Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Letter from Neil Herron to Newcastle City Council 24.01.05

Address Withheld

Your ref: PHEP/PBM/NC/96256134
And PHEP/PBM/HXB/
Our ref:96256134

Miss H. Buchan,
For Parking and Business Service Manager
Newcastle City Council
Public Health and Environmental Protection Division
Enterprise and Environment Cultural Directorate
Civic Centre
Newcastle Upon Tyne
NE1 8PB

Dear Miss H Buchan,


Excess Ticket No. 96256134 Veh. Reg. No R24PJR

11/10/2004 – STADIUM CAR PARK (OFF)

Thank you for your communication of 13th January 2005.

It appears as though there is some confusion. You mention that it is a criminal offence for non-compliance with notice (Excess Charge). There has been no ‘non-compliance’ as the necessary form was returned.

Therefore, I wish you to address the facts referred to in my initial communication, namely, that Newcastle City Council are attempting to extort money from me in an unlawful manner. The Bill of Rights 1689 (you have a copy provided in my initial communication with Ms. Valentine), enacted and formally entered into Statute following the Declaration of Rights 1689 clearly states:

“That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.”

This clearly states that a conviction is necessary before a fine (or ‘charge’ as it appears you wish to call it) can be imposed. Therefore, Newcastle City Council have no authority to demand money from me for an offence which is not yet proven before a court of law, therefore your actions are unlawful.

None of the statutes to which you refer, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or the City of Newcastle upon Tyne (off street parking places) Order 2001 make any reference whatsoever to expressly repealing the Bill of Rights 1689.

As stated in the ‘Metric Martyrs’ Judgement in the Supreme Court of Judicature, Queen’s Bench Division (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice John Laws and Justice Peter Crane (again, I have provided full copies with earlier correspondence)

62 “ We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were ‘ordinary’ statutes and ‘constitutional’ statutes. The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional right. Examples are Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union. The Reform Acts etc.”

63. Ordinary Statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…”


As you are no doubt aware, Sunderland City Council went to quite considerable lengths to achieve the Metric Martyrs Judgment and the precedent set by Lord Justice Laws is clear and unambiguous.

Therefore, I wish you to answer a number of questions before I pursue this matter:

1. Are you alleging that I have committed an offence? Mr. Moran, the registered keeper of the vehicle has already attempted to explain the circumstances involved in the parking of the vehicle in earlier correspondence.


2. Can you clarify exactly what that offence is and why did you attempt to impose a fine or ‘charge’ without offering me an opportunity to have the matter dealt with by a court of law? At no point in communication with myself or with Mr. Moran was I offered the opportunity to have the dispute resolved in a court of law. Can you explain why this was omitted from your communications?


3. As I previously stated, it appears as though Newcastle City Council are attempting to claim powers to which they are not entitled and attempting to extort money from me in an unlawful manner. In the penultimate paragraph of your communication you state, “You are of course entitled to as fair trial and we have never suggested otherwise.” I would therefore like copies of all communications from your department detailing where I was offered the opportunity of a ‘fair trial’ or for the disputed matter to be dealt with by a court of law?


I look forward to this matter being dealt with by a court of law and would be grateful if you could also confirm that because of the precedent set out in my defence that the matter will not be able to be dealt with by a magistrates court but will have to be dealt with by the higher, Divisional Court?


Yours sincerely,




Neil Herron

No comments:

Blog Archive


only search Neil Herron Blog