STOP - Don't pay that fine!!!!!
Discussion
Whoops, I seem to have uncovered a little gem here. Apparently local authorities don't actually have a legal right to fine you without taking you to court. Any fine received through the post/parking ticket etc appears to have no basis in law, they have to put you in court.
They have to specifically repeal the BoR in the wording of their legislation and apparently none of them have.
Enjoy
You can find all the requirements for disputing parking tickets with the BoR act Here
BILL OF RIGHTS ACT [1689]
An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown
[Extract]
And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:
That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;
That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.
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 a copy 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 can be imposed. 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…"
The Divisional Court states that the Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statue" and may not be impliedly repealed.
I also enclose a copy of the contents of the [insert contents list of relevant Act eg Road Traffic Act 1991] which, as you can see, makes no reference to repealing the Bill of Rights 1689.
Therefore, it would appear that [Local Authority] and its agents have no lawful authority to demand money for any alleged offence until or unless it has been dealt with by a Court of Law. Please accept this letter as formal notice that I require any allegations against me to be referred for trial in a proper and orderly manner, should you wish to proceed against me for the alleged offence.
Please also 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 fines is being done only after conviction by a Court of Law.
Yours sincerely, etc
ENCLOSURES
1. Photocopy of Penalty Charge Notice
2. Copy of [contents list of relevant Act]
3. Extract of the Bill of Rights Act 1689
4. Extract of Metric Martyrs Judgment, sections 62 and 63.
"Metric Martyrs" Judgement, Divisional Court, 18 Feb 2002
[Extract]
62 Where does this leave the constitutional position which I have stated? Mr Shrimpton would say that Factortame (No 1) was wrongly decided; and since the point was not argued, there is scope, within the limits of our law of precedent, to depart from it and to hold that implied repeal may bite on the ECA as readily as upon any other statute. I think that would be a wrong turning. My reasons are these. In the present state of its maturity the common law has come to recognise that there exist rights which should properly be classified as constitutional or fundamental: see for example such cases as Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 per Lord Hoffmann at 131, Pierson v Secretary of State [1998] AC 539, Leech [1994] QB 198, Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd. [1993] AC 534, and Witham [1998] QB 575. And from this a further insight follows. We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional" statutes. The two categories must be distinguished on a principled basis. In my opinion a constitutional statute is one which (a) conditions the legal relationship between citizen and State in some general, overarching manner, or (b) enlarges or diminishes the scope of what we would now regard as fundamental constitutional rights. (a) and (b) are of necessity closely related: it is difficult to think of an instance of (a) that is not also an instance of (b). The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. 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. The ECA clearly belongs in this family. It incorporated the whole corpus of substantive Community rights and obligations, and gave overriding domestic effect to the judicial and administrative machinery of Community law. It may be there has never been a statute having such profound effects on so many dimensions of our daily lives. The ECA is, by force of the common law, a constitutional statute.
63 Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test: is it shown that the legislature's actual – not imputed, constructive or presumed – intention was to effect the repeal or abrogation? I think the test could only be met by express words in the later statute, or by words so specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the result contended for was irresistible. The ordinary rule of implied repeal does not satisfy this test. Accordingly, it has no application to constitutional statutes. I should add that in my judgment general words could not be supplemented, so as to effect a repeal or significant amendment to a constitutional statute, by reference to what was said in Parliament by the minister promoting the Bill pursuant to Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593. A constitutional statute can only be repealed, or amended in a way which significantly affects its provisions touching fundamental rights or otherwise the relation between citizen and State, by unambiguous words on the face of the later statute. 64 This development of the common law regarding constitutional rights, and as I would say constitutional statutes, is highly beneficial. It gives us most of the benefits of a written constitution, in which fundamental rights are accorded special respect. But it preserves the sovereignty of the legislature and the flexibility of our uncodified constitution. It accepts the relation between legislative supremacy and fundamental rights is not fixed or brittle: rather the courts (in interpreting statutes, and now, applying the HRA) will pay more or less deference to the legislature, or other public decision-maker, according to the subject in hand. Nothing is plainer than that this benign development involves, as I have said, the recognition of the ECA as a constitutional statute.
They have to specifically repeal the BoR in the wording of their legislation and apparently none of them have.
Enjoy
You can find all the requirements for disputing parking tickets with the BoR act Here
BILL OF RIGHTS ACT [1689]
An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown
[Extract]
And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:
That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;
That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.
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 a copy 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 can be imposed. 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…"
The Divisional Court states that the Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statue" and may not be impliedly repealed.
I also enclose a copy of the contents of the [insert contents list of relevant Act eg Road Traffic Act 1991] which, as you can see, makes no reference to repealing the Bill of Rights 1689.
Therefore, it would appear that [Local Authority] and its agents have no lawful authority to demand money for any alleged offence until or unless it has been dealt with by a Court of Law. Please accept this letter as formal notice that I require any allegations against me to be referred for trial in a proper and orderly manner, should you wish to proceed against me for the alleged offence.
Please also 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 fines is being done only after conviction by a Court of Law.
Yours sincerely, etc
ENCLOSURES
1. Photocopy of Penalty Charge Notice
2. Copy of [contents list of relevant Act]
3. Extract of the Bill of Rights Act 1689
4. Extract of Metric Martyrs Judgment, sections 62 and 63.
"Metric Martyrs" Judgement, Divisional Court, 18 Feb 2002
[Extract]
62 Where does this leave the constitutional position which I have stated? Mr Shrimpton would say that Factortame (No 1) was wrongly decided; and since the point was not argued, there is scope, within the limits of our law of precedent, to depart from it and to hold that implied repeal may bite on the ECA as readily as upon any other statute. I think that would be a wrong turning. My reasons are these. In the present state of its maturity the common law has come to recognise that there exist rights which should properly be classified as constitutional or fundamental: see for example such cases as Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 per Lord Hoffmann at 131, Pierson v Secretary of State [1998] AC 539, Leech [1994] QB 198, Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd. [1993] AC 534, and Witham [1998] QB 575. And from this a further insight follows. We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional" statutes. The two categories must be distinguished on a principled basis. In my opinion a constitutional statute is one which (a) conditions the legal relationship between citizen and State in some general, overarching manner, or (b) enlarges or diminishes the scope of what we would now regard as fundamental constitutional rights. (a) and (b) are of necessity closely related: it is difficult to think of an instance of (a) that is not also an instance of (b). The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. 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. The ECA clearly belongs in this family. It incorporated the whole corpus of substantive Community rights and obligations, and gave overriding domestic effect to the judicial and administrative machinery of Community law. It may be there has never been a statute having such profound effects on so many dimensions of our daily lives. The ECA is, by force of the common law, a constitutional statute.
63 Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test: is it shown that the legislature's actual – not imputed, constructive or presumed – intention was to effect the repeal or abrogation? I think the test could only be met by express words in the later statute, or by words so specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the result contended for was irresistible. The ordinary rule of implied repeal does not satisfy this test. Accordingly, it has no application to constitutional statutes. I should add that in my judgment general words could not be supplemented, so as to effect a repeal or significant amendment to a constitutional statute, by reference to what was said in Parliament by the minister promoting the Bill pursuant to Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593. A constitutional statute can only be repealed, or amended in a way which significantly affects its provisions touching fundamental rights or otherwise the relation between citizen and State, by unambiguous words on the face of the later statute. 64 This development of the common law regarding constitutional rights, and as I would say constitutional statutes, is highly beneficial. It gives us most of the benefits of a written constitution, in which fundamental rights are accorded special respect. But it preserves the sovereignty of the legislature and the flexibility of our uncodified constitution. It accepts the relation between legislative supremacy and fundamental rights is not fixed or brittle: rather the courts (in interpreting statutes, and now, applying the HRA) will pay more or less deference to the legislature, or other public decision-maker, according to the subject in hand. Nothing is plainer than that this benign development involves, as I have said, the recognition of the ECA as a constitutional statute.
Alex said:
God, I hope this is true.
www.bwmaonline.com/Legal%20-%20New%20doubts%20-%20Thoburn%20conviction.htm
Would appear to indicate it is, along with a few others on pepipoo. This has the potential to make things very uncomfortable indeed. I'm sure the loophole will be closed, but in the meantime..... Go for it!!
DVD, Im afraid the legal arguements are a little lost on me. I'm bringing it to the floor so that those that know can discuss.
It would appear from what I have seen thus far that the usual response will be "but it's not a fine, it's a penalty charge"
I had a look on dictionary.com and could find no entry for "penalty charge" so it might boil down to semantics.
However:
Most notices seem to have the wording "or pay a fine of £X" which would hamper any "but the money we want from you is not a fine"
Surely a DEBT is a form of forfeiture anyway?
It would appear from what I have seen thus far that the usual response will be "but it's not a fine, it's a penalty charge"
I had a look on dictionary.com and could find no entry for "penalty charge" so it might boil down to semantics. However:
Most notices seem to have the wording "or pay a fine of £X" which would hamper any "but the money we want from you is not a fine"
Surely a DEBT is a form of forfeiture anyway?
Can't wait to shove it up em Bill of Rights said:
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
Has this been "impliedly repealed", then?
Bill of Rights said:
That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
How about this one? Can we define the fine of £60 for doing 35 in a 30 limit as "excessive"?
this has been discussed in great detail on pepipoo but for some reason I seam to remember thinking or reading that it won't work as a parking offence is now a civil issue not a criminal one.
The thing that's bothering me now is that I have a dispute with a parking ticket - sorry a 'fixed penalty notice' that wasn't issued correctly. The Parking attendant says it was attached to the vehicle and I know he lied but I can't make him stand in court and swear under oath that it was fixed to the vehicle! My case will be heard by an 'independent' parking adjudicator! No court's and they don't need to find you guilty beyond all reasonable doubt (Is that the phrase?) they only have to show in the balance of probability.
Interesting reading here:
www.parking-appeals.gov.uk/IveReceived/challengePCN.asp
www.pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=3412
The thing that's bothering me now is that I have a dispute with a parking ticket - sorry a 'fixed penalty notice' that wasn't issued correctly. The Parking attendant says it was attached to the vehicle and I know he lied but I can't make him stand in court and swear under oath that it was fixed to the vehicle! My case will be heard by an 'independent' parking adjudicator! No court's and they don't need to find you guilty beyond all reasonable doubt (Is that the phrase?) they only have to show in the balance of probability.
Interesting reading here:
www.parking-appeals.gov.uk/IveReceived/challengePCN.asp
www.pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=3412
I've had 3 parking tickets in 25 years. One went to appeal (unbarred lines) and the council withdrew. The other was a ticket which I know was never stuck on the car, I was only away from the vehicle for 3 minutes making a small delivery and could see the private warden. I completed the forms and sent them back mentioning this fact. They dropped it.
The 3rd one was again in a laybye with unbarred lines and I was collecting papers. It want to appeal and the arbritator found against me, ignoring statute. So I've written back and asked them to look at statute and reconsider. It's nice to know about the bill of rights stuff as a fall back should I need it.
Boosted.
The 3rd one was again in a laybye with unbarred lines and I was collecting papers. It want to appeal and the arbritator found against me, ignoring statute. So I've written back and asked them to look at statute and reconsider. It's nice to know about the bill of rights stuff as a fall back should I need it.
Boosted.
On Saturday morning I parked up in Camden district - just off Tottenham Court Road - I pay'd and display'd and was 8 minutes late getting back to the car. The warden had already struck and departed.
Clearly my fault - I got delayed making my purchases and lost track of time, I was late, 100 quid fine (50 if I'm a good boy).
I assume there is no grace period (i.e. you can be up to 10 minutes late etc)?
While I'd love to get out of it - quite frankly I was late and knew I risked getting a ticket.
>> Edited by Joe911 on Sunday 9th January 21:47
Clearly my fault - I got delayed making my purchases and lost track of time, I was late, 100 quid fine (50 if I'm a good boy).
I assume there is no grace period (i.e. you can be up to 10 minutes late etc)?
While I'd love to get out of it - quite frankly I was late and knew I risked getting a ticket.
>> Edited by Joe911 on Sunday 9th January 21:47
BliarOut said:
Even if it turns out it's not legal for them to fine you without taking you to court first?
It's tricky because - while on the one hand, none of us want to get parking tickets, speeding fines, etc etc - it does seem that there is quite a strong argument for parking restrictions and so parking fines (to prevent people just parking anywhere, clogging up the streets, etc) - on the other hand, morally what is the argument for wriggling out of a fine on a technicality?
If I got a parking fine, despite being legally parked, then I would want to get out of it, clearly.
I would argue for a higher speed limit on many roads, but the fact is it is difficult to complain if you get caught at 40 in a 30 when you know damn well the limit is 30! You know the rules, you choose to break them, you pay the price!
I don't like it, but until I'm the PM, I guess we're stuck with it
also does either the bill of rights act or magna carta not state no one can be fined etc so as to affect their liveliehood?, (banned from driving for example if you need a car for work?), these acts still stand as they can NEVER be repealed as to do so is in fact illegal
time for a revolution folks?
wantabike
time for a revolution folks?
wantabike
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff