Fines and the Bill of Rights Act 1689
Discussion
A couple questions for the legal eagles....
The particular part of the Bill of Rights Act 1689 that is of interest is :-
"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void"
How are councils still getting away with illegaly extorting fines from motorists even after it has been proven in High Court that the Bill of Rights Act 1689 has not been repealed.
Does the Congestion Charge fine for non-payment of the charge go against the Bill of Rights Act (unless the Congestion Charge legislation explicitly stated it repealed it?).
So, if this still stands then the following must be correct? :-
"As parking offences have been decriminalised you can not be convicted in a court of Law for parking offences unless the Council takes the offender to Court for the parking offence rather than the non-payment of the fine, but as parking offences are no longer a criminal offence they can not be tried in court and that the parking fine was illegal in the first place"
The particular part of the Bill of Rights Act 1689 that is of interest is :-
"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void"
How are councils still getting away with illegaly extorting fines from motorists even after it has been proven in High Court that the Bill of Rights Act 1689 has not been repealed.
Does the Congestion Charge fine for non-payment of the charge go against the Bill of Rights Act (unless the Congestion Charge legislation explicitly stated it repealed it?).
So, if this still stands then the following must be correct? :-
"As parking offences have been decriminalised you can not be convicted in a court of Law for parking offences unless the Council takes the offender to Court for the parking offence rather than the non-payment of the fine, but as parking offences are no longer a criminal offence they can not be tried in court and that the parking fine was illegal in the first place"
sybaseian said:
How are councils still getting away with illegaly extorting fines from motorists even after it has been proven in High Court that the Bill of Rights Act 1689 has not been repealed.
...and how can Parliament grant powers beyond the limits prescribed by the Bill of Rights/Claim of Right on its precursors?
...assuming of course that the parliaments of Scotland and England&Wales could legally pass their strictly limited powers to a sucessor body.
I don't see how Parliment exists if it repeals the Acts of its constitution.
jasandjules said:
tigger1 said:
Aren't the parking charges "penalties" rather than "fines", enforceable under contract or something like that?
Well, Civil Penalties are damn hard to prove in court.... Hardly enforceable at all in fact, especially when car parking is concerned.
Doesn't mean they're not enforceable though...just difficult.
Legislation is word & the word has to be interpreted.
I seem to recall that the interpretation at present is along the lines that the bill of rights intended that you would not be able to be fined without you having an opportunity to defend yourself against it & that the adjudicator process satisfies that opportunity.
I seem to recall that the interpretation at present is along the lines that the bill of rights intended that you would not be able to be fined without you having an opportunity to defend yourself against it & that the adjudicator process satisfies that opportunity.
fluffnik said:
sybaseian said:
How are councils still getting away with illegaly extorting fines from motorists even after it has been proven in High Court that the Bill of Rights Act 1689 has not been repealed.
...and how can Parliament grant powers beyond the limits prescribed by the Bill of Rights/Claim of Right on its precursors?
...assuming of course that the parliaments of Scotland and England&Wales could legally pass their strictly limited powers to a sucessor body.
I don't see how Parliment exists if it repeals the Acts of its constitution.
vonhosen said:
Legislation is word & the word has to be interpreted.
I seem to recall that the interpretation at present is along the lines that the bill of rights intended that you would not be able to be fined without you having an opportunity to defend yourself against it & that the adjudicator process satisfies that opportunity.
I seem to recall that the interpretation at present is along the lines that the bill of rights intended that you would not be able to be fined without you having an opportunity to defend yourself against it & that the adjudicator process satisfies that opportunity.
Sorry VH, but the interpretation looks more like:
"We've got the press, the police, and the jails; no regard for law, due process, or democracy; but what are you going to do about it - risk jail ? Bwuhahahaha!"
grumbledoak said:
vonhosen said:
Legislation is word & the word has to be interpreted.
I seem to recall that the interpretation at present is along the lines that the bill of rights intended that you would not be able to be fined without you having an opportunity to defend yourself against it & that the adjudicator process satisfies that opportunity.
I seem to recall that the interpretation at present is along the lines that the bill of rights intended that you would not be able to be fined without you having an opportunity to defend yourself against it & that the adjudicator process satisfies that opportunity.
Sorry VH, but the interpretation looks more like:
"We've got the press, the police, and the jails; no regard for law, due process, or democracy; but what are you going to do about it - risk jail ? Bwuhahahaha!"
The people elect their government.
Government legislates the intent.
The courts interpret that intent.
If the people don't like it, they go to their government.
The government re-legislates where the courts interpretation has not matched their original intent.
grumbledoak said:
Indeed mate - but we seem to have a problem with step 4 in your list...
You'll get to vote again & you can show your displeasure with it if you like.
Or of course you can stand yourself & if others like what you have to say they can vote for you.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 14th March 12:32
Note from Dvd's note book of useless information......
On 5th June, 2006, Mr Robin De Crittenden appealed against the issue of a parking ticket by Worcester County Council quoting 'The Bill of Rights'
The High Court Judge, Mr Justice Collins,demolished the belief that the 1689 Bill
outlawed parking charges because they had not been imposed by a Court of law.
Mr Collins stated the belief was "baseless" and "a nonsense".
"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 complete baseless argument."
The Judge refused Mr Crittenden permission to seek a judicial review based on the B of R argument.
dvd
On 5th June, 2006, Mr Robin De Crittenden appealed against the issue of a parking ticket by Worcester County Council quoting 'The Bill of Rights'
The High Court Judge, Mr Justice Collins,demolished the belief that the 1689 Bill
outlawed parking charges because they had not been imposed by a Court of law.
Mr Collins stated the belief was "baseless" and "a nonsense".
"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 complete baseless argument."
The Judge refused Mr Crittenden permission to seek a judicial review based on the B of R argument.
dvd
vonhosen said:
Legislation is word & the word has to be interpreted.
The scope of legislation is strictly limited by the Bill/Claim of Right(s)
...possibly to the extent that a unified parliament has no legal basis.
vonhosen said:
I seem to recall that the interpretation at present is along the lines that the bill of rights intended that you would not be able to be fined without you having an opportunity to defend yourself against it & that the adjudicator process satisfies that opportunity.
That's not what the BoR says; it specifies that process and conviction must precede penalty.
fluffnik said:
vonhosen said:
Legislation is word & the word has to be interpreted.
The scope of legislation is strictly limited by the Bill/Claim of Right(s)
...possibly to the extent that a unified parliament has no legal basis.
vonhosen said:
I seem to recall that the interpretation at present is along the lines that the bill of rights intended that you would not be able to be fined without you having an opportunity to defend yourself against it & that the adjudicator process satisfies that opportunity.
That's not what the BoR says; it specifies that process and conviction must precede penalty.
It is the job of the courts to interpret the legislation & that includes the legislation that is the Bill of Rights Act. That (as dvd pointed out) has happened. They don't agree with you.
If the current government disagrees with the courts ruling & interpretation, then they will have to legislate for that.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 14th March 17:59
Zod said:
fluffnik said:
I don't see how Parliment exists if it repeals the Acts of its constitution.
Yes, it can change anything within its remit; a remit strictly limited by the Bill/Claim of Right(s) by which it is constituted.
I do not see how it can legitimately claim powers in areas forbidden to it by its Acts of foundation ever without making a nonsense of its only claim to legitimacy.
Dwight VanDriver said:
The High Court Judge, Mr Justice Collins,demolished the belief that the 1689 Bill
outlawed parking charges because they had not been imposed by a Court of law.
Mr Collins stated the belief was "baseless" and "a nonsense".
"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 complete baseless argument."
You can't expect turkeys to vote for Christmas after all.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Note from Dvd's note book of useless information......
On 5th June, 2006, Mr Robin De Crittenden appealed against the issue of a parking ticket by Worcester County Council quoting 'The Bill of Rights'
The High Court Judge, Mr Justice Collins,demolished the belief that the 1689 Bill
outlawed parking charges because they had not been imposed by a Court of law.
Mr Collins stated the belief was "baseless" and "a nonsense".
"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 complete baseless argument."
The Judge refused Mr Crittenden permission to seek a judicial review based on the B of R argument.
dvd
On 5th June, 2006, Mr Robin De Crittenden appealed against the issue of a parking ticket by Worcester County Council quoting 'The Bill of Rights'
The High Court Judge, Mr Justice Collins,demolished the belief that the 1689 Bill
outlawed parking charges because they had not been imposed by a Court of law.
Mr Collins stated the belief was "baseless" and "a nonsense".
"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 complete baseless argument."
The Judge refused Mr Crittenden permission to seek a judicial review based on the B of R argument.
dvd
I would suggest that a slight error has crept into your notes.
First of all any application for judicial review is made ex parte to the High Court and not as a de facto appeal to a Court hearing a matter. Secondly Judicial Review is not a remedy available against a High Court (only against summary jurisdiction decisions) matter, but the proper remedy would be to the Court of Appeal on a point of law or fact.
fluffnik said:
Zod said:
fluffnik said:
I don't see how Parliment exists if it repeals the Acts of its constitution.
Yes, it can change anything within its remit; a remit strictly limited by the Bill/Claim of Right(s) by which it is constituted.
I do not see how it can legitimately claim powers in areas forbidden to it by its Acts of foundation ever without making a nonsense of its only claim to legitimacy.
Occassionaly legal issues require a dose of pragmatism. In the case of limits of remit, the original authorising body was dissolved and therefore has no power to enforce any limitations. Just like the concept that a Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament. Now in 1948 Paliament granted independence to India (read Southern Ireland if you like). It effectively bound every future Parliament with that Act. Present day Parliament couldn't repeal the Act and turn India back into a colony. Whilst there are broad constitutional principles, their application is not strict.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff