Bill of Rights - constitutional disaster
Discussion
www.metricmartyrs.co.uk/Newsdisplay.aspx?id=184
Judge declares "Bill of Rights does not apply to parking as parking tickets are not fine or forfeitures"
In Court 2 at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, the Judge refused Robin de Crittenden oral application for Judicial Review, declaring that, "the Bill of Rights does not apply to parking as parking tickets are not fines or forfeitures."
He also declared that NPAS were independent.
But this is clearly an establishment decision with a Judge basically saying Parliament can do what it likes. The public will be able to work out for themselves the mendacity and duplicity behind this decision in order to protect the "parking industry " worth £1 billion a year, in which the adjudicator also has a beneficial financial interest (NPAS and PATAS receiving 55p and 45p per Penalty Charge Notice respectively). We know that the public will not be deceived. Further judicial reviews are planned by other apellents exposing the lack of independence of the adjudication service, breaches of Article 6 (1) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and also the illegal activities of local authorities.
The victory today will come from examination of Justice Collins judgment which will create a constitutional crisis ... The Bill of Rights no longer applies.
This judgment will now open the door for local authorities and Government abuse at every level ... Fines for littering, fines for not putting your bin far enough out into the street, fines for wearing a loud shirt in a public place, fines for failure to recycle... all on the say so of a badge wielding Government appointed jobsworth, without there ever being recourse of reference to a Court of Law...except for the registration of a civil debt. The general public are now living in the real "big brother house".
***
PA Press report:
www.metricmartyrs.co.uk/dynamicdata/flash/PA%20article.pdf
1689 BILL WON'T SAVE ILLEGAL 'PARKERS', JUDGE RULES
By John Aston, PA
A senior High Court judge today demolished the belief that the 1689 Bill of
Rights outlaws parking charges because they have not been imposed by a court
of law.
In a ruling which will dismay a lot of motorists and bring relief to local
authorities, Mr Justice Collins said the belief was "baseless" and "a
nonsense".
The judge said: "The only surprise I have is that this argument has been
produced on a number of occasions and seems to have worried local
authorities and possibly even parking adjudicators.
"All I can say is that they should cease to worry. It is, as I say, a
completely baseless argument."
The judge was refusing an application by retired business consultant Robin
de Crittenden, of Willenhall, near Wolverhampton, for permission to seek a
judicial review based on the Bill of Rights argument.
Many supporters were hoping his legal challenge would lead to every parking
fine in the country being declared invalid or "unsafe".
Mr de Crittenden was issued with a £60 penalty charge by Worcester City
Council in June 2003 for allegedly exceeding his permitted time in a parking
bay.
He described the system for parking regulation as a "vast money-making
machine that is a disgrace to local authorities".
He took his case to the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) and won
his appeal last November because there were flaws in the documentation
provided by the local council.
Not content with winning his case on a legal technicality, Mr de Crittenden
decided to come to the High Court in a bid to KO the whole current parking
regulatory system.
***
Safe Speed PR:
PR332: Metric Martyrs parking case - a fudgement
news: for immediate release
In the Royal Courts of Justice today, the Judge refused Robin de Crittenden
oral application for Judicial Review, declaring that, "the Bill of Rights does
not apply to parking as parking tickets are not fines or forfeitures."
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "This is a perverse ruling apparently intended to
preserve the status quo. In my opinion, the law has been bent to fit the
desired outcome. It's not a judgment - it's a fudgement."
"It's a very bad day for justice, but a good day for the English language,
which surely must gain the word 'fudgement'."
"Over 400 years of legal principles are being swept away and we are by far the
poorer for it."
fudgement: (n) A ruling, for example in a court of law, intended to fit the
facts to a desired outcome.
<ends>
Comment:
The press does not seem to have noticed yet, but this ruling is of very fundamental importance to our constitutional rights. The judiciary have aligned themselves with the state when they are supposed to be, no, when they NEED to be independent. They have twisted the law to fit a pre-decided conclusion in the interests of the state.
As these rights disappear, one small step by one small step we are fundamentally damaging our fine legal system - and for what? In this case for bloody parking tickets.
The press and the public NEED to wake up to this NOW, because tomorrow you will find that the pigs hold sway.
Judge declares "Bill of Rights does not apply to parking as parking tickets are not fine or forfeitures"
In Court 2 at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, the Judge refused Robin de Crittenden oral application for Judicial Review, declaring that, "the Bill of Rights does not apply to parking as parking tickets are not fines or forfeitures."
He also declared that NPAS were independent.
But this is clearly an establishment decision with a Judge basically saying Parliament can do what it likes. The public will be able to work out for themselves the mendacity and duplicity behind this decision in order to protect the "parking industry " worth £1 billion a year, in which the adjudicator also has a beneficial financial interest (NPAS and PATAS receiving 55p and 45p per Penalty Charge Notice respectively). We know that the public will not be deceived. Further judicial reviews are planned by other apellents exposing the lack of independence of the adjudication service, breaches of Article 6 (1) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and also the illegal activities of local authorities.
The victory today will come from examination of Justice Collins judgment which will create a constitutional crisis ... The Bill of Rights no longer applies.
This judgment will now open the door for local authorities and Government abuse at every level ... Fines for littering, fines for not putting your bin far enough out into the street, fines for wearing a loud shirt in a public place, fines for failure to recycle... all on the say so of a badge wielding Government appointed jobsworth, without there ever being recourse of reference to a Court of Law...except for the registration of a civil debt. The general public are now living in the real "big brother house".
***
PA Press report:
www.metricmartyrs.co.uk/dynamicdata/flash/PA%20article.pdf
1689 BILL WON'T SAVE ILLEGAL 'PARKERS', JUDGE RULES
By John Aston, PA
A senior High Court judge today demolished the belief that the 1689 Bill of
Rights outlaws parking charges because they have not been imposed by a court
of law.
In a ruling which will dismay a lot of motorists and bring relief to local
authorities, Mr Justice Collins said the belief was "baseless" and "a
nonsense".
The judge said: "The only surprise I have is that this argument has been
produced on a number of occasions and seems to have worried local
authorities and possibly even parking adjudicators.
"All I can say is that they should cease to worry. It is, as I say, a
completely baseless argument."
The judge was refusing an application by retired business consultant Robin
de Crittenden, of Willenhall, near Wolverhampton, for permission to seek a
judicial review based on the Bill of Rights argument.
Many supporters were hoping his legal challenge would lead to every parking
fine in the country being declared invalid or "unsafe".
Mr de Crittenden was issued with a £60 penalty charge by Worcester City
Council in June 2003 for allegedly exceeding his permitted time in a parking
bay.
He described the system for parking regulation as a "vast money-making
machine that is a disgrace to local authorities".
He took his case to the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) and won
his appeal last November because there were flaws in the documentation
provided by the local council.
Not content with winning his case on a legal technicality, Mr de Crittenden
decided to come to the High Court in a bid to KO the whole current parking
regulatory system.
***
Safe Speed PR:
PR332: Metric Martyrs parking case - a fudgement
news: for immediate release
In the Royal Courts of Justice today, the Judge refused Robin de Crittenden
oral application for Judicial Review, declaring that, "the Bill of Rights does
not apply to parking as parking tickets are not fines or forfeitures."
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "This is a perverse ruling apparently intended to
preserve the status quo. In my opinion, the law has been bent to fit the
desired outcome. It's not a judgment - it's a fudgement."
"It's a very bad day for justice, but a good day for the English language,
which surely must gain the word 'fudgement'."
"Over 400 years of legal principles are being swept away and we are by far the
poorer for it."
fudgement: (n) A ruling, for example in a court of law, intended to fit the
facts to a desired outcome.
<ends>
Comment:
The press does not seem to have noticed yet, but this ruling is of very fundamental importance to our constitutional rights. The judiciary have aligned themselves with the state when they are supposed to be, no, when they NEED to be independent. They have twisted the law to fit a pre-decided conclusion in the interests of the state.
As these rights disappear, one small step by one small step we are fundamentally damaging our fine legal system - and for what? In this case for bloody parking tickets.
The press and the public NEED to wake up to this NOW, because tomorrow you will find that the pigs hold sway.
Have a nice century!........jasandjules said:
Another judge however may grant permission on this basis....
If a parking fine is not a penalty, what is it? A donation?
If a parking fine is not a penalty, what is it? A donation?
Thats just what I was thinking - if its not a fine, or a forfeiture, then why do we have to pay it?
And if you do get paperwork that says "pay the fine" you can point to this "judgement" and tell em to FAck off, cos if its not a "fine" its unenforceable....
The merry-go-round continues I feel.
I think that an attack on the independance of the Judge undermines the argument and detracts. Judges frequently find for the government in cases and this doesn't mean that the judges have lost their independance. Are we saying that judges must always find for the litigant in order to prove their independance.
It is not a startling relevation that Parliament can do as it wants. In fact it forms the bedrock of our constitution that Parliament is supreme. It is conceivable that a government could introduce a payment demand that is not a fine/forfeiture but a breach of an implied broad contract or taxation(not that I am supporting such an idea).
Judges make decisions and judges make mistakes. That's why we have an appeal system. Let's not distract from the real issue by suggesting that judges are in the government's pocket.
It is not a startling relevation that Parliament can do as it wants. In fact it forms the bedrock of our constitution that Parliament is supreme. It is conceivable that a government could introduce a payment demand that is not a fine/forfeiture but a breach of an implied broad contract or taxation(not that I am supporting such an idea).
Judges make decisions and judges make mistakes. That's why we have an appeal system. Let's not distract from the real issue by suggesting that judges are in the government's pocket.
Kenp is quite right, much as one might hate to admit it. When you park the conditions of parking should be clearly displayed. Usually a blooming great sign saying "Pay & Display". By parking and putting your cash into the machine you are creating and accepting a contract with the parking company/local authority/landowner that they have provided a parking space in exchange for cash and the limitations as to the duration of the availability of the space is determined by the amount of cash you have deposited, or some other criteria. If you are then in breach of the contract, by overstaying the time limit, there is an additional pre-stated payment due which is a legal civil debt.
