Saturday, November 26, 2005

Press Release: Robin de Crittenden wins the High Court

Press Release: Immediate

The People's No Campaign

"Notice of Announcement of High Court Appeal following Robin de Crittenden's Bill of Rights Parking Ticket Victory"
...Government and Local Authorities facing a loss of £1 billion a year in parking fine revenue

Photo Opportunity: Robin de Crittenden and People's No Campaign Directors Neil Herron and Colin Moran with Court papers
Location: Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London.
Time:11.00 am Monday 28th 2005

Verdict: Appeal Upheld.

Robin de Crittenden beats Worcester Council

The case of:
Robin Decrittenden v Worcester City Council

was heard at the Fownes Hotel in Worcester on Friday 18th November 2005 by Mr. Prickett of the National Parking Adjudication Service, the 'Independent' Tribunal that receive 60p from every Penalty Charge Notice issued.

The hearing in Worcester was the first public airing of the use of the Bill of Rights Defence against a Penalty Charge Notice issued, in this instance, under Worcester City Council's decriminalised parking enforcement regime.
Two hundred members of the public packed the venue.
The potential of the case is that it could expose the fact that the Government, and Local Authorities operating decriminalised parking enforcement regimes, are acting unlawfully. The consequence could be that they have no legal authority to impose 'fines' thereby threatening a massive source of revenue which is now approaching £1,000,000,000 per annum!
The Tribunal heard evidence that the Bill of Rights 1689 is a constitutional statute that has not been 'expressly' repealed by the 'ordinary' statute, the 1991 Road Traffic Act.
This requirement for ordinary Acts of Parliament was confirmed in the judgment of Thoburn v Sunderland City Council heard in the High Court in February 2002 and commonly referred to as 'The Metric Martyrs Judgment.'
Fundamental to the case against Decriminalised Parking Fines was that the Bill of Rights states:
"that all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."
Decriminalised Parking Enforcement does not allow access to a Court of Law.

The Tribunal heard evidence of many instances of failures by the NPAS to request evidence from Local Authorities and failing to inspect evidence, yet still they still against many motorists.
Evidence also was cited, which included cases in Sunderland where £35,000 has had to be repaid to motorists with another £2.5m pending. Rochdale Council has issued over 28,000 Penalty Charge Notices with unlawful wording and the sum which will have to be paid back is over £660,000. In many instances NPAS had wrongly adjudicated.

Evidence was submitted to the Tribunal which exposed the Chief Adjudicator making prejudicial remarks about the Bill of Rights defence exposing a bias against ANY appellant.

The Tribunal also heard of manipulation and altering of NPAS and Government websites to remove the word 'fine' and replace it with 'charge' and it appears that Mr. Prickett, when making reference to the Bill of Rights, conveniently omits the 'and forfeitures' in a further attempt at obfuscation (if a PCN is not a fine then it is most certainly a forfeiture).

Mr. Prickett allowed the appeal but on a technicality...that Worcester Council had conveniently failed to supply any evidence of a Traffic Regulation Order. If that was the case then the hearing should have taken two minutes and not four hours.

It is therefore the intention to appeal the successful appeal to the High Court on a point of law in order to expose the fact that ALL decriminalised parking fines are unlawful and ALL motorists are being unlawfully persecuted by local authorities operating decriminalised parking schemes.

Robin Decrittenden states,"They are running away because they know the law is bigger than they are hence the situation in Worcester where the Adjudicator admitted that he had failed to inspect Council documentation in the past but is now saying that Councils have the job of proving their case."
People's No Campaign Director, Neil Herron states, "This is the first head on conflict exposing the highly suspect Metric Martyrs Judgment. If the Judgment is correct then decriminalised parking fines cannot be levied. Alternatively, the Metric Martyrs were wrongly convicted. It is our intention to put an end to the unacceptable and unaccountable governance and this decriminalised parking is simply an unlawful stealth tax on the motorist."


Neil Herron
tel. 0191 565 7143
mob. 07776 202045

Colin Moran
mob. 07802 448 635

Robin Decrittenden 01902 417 045

More information to be posted at: and


Press Release from Worcester Hearing of 18th November here

Full text of the National Parking Adjudication Service decision here

Press Statement from Robin de Crittenden for 28th November 2005 here

The People's No Campaign has grown out of the Metric Martyrs Campaign which successfully halted the Government's persecution of traders for using imperial measures.
The campaign team ran the successful No Campaign in the North East referendum defeating John Prescott's proposals for an elected regional assembly.
The campaign has grown to oppose the European Constitution and has recently forced local authorities to remove the EU Flag from public buildings.


Anoneumouse said...

They are going to wriggle and squirm for a long time on this one.

It is time for someone to use the provisions of sections 7 and 11 of the Human Rights Act, citing a contravention of the First Protocol Article 1, to actually bring this whole sorry episode to conclusion.

7. - (1) A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) may-
  (a) bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or
  (b) rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings,
  but only if he is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act.

11. 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;

Anonymous said...

Fabulous result. Neil Herron for king, well at least an MP. If this exposes anything it exposes the whole of the Westminster establishment as a useless, anti-democratic cabal with a full time job of robbing the public purse.

wonkotsane said...

Congratulations Robin and Neil.

Anonymous said...

Neil, please don't keeping running the angle that the Metric Martyrs judgement was "suspect". Although it was a great shame you lost, the doctrine of a hierarchy of legislation, in which constitutional legislation cannot be impliedly repealed, is much more valuable than the ability to sell bananas by the pound. That can always be reintroduced at a future date, but once scum like Tony B. Liar screw our Constitution it is gone forever.

The Metric Martyrs judgement was of massive constitutional importance. Without it you could not argue (rightly it would seem) that decriminalized parking fines are unlawful. Please don't rain on your own parade! Without meaning to, you established a major constitutional precedent in the Metric Martyrs case, and that is why the case and its ramifications will live on. If you had won, the government would just have passed an Act to outlaw the use of British weights and measures, so the victory would not have lasted. Instead, you have established the primacy of our Constitution over chippy little weasels such as Bliar and thuggish morons a la Two Jabs Prescott.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Neil, please don't keeping running the angle that the Metric Martyrs judgement was "suspect". Although it was a great shame you lost, the doctrine of a hierarchy of legislation, in which constitutional legislation cannot be impliedly repealed, is much more valuable than the ability to sell bananas by the pound. That can always be reintroduced at a future date, but once scum like Tony B. Liar screw our Constitution it is gone forever.

Hear Hear,
Neil Herron does not seem to grasp this, sadly. It is beginning to look as though he is playing into the present regimes hands. Whether this is by design is not yet clear.

If Neil would respond to postings it might help his credibility.

Regards, John Hurst.

Anonymous said...

This now explains why no-one from Worcester City turned up.Legal advice had probably been given that rather than contest the case ,for the "greater good" of Councils throughout the length and breadth of the country it would be better to lose it on a technicality than to be defeated on the principle.

Anonymous said...

Let's face it - you lost the arguement fair and square.

Neil Herron said...

I am not quite sure which avenue you think we are getting forced down and how we are playing into 'their' hands.
We have managed, by using the Laws' precedent, to get the Bill of Rights talked about and exposed in the national press and media with regard to a populist and contentious issue...decriminalised parking.
Without the Laws' precedent this could not have been done.
The MM Judgment was suspect because it contradicted what was said in open court and as the House of Commons file note states, 'it is not commonly recognised by judges and legislators.'
A friend of mine went to the grave with a criminal conviction. This is not acceptable.
We have taken the issue out of the dusty chatrooms and forced it in the face of the Government and the Judiciary to deal the full glare of publicity...with millions watching as they squirm as they have been forced between a rock and a hard place.
We do what we do in the way that we do it and if you can show us where we are going wrong then we will most certainly listen.
Please bear in mind that most poker players do not lay their cards face up.

Anonymous said...

I find myself facing a (private) criminal prosecution brought against me by Newcastle City Council for non-payment of a 'fixed daily charge' which they slapped on my car last October.

The wording of the parking ticket is extremely cynical, asserting that, I "elected to pay a fixed daily charge of £30". I did no such thing; I actually went out of my way to look for parking restrictions, and none were found. There are no signs or road markings on the street. 8 other drivers fell victim to the same scam on that same night, on the same street (we parked after 7pm in an out-of-town residential area).

Importantly, I am not just challenging this prosecution on a 'reasonableness' defense. Or on the basis that I was not legally bound (contractually) to the parking notice, as the terms were not communicated to me, until I received a ticket.

The REALLY IMPORTANT challenges are much more significant.

I have not been afforded the right to defend the alleged parking 'offence' in the first place. The Council are refusing to say whether I am in breach of common law (as it would appear, given the wording of the ticket) or whether I am in breach of crinminal law. The Council are also refusing to give me lots of information relevant to my defense.

I am now going to court defending a charge of non-payment of a fine. Which is a criminal offence, and probably one of strict liability.

So, I have been presumed guilty by Newcastle City Council's Bureaucrats, who came up with the scheme in the first place. The Council have a significant interest in fines being imposed. And I have not been afforded the right to defend myself. Which means that NCC are acting as LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE and JUDICIARY. As well as being extremely rude, this is highly illegal. What happened to the separation of powers!

My intention is to raise these 3 points of constitutional law in court . But I don't want the case to be won on the back of a technicality, or NCC pulling back. NCC have made a catalogue's worth procedural cock-ups, and the case could get throw out on any one of these (i.e not giving me or the court full & fank diclosure). I need to screw them on a point of constitutional law, and spanner the whole parking scam for good.

These fundamental points of law need challenged in the High Court, as councils have been running this scam for years. It needs a martyr like me to stop it...

Anyone in a position to offer legal or procedural advice should get in touch asap, as this case can benefit us all. I am acting as my own council (thankfully I have a law degree), however, I am very much alone on this. And I have a business to run, so I am very short on time. The good news is, I have nothing to loose - so I can go whole-hogg on this case. The court can't fine me (should I loose), as I have no money in the first place.

Get in touch if you can help, and please use these lines of defense in your own cases, should you be facing a similar situation.


Anonymous said...

A.J. said
Keep up the good work

Blog Archive

only search Neil Herron Blog