Monday, September 05, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(445)
-
▼
September
(46)
- Evidence to the House of Commons Transport Committee
- Department of Constitutional Affairs......Nothing ...
- EU Flag? ...Not here...Second Front Page of the Day
- Another Parking Ticket Victory...Another Front Page
- First the Ashes...Now EU Beaten...Another Victory ...
- No fines without court appearance
- Pressure is on to evict assembly
- Eleanor Sharpston QC...You be the Judge
- Lib Dems agree with Herron
- Unelected assembly slammed
- Response from NPAS
- NPAS wriggles and squirms
- NPAS under more pressure
- Constitutional Storm Clouds Gather over Sunderland
- Complaint to Law Society about NPAS
- Will the Aussies now have their tape measures out?
- Call to scrap parking panel
- NPAS on shaky ground
- Gallows being prepared in Sunderland
- Press Release: National Parking Adjudicator Mislea...
- Investigation into Sunderland City Council / Natio...
- Driven to complain
- Probe into parking tickets blunder
- Government Office plays Pontius Pilate
- Constitutional Confrontation drawing closer...Comm...
- Further Questions as National Parking Adjudicator ...
- No justice in parking 'court'
- The Clock is Ticking Sunderland...why so long?
- Victory...HM Customs and Excise back down after Bi...
- Robin Rocky De Crittenden dying to get in the ring
- Rocky De Crittenden throws down the gauntlet
- Give 'em a pint and they'll take a kilometre
- Worcester City Council now facing NPAS Challenge
- Legal papers served on Sunderland Council
- NPAS 'Independent'...bet you 60p a ticket that the...
- Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council unlawfully i...
- Metric Martyrs Wrongly Convicted...A Miscarriage o...
- Bill of Rights 1689...NPAS Decision
- Bill of Rights Decision by NPAS Adjudicator
- Did the UK Metrication Association lie? You decide
- NPAS...THAT Telephone call...what was said...and t...
- Letter to Caroline Shepherd NPAS Chief Adjudicator...
- Letter to Andrew Barfoot NPAS Tribunal Manager Reg...
- NPAS Decision...Taxi Ranks
- Letter of Apology from NPAS Chief Adjudicator
- Letter of Apology from NPAS Tribunal Manager
-
▼
September
(46)
11 comments:
Civil debt my arse. He hasn't been given money by the council so how can it be a debt? And suggesting the Bill of Rights can be ignored because the legal system has changed! The High Court have already established the primacy of the Bill of Rights over new laws and it is new laws that should be ignored if they are incompatible. I take it there will be an appeal?
All very arguable isn't it? "wonkosane" comment is almost certainly right in saying that the penalty cannot be called a "civil debt". Any reasonable person can see it is a fine!
On the pavement issue it has long been held that the pavement forms part of the highway. But pavement parking is very common - encouraged even - in many areas where there are double yellow lines - indeed some councils even provide specific small off road parking areas which have been deemed by legislation to also form "part of the Highway" without special orders to allow parking there - so I suspect that a parking fine for breaching a double yellow line may not have been the correct offence to be charged with - although another offence (Obstruction of the highway perhaps?) may have been committed.
But on the main issue of the bill of rights I have argued before that the statement in the Metric Martyrs case that some Bills were superior to others was worthless and certainly not central to the final decision. It was opinion only and was so full of holes that only a stupid judge could have come up with it {which may in itself have been grounds for setting the whole decision aside :-) }. It still stands that any law issued after the Bill of Rights - or any other law - may change it. Let's face it - Government in this country - without a written constitution - is a dictatorship!
So the dilemma is either Laws is wrong, in which case the Metric Martyrs were wrongly convicted...or he is right in which case decriminalised parking falls.
Section 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998 A person's reliance on a Convention right does not restrict-
(a) any other right or freedom conferred on him by or under any law having effect in any part of the United Kingdom;
The Bill of Rights still has effect, it has not been repealed. NPAS is not a court of law. By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without consent of parliament is also illegal under the Bill of Rights. One only has to apply the principle of Pepper v Heart [1993] 1 All ER 42
.
Using the principle of Pepper v. Hart, which allows us to refer to what was said in Parliament to determine what the intention of Parliament was, we can determine what the original contract between crown and people is;
"The Rights of the people had been confirmed by early Kings both before and after the Norman line began. Accordingly, the people have always had the same title to their liberties and properties that England's Kings have unto their Crowns. The several Charters of the people's rights, most particularly Magna Carta, were not grants from the King, but recognition's by the King of rights that have been reserved or that appertained unto us by common law and immemorial custom."
(Sir Robert Howard, a member of the Committee's which drafted the Bill of Rights).
Confirmatio cartarum [25 Edw. I]
[29] No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. Note: in the 1354 version, "by the law of the land" was changed to "by due process of law." We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.
The National Parking Adjudication Service in the UK is not a court of Law within the meaning of Article 234 EC, therefore its decision will be in contravention of Article 6 of The European Convention on Human Rights
Go mousie, go mousie. :D
I bet if we went through all the old constitutional laws we'd find a lot of inconsistencies.
Where do you get your quotes from? Google often turns up nothing of worth when searching for the full text of an act.
The Claim of Rights 1628 amplified and confirmed by the Declaration and Bill of Rights of 1688/9 ensures that no law may be suspended or dispensed with unless with consent of Parliament. (given in judgement by Lord Bingham, House of Lords: Diane Pretty, Motor Neurone disease case, Nov. 2001) Which in turn means that suspension or dispensing of law can only be made by the express agreement of Parliament. In other words by Statute, ensuring ‘The Rule Of Law’ as the only Constitutional means of governance
To quote Martin Wood, head of PATAS, "Parking control is enforced by the local council. A parking contravention is a civil wrong for which the sanction is the imposition by the council of a penalty charge, recoverable as a civil debt." Obviously it only becomes a civil debt if a penalty is imposed!! On the question of PATAS/NPAS being a court, clearly the recent Walmsley case says it all - PATAS/NPAS can only hear arguments on limited grounds and cannot hear mitigating circumstances. What kind of court has its discretion so hobbled? Finally, PATAS/NPAS is nowhere to be seen on the Court Services web site nor is it mentioned in the Courts Act 2003, nor is it subject to court procedural rules as far as I can see. The right to not have politicians fine us obviously stemmed from some past abuses. We need to put this one back in its box!
Interesting decision.
-------------
debt negotiations
Post a Comment