by Local Authorities across the country to the detriment of the motorist and businesses and has effectively become another ‘back-door’ tax.
Initiating an enforcement regime, which has profit at its heart, is never going to be one, which engenders sympathy or acceptance from the motoring public. Many examples of draconian enforcement can be read in national, regional and local newspapers. It is becoming more and more the focus of undercover exposes as the revenue generated annually from DPE approaches £1billion.
Therefore, it was the Bill of Rights 1689 in relation to the 1991 Road Traffic Act, which provided the necessary ‘conflict.’
If the Metric Martyrs Judgment was correct then all parking fines issued under DPE were unlawful by applying the same judicial precedent.
If the Metric Martyrs’ Judgment was wrong then the four men were wrongly convicted.
However, the dilemma, which would then arise, would be the fact that the Declaration of Rights 1689, which is not a creature of Parliament could not be overridden.
Another dilemma, should the Metric Martyrs Judgment be wrong, was the fact that the result of the case was the first instance where the primacy of EU law was established..but only because Parliament had allowed it to be. If the judgment fell then there were serious implications for the directives, regulations and treaties signed on behalf of the British people who had never given the explicit consent to cede their sovereignty to an authority outside the bounds of their accountable democracy.
The following ‘pro-forma’ defence letter was created by the Campaign and many others have promoted it and used it:
Upon checking the legislation, I was surprised to find that [Local Authority], or its agents, appear to be attempting to extort money from me in an unlawful manner. Please find enclosed an extract of the Bill of Rights Act 1689, enacted and formally entered into Statute following the Declaration of Rights 1689. I draw your attention to the section that I have highlighted:
"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void".
This states that a conviction is necessary before a fine or forfeit can be imposed. As you will be aware, the Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statue" and may not be repealed impliedly. As stated in the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment in the Divisional Court (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a copy of the judgment's relevant sections 62 and 63):
62."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 ... Bill of Rights 1689 ... 63. Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…"
I am not aware that the Road Traffic Act 1991 makes express reference to repealing the Bill of Rights Act 1689.
Therefore, it would appear that [Local Authority] and its agents have no lawful authority to demand money for an alleged infringement that has not been dealt with by a Court of Law. If you wish to proceed against me, please refer the matter to a Court of Law in an orderly fashion. Otherwise, the forfeit demanded of me is illegal and void.
Please also confirm to me in writing that you have advised the relevant officers of the Council and its agents that they are acting illegally by attempting to claim powers which are forbidden to them, and that all issuing of penalties is being done only after conviction by a Court of Law.
This defence was used by Neil Herron and Robin Decrittenden in Sunderland in early 2004 and Sunderland Council took legal advice, which stated that they did have lawful authority, and there was no conflict with the Bill of Rights 1689.
Their legal opinion was commissioned from Eleanor Sharpston QC, the prosecuting counsel in the Metric Martyrs’ case, and her opinion appeared to contradict the Laws’ Judgment...the very Judgment that had allowed her the victory. Perhaps that is why she was rewarded with the position of Advocate General to the ECJ.
To date Sunderland Council has refused to release this opinion, despite sharing it with a third party, Sandwell Council.
None of the tickets against Neil Herron have been pursued by Sunderland Council down the route of the Bill of Rights challenge. As more and more technical flaws are revealed more and more tickets are being cancelled. The closest Neil Herron has got to having a case heard before the National Parking Adjudication Service is having a case listed but Sunderland withdrawing its defence.
Robin Decrittenden, a constitutional expert, also visited Sunderland in early 2004 to advise on the constitutional provisions and fundamental rights contained in the Bill of Rights Act, and received a Penalty Charge Notice. After demanding that Sunderland Council pursue him, after many months of missing papers other administrative ‘faux-pas’ Sunderland Council decided ‘it was not in the public interest’ to pursue Mr. Decrittenden and the PCN was cancelled.
The Bill of Rights Defence had also begun to be used by many others across the country and was now beginning to cause concern for the adjudication bodies, NPAS and PATAS.
Many local authorities were taking legal advice and we have built up a great deal of evidence regarding their contradictions. Some of them state that the PCN ‘is not a fine’ yet the House of Commons Transport Committee in their review of DPE calls PCNs ‘parking fines.’ (they did alter this when they realised that it could create problems). Most recently, Parkwise in Lancashire have stated that the Bill of Rights Act is correct and no one can be fined except by a court, but they state that the council does not issue fines, only Penalty Charge Notices.
It was then brought to our attention that as well as the Bill of Rights ‘constitutional’ issue there was something even simpler by which the DPE in Sunderland, as well as many other local authorities could be exposed, and that was one of a technical nature. As the Bill of Rights argument appeared to have reached an impasse with Sunderland Council not wishing to pursue the matter of enforcement, we had then begun to look at the technical considerations and requirements for Decriminalised Parking Enforcement.
The more we investigated the more it became apparent that the whole of the DPE for the City of Sunderland appeared to be unlawful. Evidence is pouring in from local authority areas across the country that Sunderland is by no means unique. We have expanded on the technical perspective at The People's No Campaign.
The Bill of Rights argument is one, which has now expanded into other spheres and involves the examination of other administrative bodies ‘levying’ fines without recourse through the courts (such as the Inland Revenue, the DVLA, CSA) so the Metric Martyrs judgment is continuing to create conflict and concern at the highest governmental and judicial level.
It appears that for too long Parliament and has allowed laws to be passed without the necessary constitutional checks and balances and this has allowed administrative bodies to spiral out of control and believe that they have powers that, constitutionally they cannot have.
We will be posting examples of how and where the Bill of Rights Defence has been used and been successful.
http://www.metricmartyrs.co.uk/dynamicPage.aspx?id=53
