Bill of Rights case - update
Discussion
www.thenewspaper.com/news/08/800.asp
UK: Technical Success in Bill of Rights Parking Ticket Challenge
A man challenging the UK parking ticket regime based on the English Bill of Rights has won on a technicality.
1689 Bill of RightsRobin de Crittenden has won a technical victory in his November 18 challenge to a UK parking ticket based on the 1689 English Bill of Rights. National Parking Adjudication Service ruled that the Worcester Council failed to supply evidence of a Traffic Regulation Order, side-stepping the larger constitutional issues. On Monday, De Crittenden will formally announce his appeal to the High Court to have the fundamental legality of a decriminalized parking ticket addressed.
"They are running away because they know the law is bigger than they are," de Crittenden said. "The purpose of this challenge is to put the politicians back in their kennels."
In 2003, 47 percent of British motorists received either a traffic or parking ticket. The parking fines generate an estimated £1 billion (US $1.7 billion) in revenue each year. De Crittenden argues that since 1991 "civil" parking tickets have violated the constitutional protection against punishment being imposed without a fair trial.
"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void," the 1689 Bill of Rights states. De Crittenden contends that under British law, an ordinary statute like the Road Traffic Act of 1991 which decriminalized parking tickets cannot overrule the Bill of Rights without an explicit statement of parliament.
"What Robin de Crittenden is doing is immensely important to the way justice is carried out in this country, said Mark Wallace, Campaign Manager of The Freedom Association. "This case is not just about a parking fine: it is about the historic right that we were granted in 1689 not to be fined without a fair trial. Modern politicians seem to have decided that they can simply give the power to be judge and jury over to the police, or to parking wardens. That is not the case."
UK: Technical Success in Bill of Rights Parking Ticket Challenge
A man challenging the UK parking ticket regime based on the English Bill of Rights has won on a technicality.
1689 Bill of RightsRobin de Crittenden has won a technical victory in his November 18 challenge to a UK parking ticket based on the 1689 English Bill of Rights. National Parking Adjudication Service ruled that the Worcester Council failed to supply evidence of a Traffic Regulation Order, side-stepping the larger constitutional issues. On Monday, De Crittenden will formally announce his appeal to the High Court to have the fundamental legality of a decriminalized parking ticket addressed.
"They are running away because they know the law is bigger than they are," de Crittenden said. "The purpose of this challenge is to put the politicians back in their kennels."
In 2003, 47 percent of British motorists received either a traffic or parking ticket. The parking fines generate an estimated £1 billion (US $1.7 billion) in revenue each year. De Crittenden argues that since 1991 "civil" parking tickets have violated the constitutional protection against punishment being imposed without a fair trial.
"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void," the 1689 Bill of Rights states. De Crittenden contends that under British law, an ordinary statute like the Road Traffic Act of 1991 which decriminalized parking tickets cannot overrule the Bill of Rights without an explicit statement of parliament.
"What Robin de Crittenden is doing is immensely important to the way justice is carried out in this country, said Mark Wallace, Campaign Manager of The Freedom Association. "This case is not just about a parking fine: it is about the historic right that we were granted in 1689 not to be fined without a fair trial. Modern politicians seem to have decided that they can simply give the power to be judge and jury over to the police, or to parking wardens. That is not the case."
>>>>>National Parking Adjudication Service ruled that the Worcester Council failed to supply evidence of a Traffic Regulation Order, side-stepping the larger constitutional issues. On Monday, De Crittenden will formally announce his appeal to the High Court to have the fundamental legality of a decriminalized parking ticket addressed.<<<<<<<
What gets my goat is that 'The Legal Profession' have known about this conflict for some time and have done nothing to address it. Relied upon is the common man to take up the cudgel to obtain clarification. In doing so he will have to pay 'The Profession' to do something they should have done ages ago. There is a certain whiff about the wigged ones and M.P's.
dvd
What gets my goat is that 'The Legal Profession' have known about this conflict for some time and have done nothing to address it. Relied upon is the common man to take up the cudgel to obtain clarification. In doing so he will have to pay 'The Profession' to do something they should have done ages ago. There is a certain whiff about the wigged ones and M.P's.
dvd
[quote=Dwight VanDriverWhat gets my goat is that 'The Legal Profession' have known about this conflict for some time and have done nothing to address it. Relied upon is the common man to take up the cudgel to obtain clarification. In doing so he will have to pay 'The Profession' to do something they should have done ages ago. dvd
[/quote]
Standard in the legal trade I'm afraid.
Legals write the laws with loopholes so that other legals can make money fighting cases.
[/quote]
Standard in the legal trade I'm afraid.
Legals write the laws with loopholes so that other legals can make money fighting cases.
kevinday said:
If my memory serves me correctly, it is also impossible for the Government to over-rule the 1689 Bill of Rights. Certain statutes are 'permanent' and unalterable, this is one of them.
Not quite true, - 'constitutional' acts (such as the bill of rights) are not superseded by default new legislation, they must explicitly be overridden, and in the case of privatised parking, such a measure was not included.
Aside - since the Bill of Rights was 1689, and the Act of Union was 1707, what is the applicability of the Bill of Rights in Scotland? Any Scottish Law experts out there?
Edited to add: where's IOLAIRE when you need him?
>> Edited by Size Nine Elm on Monday 28th November 15:18
>>>>>>Aside - since the Bill of Rights was 1689, and the Act of Union was 1707, what is the applicability of the Bill of Rights in Scotland? <<<<
Claim of Rights Act 1689 applies to Skoland itself.
http://tinyurl.com/b3sgb
Fourth declaration doon.
dvd
Claim of Rights Act 1689 applies to Skoland itself.
http://tinyurl.com/b3sgb
Fourth declaration doon.
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
>>>>>National Parking Adjudication Service ruled that the Worcester Council failed to supply evidence of a Traffic Regulation Order, side-stepping the larger constitutional issues. On Monday, De Crittenden will formally announce his appeal to the High Court to have the fundamental legality of a decriminalized parking ticket addressed.<<<<<<<
What gets my goat is that 'The Legal Profession' have known about this conflict for some time and have done nothing to address it. Relied upon is the common man to take up the cudgel to obtain clarification. In doing so he will have to pay 'The Profession' to do something they should have done ages ago. There is a certain whiff about the wigged ones and M.P's.
dvd
Hi all,
back from the States and raring to go!
How the hell are you DVD?
You are spot on with this one, and you're right about the Scottish equivalent, but the formation of the Union in 1707 resulted in the Scottish Parliament being dissolved so that all Scottish legislation came under the auspice of the United Kingdom.
There has already been a successful win at the High Court in Edinburgh, although I can't remember the date but it was probably five or six years ago, but the case was James McDonald V Stirling District Council.
He refused to pay thousands of pounds of parking fines issued outside the door of his own house and used the Claim of Rights as his defence.
My brother is about to do the same with Renfrewshire Council and I have warned Lanarkshire Council I will also be pursuing them for costs if they take me to court: they've been decidedly quiet since!
Watch this space for a case I'm going to detail about a PHr; utterly scandalous!!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff