Jolly good show!!
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/44
A man has invoked the 1689 Bill of Rights to fight a £60 parking fine from Worcester City Council at a tribunal.
Robin de Crittenden, 67, of Willenhall, near Wolverhampton, argues the bill protects people from having to pay fines until convicted by a court.
He said the challenge aimed "to put the politicians back in their kennels".
The National Parking Adjudication Service reserved judgment on the case but is expected to notify the parties of an outcome later this month.
The Bill of Rights dates from the reign of William and Mary, after James II was deposed in the Glorious Revolution.
In part, it reads: "All grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."
Mr de Crittenden, a retired business consultant, told the hearing at Worcester's Fownes Hotel that politicians and local authorities were trying to nullify the bill's potential impact on parking fines by calling them "penalty charge notices".
He said: "This country is drifting ever closer to a police state.
"The public are faced with a vast money-making machine that is a disgrace to each of the local authorities.
"The Declaration of Rights provides I have an inalienable right to require that all and any legal actions undertaken against me be heard and resolved by a court of law."
A spokeswoman for the National Parking Adjudication Service said no previous challenge to parking fines using the Bill of Rights had been successful.
"There have been a number of cases where the Bill of Rights has been argued to refute liability for a penalty charge notice," she said.
"None have succeeded and, as far as National Parking Adjudication Service are aware, there have been no applications to the High Court for Judicial Review of those decisions."
A man has invoked the 1689 Bill of Rights to fight a £60 parking fine from Worcester City Council at a tribunal.
Robin de Crittenden, 67, of Willenhall, near Wolverhampton, argues the bill protects people from having to pay fines until convicted by a court.
He said the challenge aimed "to put the politicians back in their kennels".
The National Parking Adjudication Service reserved judgment on the case but is expected to notify the parties of an outcome later this month.
The Bill of Rights dates from the reign of William and Mary, after James II was deposed in the Glorious Revolution.
In part, it reads: "All grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."
Mr de Crittenden, a retired business consultant, told the hearing at Worcester's Fownes Hotel that politicians and local authorities were trying to nullify the bill's potential impact on parking fines by calling them "penalty charge notices".
He said: "This country is drifting ever closer to a police state.
"The public are faced with a vast money-making machine that is a disgrace to each of the local authorities.
"The Declaration of Rights provides I have an inalienable right to require that all and any legal actions undertaken against me be heard and resolved by a court of law."
A spokeswoman for the National Parking Adjudication Service said no previous challenge to parking fines using the Bill of Rights had been successful.
"There have been a number of cases where the Bill of Rights has been argued to refute liability for a penalty charge notice," she said.
"None have succeeded and, as far as National Parking Adjudication Service are aware, there have been no applications to the High Court for Judicial Review of those decisions."
From Christopher Booker's Notebook, Sunday Telegraph, 13 November 2005
A Commons select committee stands accused of making a tiny but telling change to its website, to get it off a legal hook which could cost local authorities billions of pounds. As announced last summer, the Commons Transport Committee is due to investigate the parking regimes handed over by the police to councils under the 1991 Road Traffic Act, which now account for a third of all the parking tickets issued each year to motorists.
In a statement on August 9, the Committee described these as "fines". Last week, the statement, still dated August 9, changed this to "charges". The significance of this may lie in evidence submitted to the MPs by Neil Herron, the campaigner who argues that most of these council schemes are illegal, because they rely on automatic fines without giving motorists the right to go to court. This is in breach of the 1689 Bill of Rights, which rules that penalties can only be imposed after conviction by a court.
What might seem only a historical curiosity has been made startlingly relevant, however, by the judgment given in 2002 by Lord Justice Laws in the case of the Metric Martyrs. The judge upheld their criminal convictions by ruling that "constitutional statutes" such as the Bill of Rights and the European Communities Act (under which the traders were found guilty) cannot be overruled by later legislation unless Parliament expressly wills it.
If Laws was right, the 1991 Road Traffic Act, which permits parking fines without reference to a court, is illegal. All the money paid by motorists since "decriminalised parking" came in should be paid back.
Faced with this challenge, the councils have come up with a specious defence. Parkwise, the body set up by 13 councils in Lancashire to run their parking schemes, concedes that the Bill of Rights only allows fines after "judgment of a court", but claims that its penalties are not "fines" but "charges" (although council websites still call them "fines"
. This ignores the Bill of Rights itself, which rules that "all fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal and void".
Seeing this express train roaring down on them, the Commons Transport Committee last Tuesday sneaked in that change from "fines" to "charges". The official explanation is that this is "more accurate", because it includes parking charges of all kinds. But if those MPs examine the Bill of Rights, they will see this change still does not let them off the hook. By any reading of the law, those billions of pounds raised by councils in automatic penalties must be regarded as "illegal and void".
Streaky
A Commons select committee stands accused of making a tiny but telling change to its website, to get it off a legal hook which could cost local authorities billions of pounds. As announced last summer, the Commons Transport Committee is due to investigate the parking regimes handed over by the police to councils under the 1991 Road Traffic Act, which now account for a third of all the parking tickets issued each year to motorists.
In a statement on August 9, the Committee described these as "fines". Last week, the statement, still dated August 9, changed this to "charges". The significance of this may lie in evidence submitted to the MPs by Neil Herron, the campaigner who argues that most of these council schemes are illegal, because they rely on automatic fines without giving motorists the right to go to court. This is in breach of the 1689 Bill of Rights, which rules that penalties can only be imposed after conviction by a court.
What might seem only a historical curiosity has been made startlingly relevant, however, by the judgment given in 2002 by Lord Justice Laws in the case of the Metric Martyrs. The judge upheld their criminal convictions by ruling that "constitutional statutes" such as the Bill of Rights and the European Communities Act (under which the traders were found guilty) cannot be overruled by later legislation unless Parliament expressly wills it.
If Laws was right, the 1991 Road Traffic Act, which permits parking fines without reference to a court, is illegal. All the money paid by motorists since "decriminalised parking" came in should be paid back.
Faced with this challenge, the councils have come up with a specious defence. Parkwise, the body set up by 13 councils in Lancashire to run their parking schemes, concedes that the Bill of Rights only allows fines after "judgment of a court", but claims that its penalties are not "fines" but "charges" (although council websites still call them "fines"
. This ignores the Bill of Rights itself, which rules that "all fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal and void". Seeing this express train roaring down on them, the Commons Transport Committee last Tuesday sneaked in that change from "fines" to "charges". The official explanation is that this is "more accurate", because it includes parking charges of all kinds. But if those MPs examine the Bill of Rights, they will see this change still does not let them off the hook. By any reading of the law, those billions of pounds raised by councils in automatic penalties must be regarded as "illegal and void".
Streaky
I really hope someone pushes all the way with this one.
You are supposed to pay a charge when you enter the congestion charge zone, you get fined if you fail to pay the charge.
If you don't pay your taxes, they take you to court and fine you. I know it's only a matter of semantics, charge, fine, penalty, whatever, it all involves being coerced or compelled to pay otherwise a court judgement is registered against you. In the end, it is levied by the court, its just in the early stages the LA is playing Judge and Jury with its levy.
You are supposed to pay a charge when you enter the congestion charge zone, you get fined if you fail to pay the charge.
If you don't pay your taxes, they take you to court and fine you. I know it's only a matter of semantics, charge, fine, penalty, whatever, it all involves being coerced or compelled to pay otherwise a court judgement is registered against you. In the end, it is levied by the court, its just in the early stages the LA is playing Judge and Jury with its levy.
kevinday said:
He is doomed to failure. The offer of a 'fixed penalty' need not be accepted, he may then contest the parking ticket at court. IMHO there is no contravention of the Bill of Rights.
Very good point. Although, I think what he is trying to achieve is to make all parking tickets be heard and fines applied at court. We all know that the system wouldn't handle the strain. I don't think he is trying to say illegal parking should be legal.
kevinday said:
He is doomed to failure. The offer of a 'fixed penalty' need not be accepted, he may then contest the parking ticket at court. IMHO there is no contravention of the Bill of Rights.
But a fixed penalty is simply a fine by other words. If it wasn't an issue, all these descriptions wouldn't be sneakily being changed. I suspect they have had advice that they are on a slippery wicket with this
Ist easy option und too many just accept without question. There are still some people who paid M4 fines und never realised that scam was in wrong place. They knew there were road works und probably assumed they had been gaught within the road works when in reality the scam was enfrocing 50 mph at the NSL sign... 
It was the case ca December 2003 if I recall correctly.
I mention as ist example of the way people accept without challenge und the fine may not be even justified due to clerical error. Und we know they make them - lot of cases appear in tabloids und suspect these are tip of iceberg as some stay stumm about it. rolleyes:
Ist good that some are brave enough to try und one day they may even win as decision ist based on evidence und solid legal argument by cleverest lawyer
It was the case ca December 2003 if I recall correctly. I mention as ist example of the way people accept without challenge und the fine may not be even justified due to clerical error. Und we know they make them - lot of cases appear in tabloids und suspect these are tip of iceberg as some stay stumm about it. rolleyes:
Ist good that some are brave enough to try und one day they may even win as decision ist based on evidence und solid legal argument by cleverest lawyer
kevinday said:
He is doomed to failure. The offer of a 'fixed penalty' need not be accepted, he may then contest the parking ticket at court. IMHO there is no contravention of the Bill of Rights.
Wrong. Illegal parking has been de-criminalised and it doesn’t go to court. If you contest it you can go to the Traffic and Parking adjudicator an independent body that decides if you should pay or not and it does not need to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
It’s all stitched up so it’s loose loose loose! There are however apparently some cases where people win but I think you need to pay someone that knows what there doing.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff