|
|
Challenge your Parking Ticket fine
 A SIGNIFICANT INCONSISTENCY HAS APPEARED IN THE FEBRUARY 2002 RULING THAT CONVICTED STEVEN THOBURN OF A CRIME FOR SELLING BANANAS BY THE POUND.
A member of the public who received a parking fine through the post appears to have brought the collection of the fine to a halt 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".
"Before conviction" means that no fine or forfeit can be imposed until and unless the individual is convicted in a court of law.
Of course, under constitutional law, the Bill of Rights Act 1689 gives way to acts such as the Road Traffic Acts of 1991 and 1994. This is because Road Traffic Acts provide for penalties outside of a court and, under British law; it is always the later Act that takes precedence. Thus, the Road Traffic Acts of 1991 and 1994 repeal the Bill of Rights Act to the extent that they differ.
However, the Divisional Court ruling in the case of the "Metric Martyrs" (sections 62 and 63) said:
"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 Examples are the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689 … Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…"
Thus, the Divisional Court ruled, the European Communities Act 1972, requiring metric, could and must repeal the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (allowing pounds and ounces), because the former was a "constitutional act" and the latter "ordinary". This is the point on which Sunderland greengrocer Steven Thoburn and his co-defendants were convicted as criminals for selling in pounds and ounces.
Herein lies the conflict. If the Divisional Court's ruling is true, every Local Authority, Government agency and police force that fines people through the post, or on the spot, is now acting unlawfully, since the Bill of Rights Act 1689 was specifically classified as a "constitutional Act". The Road Traffic Act 1991 and others like it are, by contrast, "ordinary" Acts. Unless the road traffic acts expressly refer to the fundamental rights laid down by the Bill of Rights Act (which they do not), they must fall by the wayside since, according to the Divisional Court, the Bill of Rights Act cannot be impliedly repealed. It is a constitutional Act that protects our "constitutional rights".
So, if constitutional Acts like the Bill of Rights and the European Communities Act cannot be impliedly repealed, why are local authorities still collecting penalties from the public without conviction? Presumably, local authorities do so because they do not agree with the Divisional Court; they believe that the Bill of Rights Act was repealed impliedly by the Road Traffic Act. But, if this is so, what is the legal basis for prosecuting traders using pounds and ounces?
GOT A PARKING TICKET? FINED FOR NOT PAYING THE LONDON CONGESTION CHARGE? TAKE ACTION!
Print out the following extracts:
Extract from Bill of Rights Act 1689
http://www.bwmaonline.com/Legal%20-%20Bill%20of%20Rights.htm
Extract from "Metric Martyrs" Judgement, February 2002
http://www.bwmaonline.com/Legal%20-%20Extract%20from%20LJ%20Laws.htm
2) Copy-paste this proforma letter into a word processing file and edit it to suit your particular circumstances.
3) Send the letter and enclosures to the relevant authority and await the response. You may also wish to include a photocopy of your parking ticket.
4) If you never hear from your authority again, it may have accepted that it acted illegally and that the penalty is "void". You may or may not wish to press for a written confirmation.
5) Alternatively, if the authority dismisses the points in your letter and demands the forfeit, it would appear to be embarking on a course of defiance against the ruling on which Steven Thoburn was convicted. It is crucial that you notify the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund or BWMA, providing all correspondence. They can help with a follow-up letter.
Proforma Letter - amend as necessary
Chief Executive [Address of Local Authority]
Dear [name],
Please find enclosed a copy of Parking Ticket [insert reference number] which I received on [date]. It was issued by [name of company issuing ticket] on behalf of [Local Authority] and is attempting to impose a 'Penalty Charge' of £XX (reduced to £XX if paid within XX days).
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 statute" 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 [insert name of relevant Act or Acts e.g. Road Traffic Act 1991, London Local Government Act 2000, etc] 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 any alleged infringement that has not already been dealt with by a Court of Law. Consequently, the forfeit that you have demanded of me is illegal and void.
Please confirm to me in writing that you have advised the relevant officers of the Council and its agents that they are breaking the law 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.
Yours sincerely, etc
ENCLOSURES
1. Photocopy of Penalty Charge Notice
2. Extract of the Bill of Rights Act 1689
3. Extract of Metric Martyrs Judgment, sections 62 and 63.
With thanks to http://www.bwmaonline.com for this article.
A post script to this is that the new anti terrorism bill that Mr Clarke is trying to steamroller through parliament may well also be illegal as it would require the repeal of the relevant section of the Magna Carta –
"NO FREEMAN shall be arrested or detained in prison or deprived of his or outlawed or exiled or in any way molested . . . except by the judgment of his peers."
Magna Carta, 1215.
|
