Another Bill of Rights Victory...This time in Sunderland

Sunderland City Council has decided not to pursue Robin De Crittenden for a Penalty Charge Notice issued in Sunderland some 18 months ago.

They decided it is not going to be in the public interest to pursue the case. Enjoy the story below:

SUNDERLAND SUMMARY AT 5TH OCTOBER, 2005...Case Against Robin De Crittenden


1. 2nd April, 2004 – Sunderland Claim for payment of a Parking Fine returned to The Chief Executive Officer of Sunderland, with copy of Declaration of Rights.

2. 13th August, 2004 – Advice issued by City Solicitor (Elaine Waugh) that on receipt of my letter at 1. An Opinion has been obtained from ‘Leading Counsel’, to confirm that the City has authority to proceed against me, under the provisions of RTA 1991 –

Because

a) the Declaration of Rights applied to ‘criminal matters only’, &/or
b) that a repeal of the relevant section of the Bill of Rights was the ‘implied’ intention of Parliament in the enactment of RTA 1991.

3. 3rd March, 2005. Advice to CEO Sunderland that an expected response to an
earlier letter had not been received from him - with the further advice that the Sandwell Council had issued a press article making full reference to an Opinion
obtained by Sunderland from ‘Leading Counsel’ (as given at 2.above).

Copy of the Opinion provided by ‘Leading Counsel’ requested, because it was clear that Sunderland had shared this Opinion with Sandwell and thus entered the Opinion into the Public Domain.

4. 21st March, 2005. Letter issued by City Solicitor (Elaine Waugh) which served to
deny all access to the Opinion given by ‘Leading Counsel’, on the grounds of
‘Legal Professional Privilege’ –

This same letter specifically denied that the Opinion of ‘Leading Councsel’ had
been shared with Sandwell Counsel &/or any 3rd Party.

However, this letter admitted that an officer of Sandwell MBC had made contact with the Head of Transport & Engineering in Sunderland, because of my own asssertion to Sandwell that the Declaration of Rights could not be breached by the enactments of any parliament at any time.

(It appears that during all/any relevant conversation/s, the officers of both Councils confused the Declaration of Rights with the Bill of Rights, & that any Opinion of ‘Leading Counsel (commissioned by Sunderland) was devoted to refuting argument addressing the Bill of Rights but NOT the Declaration of Rights, which was sent to Sunderland at 1. above)

For whatever reasons of their own, the Sunderland Council agreed to provide Sandwell with a copy of the letter addressed to me on 13th August, 2004 – and thus, by their own statement to me, provided Sandwell with the entirety of the ‘key’ information that contained within the relevant Opinion.

In consequence, it can now be argued that if all ‘key’ information has been provided both to me and to Sandwell, then there can be no good reason for all ‘non-key’ information to be withheld.

What then is it, that now serves to prevent the entirely of the Opinion from being disclosed? What is it that is still being guarded from the public eye?

5. 8th September, 2005. CEO City of Sunderland was placed on formal notice of an intention to secure a Judicial Review, because the City of Sunderland had failed to pursue &/or to formally withdraw from the parking claim made against me.

6. 13th September, 2005. Councillor Mahmood Hussain, ‘Cabinet’ member for Sandwell made a public announcement( on Radio 4 WM) that his Council relies upon the content of the Sunderland Legal Opinion to maintain its own case against me, in all pursuit of an alleged parking offence that occurred in 2002.

7. 14th September, Mr Nigel Summers, CEO Sandwell Council was asked to provide copies of all Sunderland material now in the possession of Sandwell, including all notes of all telephone conversations conducted by Sandwell and Sunderland, in all of their contact with each other.

8. 14th September, 2005. Letter issued to CEO Sunderland City Council, making 2nd formal request for a copy of the Opinion commissioned by Sunderland and provided by ‘Leading Counsel’ – it being apparent that when the content of this Opinion is now being published ‘to the world’ by a Sandwell Cabinet Member using public radio for the purpose, then Sunderland has an obvious duty to provide me with the required material, under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

9. 26th September, 2005. Letter issued by Sunderland City Solicitor (Elaine Waugh)
to confirm that the City of Sunderland has deciden NOT to enforce the Penalty Charge Notice issued against me.

10. 30th September, 2005. Letter issued by Sandwell Council denying that a copy of the required Opinion (of ‘Leading Counsel’) is held by Sandwell – and FURTHER denying all access to all Notes held by Sandwell and dealing with
Sunderland contact/s– this last denial relying upon an exemption granted at Section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act, 2000, wherein exemption is provided for purposes of law enforcement.

It is significant that ‘Sunderland-related material’ is now confirmed in its existence by the given reliance on exemption provisions!

11. 3rd October, 2005. Letter issued by Sunderland City Solicitor (Elaine Waugh)
refusing to provide the Opinion of ‘Leading Counsel’. For the same reasons as
given previously.

12. 5th October, 2005. City of Sunderland was advised that a Section 3 Review of the refusal to provide the required Legal Opinion is now required - and that the address for the Freedom of Information Commissioner is now required.

Failure to provide the required information by e-mail (in re Commissioner FOI) then resulted in a telephone call of reminder, during which Elaine Waugh advised an ‘opinion’ that there is likely to be a formal review of her decision( not to provide the required Opinion of ‘Leading Counsel’); such review to take place during this afternoon.


Robin.

5th October, 2005.