Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Citizens caned

Daily Telegraph
Honest John Column
Saturday 15 August 2006

Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) appear to deny citizens access to a court of law should they wish to challenge them. Is this not contrary to the Bill Of Rights 1689? The Bill is constitutional law and above any parliamentary law. It does not differentiate between civil and criminal offences and is quite clear on this. This Bill, and charters such as the Magna Carta (1215), Act of Settlement (1701) and so on, are not grants from the monarchy to the people.
We own them and any law that infringes them shall be of no force or effect. They cannot be repealed or subverted and are not subject to votes. To quote from the Bill of Rights presented to William of Orange: "All grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."
It seems quite clear. You cannot levy fines or forfeitures on any person before a conviction. The only people who can convict and issue fines are the courts of law.
If this were not true, people would have no protection from the might of the state, which would be able to wield all the power it liked (as now seems to be the case).
M.W., via e-mail

Perhaps a constitutional lawyer could clarify things here. If the above were true, only a Notice of Intended Prosecution that gives recipients the alternative of a voluntary fine and/or other punishment instead of a court appearance would be legal.

2 comments:

Tim said...

Is the Bill of Rights not saying that fines or forfeitures cannot be imposed without people being convicted?

And that people cannot be convicted without prosecution through a court?

If so it should not be possible for the state to fine or otherwise punish people who are not convicted.

Is it any more acceptable and within the Bill of Rights for the state to seek to get someone to accept a fine or punishment in lieu of a conviction/prosecution? Surely not!?

Anonymous said...

Of course its correct to say that the Bill of Rights is beyond question. It forms the foundation of our democracy. Dont let anyone spout on about the supremacy of Parliament either because that would suppose that the natural rights acknowledged and protected by the Bill of Rights were actually only such as long the Government of the day agreed with them.

Are we really to believe that the original draughtsmen of the BoR were quite happy to have a future Parliament would be able to sweep these rights aside if it so suited them.

Blog Archive


only search Neil Herron Blog