City of Sunderland – Continuing Breach to/of Constitutional Provisions -

16th March, 2005.

Mr David Jennings,
The District Auditor,
Nickalls House,
Metro Centre,
GATESHEAD.
NE11 9NH.

Dear Sir,

Re: City of Sunderland – Continuing Breach to/of Constitutional Provisions -
With Unlawful Collections & Disposals of Public Money.

The City of Sunderland, by its Chief Executive & Others, is fully aware of the fact that the Council (acting by and/or with its Agent/Contractual Partner, NCP Ltd) continues with the unlawful process of collecting money from members of the public, under the provisions of arrangements based on a policy of so-called de-Criminalised Parking.

You will be aware that the provisions of the Bill of Rights 1688/89 provide that there can no penalties &/or forfeitures before conviction, and you will be aware that any lawful conviction requires the involvement of a Court of Law that has been fully charged with the responsibility for conducting an independent and impartial trial of any issue that involves any payment of any penalty or forfeiture.

The Judgment of Lord Justice Laws in the case of the Metric Martyrs (a case that was prosecuted by the Sunderland Council itself) has most specifically provided that Constitutional Statutes (most specifically including the Bill of Rights) may not be amended or repealed by subsequent enactment, unless the text of any such subsequent enactment provides & includes a most specific pronouncement of the intention to amend and/or repeal the provisions of any Constitutional Statute that may be relevant.

The provisions of the Road Traffic Act which allegedly permit the implementation of a de-criminalised parking regime contain no stated intention to repeal the provisions of the Bill of Rights, in part or in whole, and since this is the case then there can be no excuse for the Sunderland City Council to fail in its duty to maintain the Bill of Rights.

At this present time, Sunderland is attempting to avoid its responsibility to uphold the Bill of Rights by use of the very transparent excuses a) that authority for its unlawful conduct is granted by the Road Traffic Act; b) that penalties and/or forfeitures are not involved, because the process of collecting the relevant money from the public involves only ‘an administrative procedure’ and c) that the wording of the Road Traffic Act is so specific as to provide for the clear intention (of the legislature) to cause amendment to the provisions of the Bill of Rights.

These excuses offer no legitimacy of argument, and I must now turn to you for appropriate action, because you have distinct & direct responsibilities to ensure a) that all moneys collected by the Sunderland Council are collected in accordance with the law; b) that all such moneys are applied in accordance with the law and c) that all such moneys are properly and fully accounted-for, in accordance with the law.

The circumstances surrounding the collection and disposal of moneys that are now being collected by the Council &/or its Agent/Contractual Partner under the guise of de-Criminalised Parking, give rise to concerns of a very serious nature that I must now bring to your attention, for all purposes of appropriate response and action.

In brief, it would seem that the Sunderland Council has entered into some detailed Contract or Contracts with National Car Parks (NCP) and that under the terms of this contract/these contracts NCP is receiving money for itself that is greater in value than the amount of money that is being paid to the Council by NCP.

In other words, NCP is receiving a profit from its activities as the Agent/Contractual Partner of the Sunderland Council and it seems equally clear that the Council itself is receiving a direct profit-revenue by way of a franchise fee that is being paid to the Council by NCP.

The Road Traffic Regulation Act of 1984 makes clear that parking charges must not be levied for the purpose of raising revenue, but only for the purpose of making appropriate provisions for traffic management.

Under the very suspicious circumstances that are now prevailing, I must ask you to explain why it is that the Sunderland Council has been and is receiving an apparent profit-revenue from NCP and I must further ask you to describe in precise detail how this revenue has been/is being applied directly to the cost of traffic-management.

The explanation and financial details now requested should cover all accounting periods from the time that Sunderland first applied its unlawful regime of de-criminalised parking and should provide all details to date. In asking for this information, I must mention that I rely upon the Freedom of Information Act of 2000.

I have noted with some interest that the Sunderland Council has not entered appeal against the judgment of Lord Justice Laws and must assume that this failure to appeal has arisen only because this judgment served to justify the Council’s own prosecution of Mr Thorburn, with others?

In consequence of its own failure to appeal the judgment of Laws LJ, it must be considered that the Sunderland Council is now pursuing members of the public for money, in wilful breach of the law as defined by the judgment that was obtained by the Council itself.

Perhaps you will be kind enough to examine this point for its relevance to your own position as District Auditor, with financial responsibility for the Council’s conduct. It would seem that public money has been spent to justify the conduct of the Council in one direction, and that the terms of the justification itself now deny all validity to the Council’s action in promoting a regime of de-Criminalised Parking.

I look forward to the benefit of your early and detailed response.

Yours faithfully,



Robin de Crittenden.