Really it's no different from my business terms and conditions saying that payment is due within 30 days and that if it's not received on time then I may charge interest at 3% above bank base rate accrued on a daily basis. It's not a fine, it's a term of contract that is entered into for the supply of goods or services and the payment terms therefore.
Now, whether this also applies to on-street parking on, say, double yellow lines is another matter entirely. The question is whether, since this is controlled by road traffic law, the right to go to court still exists.
Really it's no different from my business terms and conditions saying that payment is due within 30 days and that if it's not received on time then I may charge interest at 3% above bank base rate accrued on a daily basis. It's not a fine, it's a term of contract that is entered into for the supply of goods or services and the payment terms therefore.
Now, whether this also applies to on-street parking on, say, double yellow lines is another matter entirely. The question is whether, since this is controlled by road traffic law, the right to go to court still exists.
Your argument is flawed straight away because if you weren't to pay at all, then there would be no contract at all. The owner is ultimately responsible for the penalty yet DVLA only informs the registered keeper that he/she may be liable for contraventions and/or offences.
The English language states that a Penalty, is quite clearly a forfeiture, therefore this Judge has re-written the English language.
Do you think it also by accident, that just one week ago, that this particular Judge then, was offered a seat on the appellant bench? Not of course you'll understand that I am incinuating anything.
The English language states that a Penalty, is quite clearly a forfeiture, therefore this Judge has re-written the English language.
Do you think it also by accident, that just one week ago, that this particular Judge then, was offered a seat on the appellant bench? Not of course you'll understand that I am incinuating anything.
Edited by johno1066 on Thursday 6th July 11:18
7db said:
What's the plan now? Huff and puff a bit?
Actually I think it will bring more and more people technically picking apart the regulations and arguing on failures to sign according to the law to give just one example. Richard Bentley is rubbing his hands I bet.
But then I guess some people will call using TPTB's continual failures to sign and legislate properly as exploiting loopholes.
On the other hand we could have a plot line for an episode of JJD here.
kenp said:
I think that an attack on the independance of the Judge undermines the argument and detracts.
I beg to differ. People who were in court yesterday recognise that this was indeed a fudgement.
I cannot stress enough how important it is to our basic rights and legal system that we have an independent judiciary.
cooperman said:
Kenp is quite right, much as one might hate to admit it. When you park the conditions of parking should be clearly displayed. Usually a blooming great sign saying "Pay & Display". By parking and putting your cash into the machine you are creating and accepting a contract with the parking company/local authority/landowner that they have provided a parking space in exchange for cash and the limitations as to the duration of the availability of the space is determined by the amount of cash you have deposited, or some other criteria. If you are then in breach of the contract, by overstaying the time limit, there is an additional pre-stated payment due which is a legal civil debt.
Really it's no different from my business terms and conditions saying that payment is due within 30 days and that if it's not received on time then I may charge interest at 3% above bank base rate accrued on a daily basis. It's not a fine, it's a term of contract that is entered into for the supply of goods or services and the payment terms therefore.
Now, whether this also applies to on-street parking on, say, double yellow lines is another matter entirely. The question is whether, since this is controlled by road traffic law, the right to go to court still exists.
Really it's no different from my business terms and conditions saying that payment is due within 30 days and that if it's not received on time then I may charge interest at 3% above bank base rate accrued on a daily basis. It's not a fine, it's a term of contract that is entered into for the supply of goods or services and the payment terms therefore.
Now, whether this also applies to on-street parking on, say, double yellow lines is another matter entirely. The question is whether, since this is controlled by road traffic law, the right to go to court still exists.
So if I leave my car, put money in the machine but there is no space; are they in breach of contract?
Jinx said:
So if I leave my car, put money in the machine but there is no space; are they in breach of contract?
No. There are many other judgments made in line with basically ensuring business thrives, such as there is no duty on a car park to take care of your car, so if it is nicked/broken into they are not liable, YET if a normal person had a visitors car broken into when parked on their land, they could be liable...
Essentially if the court allowed claims like that to succeed no-one would run car parks etc.. and therefore the individual suffers for the "benefit" of society.
The one notable exception is Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking whereby unreasonable terms in any contract (in this case for car parks) must be brought to attention of the consumer.
One might expect that if the Pay & Display board says something like: "Park in a marked bay, purchase a ticket to cover the duration you require and display that ticket on the screen", then those are the contract terms you have accepted. If you cannot park in a marked bay, then the contract cannot be entered into, so you don't park there and no-one can be in breach of contract. The interesting aspect of such a situation may be that if you don't park in a marked bay, but purchase a ticket, you have not complied with the required terms for the initial creation of the contract, so no breach is possible. How, then, could any financial charge for breach of a non-existant contract be legally imposed? That's one for the lawyers. Too complicated for an engineer like me!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff