Sunday, February 13, 2005

Legal twist exposes 'miscarriage of justice' for the Metric Martyrs

Sunday Telegraph
Christopher Booker's Notebook
13th February 2005

Pensioner challenges the power to penalise without trial
Two years ago, when Robert de Crittenden, a pensioner, emerged from Sandwell council offices in the west Midlands, he was irritated to find a £30 fixed penalty ticket on his windscreen. He little realised he was embarking on a battle which calls into question the legality of the entire principle of automatic penalties, which now earn local authorities and government departments hundreds of millions of pounds a year.

As a student of constitutional law, Mr de Crittenden was aware that under the 1689 Bill of Rights, it is fundamental to British law that no one may be fined or financially penalised unless they have been convicted by a court. When he inquired into the power of traffic authorities to levy automatic fines, he found it had been created by the Road Traffic Act 1991, in contradiction of the Bill of Rights.

But Mr de Crittenden was also aware of the historic judgment in the "Metric Martyrs" case in 2002, in which Lord Justice Laws pronounced that there were certain "constitutional statutes", such as the Bill of Rights, which cannot be set aside by subsequent legislation unless this is specifically stated. This was crucial to the argument whereby Laws upheld the conviction of the Metric Martyrs.

The law making it a criminal offence to sell goods in pounds and ounces was issued under the European Communities Act 1972. But the Martyrs' defence was that this had been overridden by the Weights and Measures Act 1985, which authorised continued selling in non-metric measures. By ancient tradition, when one Act says something different from another, the later Act, by the principle of "implied repeal", takes precedence. But Laws ruled that, since the European Communities Act was a "constitutional statute", it could not be overridden by the 1985 Act, since this had not made the point explicit.

After conferring with the British Weights and Measures Association (BWMA) and Neil Herron of the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund, Mr de Crittenden concluded that, if Lord Justice Laws was right, the 1991 Road Traffic Act could not implicitly repeal the relevant clause of the Bill of Rights, because, as Laws stated, this was a "constitutional statute". Either the automatic penalty system was illegal; or Laws was wrong, in which case the Metric Martyrs should not have been found guilty.

Using this argument, Mr de Crittenden refused to pay his fine unless Sandwell took him to court. Two years later they have still not done so. But the significance of his challenge can scarcely be overestimated. Since his legal argument began to be widely circulated, ever more motorists have similarly refused to pay fixed penalties in towns all around the country – for example in Sunderland, where Mr de Crittenden was last week given another parking ticket, when he drove up to confer with Mr Herron in connection with this story.

The dilemma facing councils is stark. If they obey the law as it stands, they cannot impose parking tickets on hundreds of thousands of motorists without taking them to court. But if they do so, the court system would rapidly collapse. Furthermore the same applies to all the other official bodies that have jumped on the "fixed penalty" bandwagon, such as the Inland Revenue, which imposes an automatic £100 penalty for a late tax return.

If all these bodies imagine that, under the Laws judgment, they have a simple remedy – namely to rush through an Act of Parliament explicitly overruling the Bill of Rights – Mr de Crittenden has another trick up his sleeve. The Bill of Rights may have been enshrined in an Act of Parliament, but the Declaration of Rights on which it was based was a contract between the sovereign and the people. It is by that Declaration that the monarch occupies her throne and by which Parliament enjoys its power, and it cannot be repealed. Thus, if Laws is right, fixed penalties without conviction cannot be legalised. Either that, or the Metric Martyrs were innocent.

Anyone wishing to know more can contact the BWMA (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/exit.jhtml?exit=http://www.bwmaonline.com/) or the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund at PO Box 526, Sunderland SR1 3YS.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great news! Let's create a 'fixed penalty' general strike with £10 per ticket paid into an insurance legal fighting fund to pay the legal costs of the very few that the courts system could cope with. We need a standard legal reply letter drafting that people can use to reply to fixed penalty fines quoting the Bill of Rights, etc.

Anonymous said...

This is exciting! Could there be a standard pro forma produced referring to the relevent statutes (perhaps a friendly barrister could assist?) which could be downloaded fromn a website and used by anyone to respond to a fixed penalty notice?

Anonymous said...

Send this to Nick Ferrari

Anonymous said...

Keep trying. This Government is inventing more and more regulations to control ordinary people, criminalising innocent behaviour and trivial misdemeanours. They are also trying very hard to avoid having their petty tyrannies overturned or even questioned in the courts, restricting the right to jury trial, introducing fixed penalty notices etc to enable officials to impose their wishes without the inconvenience of having to prove a case in court.

Anonymous said...

Great news ! ! What about dear old
Ken Livingstone.The fines imposed from his Congestion Charge are a disgrace.Has anyone challenged the
legality of all that ?

Anonymous said...

It's all well and good challenging the law when it can be proved to be an 'ass' but when you consider the Police and local authority enforce parking restrictions and excess speeding for a reason. I have seen too many children and adults injured because cars are parked illegally on roads, approaches to crossings, outside schools etc. the list goes on. The reason people in general abide by the law is because of the threat of a financial penalty or points on their licence. If the general populus become aware of this then people will be abandoning their cars all over the place, and once it starts happening outside your house or if your child gets knocked over because the driver can't see due to parked cars, then you only have yourself to blame. Continue to challenge the ridiculous but don't mess with the things that make our everyday life safe.

Anonymous said...

In 1997 our New Labour wreckers introduced 11 Bills affecting our Constitution.This resulted in the creation of the useless and undemocratic regional assemblies and the equally worthless Welsh and Scottish Assemblies.It might be worth looking to see how these latest findings stack up against those Bills/Acts. It would be rather interesting if these vehicles for jobsworths were proved to be illegal.

Anonymous said...

anonymous at 4.38pm says we shouldnt challenge this because everybody will start abandoning their cars everywhere if they find out about it, using scare tactics of threats of injury to kids & old people as his stick to convince us - what about this - tyrannies are started by such oblivious attitudes to bad law. "continue top challenge the ridiculous but dont challenge the things that make out everyday life safe!" your having a laugh with that one pal - since when does your average traffic warden with little or no knowledge of any of the law give a sh8t about safety? all he cares about is getting another ticket on your car so it goes towards the monthly bonus for the highest ticketing warden!! get real mate, if its bad law its bad law - they need to change it - its got nothing to do with safety and eveything to do with £ - but then i bet you think speed camera save lives dont you?

Anonymous said...

In response to 9.29am, I think you have missed the point, it is not about traffic wardens, they are merely tools at the end of the chain, and yes we all know there are a lot of 'jobs worths' who can't wait to slap a ticket on your car. I work in within the health service and I see the results of speeding motorists and badly parked cars obstructing crossings reulting in severe injury and death.
Yes I do think that speed cameras save lives, if they are placed correctly at accident black spots. They serve only one purpose on a wide dual carriageway or hidden round a bend and that is to generate revenue. Place these cameras outside schools and then I definitely think there would be a reduction in serious injuries. Be honest, having you noticed an increase in the number of high performance cars that are speeding around residential areas, illegal street race's, how often do you go out and say to yourself,"look at that idiot, he/she's going to kill someone." Imagine what it would be like without a deterrent. Who decides which laws are good and bad? It's quite simple, reduce speed and you reduce serious injury, it's a fact.

Anonymous said...

Remember a bad law in this context is not law.
Pressure must be put on the current government to remove such tyranny from our life, by those having the ability to effectively shame them into action.
No doubt present government not will admit to operating the current legislation and another 'pass the parcel'will occur.

Anonymous said...

In response to the "health Service" employee. The law as it stands has not detered the speeders! as you say they have been forced into the back streets, that is solely due the current situation with revenue producing speed cameras!! it is a fact that these do not save lives!!! I would rather these idiots speed on the Motorway than near my home as a result of the Speed Camera campaign. I trust you dont have a car! This is illegal, we should challenge it, no one should pay a fixed penalty from this day forward until this is clearer.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it already the case that you can either choose to cough up the fixed penalty OR to have them take you to court if they want to pursue the matter, in which case you will be fined a lot more (should you lose the case)?

So how does that fit in to the idea of refusing to pay the fixed penalty, (as only fines levelled by a court are valid)?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 11:49 saidThis Government is inventing more and more regulations to control ordinary people, criminalising innocent behaviour and trivial misdemeanours. They are also trying very hard to avoid having their petty tyrannies overturned or even questioned in the courts, restricting the right to jury trial, introducing fixed penalty notices etc to enable officials to impose their wishes without the inconvenience of having to prove a case in court.Why let the truth get in he way of an ignorant rant?
The 'decriminalised' parking legislation that we are talking about was introduced in 1991 by the tories.

Anonymous said...

Obviously there has to be a balance between control and freedom. We need laws to stop people speeding, keep carriageways clear and so on. But, we need to do something about out of control councils who have gone way too far and abused their powers to issue penalties for parking offences. I live in Islington, and the situation is really bad. The priority for wardens is definitely revenue, not flow of traffic.
Also, in response to 4.16pm - you either pay the fine or eventually go to PATAS (Parking and Traffic Adjudication Service). Not a court of law, and if you lose, the matter gets passed on to bailiffs. Court doesn't come in to the process any more.

Anonymous said...

I think that Christopher Booker missed the point completely. The word "fine" as used in the 1689 Bill of Rights refers to an old fashioned legal process that is now no longer used.

If one goes to the relevant archives, one can find documents called "Feet of Fines" - the court's records of the process concerned. Anybody who reads these documents will realise that the meaning of the word "fine" as used in 1689 no longer applies.

Anonymous said...

so what did 'fine' mean in 1689 ?

Anonymous said...

This is exactly what happened to the miners in the 1920's when the Govt tried to prosecute those who went on strike. The system collapsed. Consider if several million of us insisted on running the refusal to pay option.....The other even better idea is to stand against all the local councillors on non-political tickets committed to ripping them out of office together with the petty restrictions and oblige the Chief Constable to actually commit his officers to catching criminals for a change. Well? It's an idea.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know if the argument is valid in scots law

Anonymous said...

The Bill of Rights is still law. Fines and forfeitures is still relevant today. Try taking your local council to court to challenge parking fines. I'm about to do it to challenge the penalties added on and all the other hassle because I was driving someone elses car. The firs thing the prosecution must do is establish who is liable to pay the fine.

Blog Archive


only search Neil Herron Blog