STATEMENT 25 MAY 2002

Derek Norman, Secretary of the Council of ARM, today described the verdict of District Judge Michael Kelly on Tony Bennett as "scathing and unwarranted". Derek was in Court on all three days of Tony's trial.

The Council of ARM has now had an opportunity to study the judgment of Judge Kelly and wishes to make the following observations.

IMPLIED REPEAL

At the conclusion of his judgment, Judge Kelly noted that Michael Shrimpton had submitted that Section 131(2) of the Highways Act impliedly repealed both the Theft Act 1968 and the Criminal Damage Act 1971, so far as the removal of illegal metric signs is concerned. He asserted that where a later Act of Parliament creates a specific offence, Parliament may be taken to have repealed any earlier Acts which are more general in scope.

We would remind everyone that while Section 131(2) creates an offence of "pulling down or obliterating" traffic signs, the very same subsection concludes with the words: "It is a defence in any proceedings under this subsection to show that the traffic sign, milepost or post was not lawfully so placed".

Judge Kelly rejected Michael Shrimpton's submission, stating: "I can find no legal basis for this assertion and I have no hesitation in rejecting it".

1783 DEER-KILLING CASE

We would not accuse the Judge of lying, but Michael Shrimpton gave him clear legal authority for his submission. This was a 1783 case in which the then highest Court in the land of Great Britain unanimously fined a man the maximum penalty of £20 for killing a deer, under a more recent Act of Parliament relating to the killing of deer, rather than hanging him under an earlier, more general, Act of Parliament in which the penalty for killing various animals, including deer, was hanging. Although that case was 219 years ago, it remains precedent and therefore good law which should be followed.

PULLING DOWN AND OBLITERATING UNLAWFUL SIGNS IS LAWFUL

The Council of ARM continues to believe, therefore, that the "pulling down" or "obliteration" of illegal metric signs (i.e. signs "unlawfully placed on the highway") remains lawful. ARM has always offered to return removed signs after their removal, an offer which local authorities and transport companies do not usually take up.

Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 states: "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it..."

THE RIGHT IN LAW

Section 2 of the Theft Act 1968 states: "A person's appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest - (a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has the right in law to deprive the other of it..."

Tony Bennett told the Judge he believed he had a right to remove the Transco Signs because his action would rapidly lead to their complying with the law (The Road Traffic Regulations and General Directions 1994) banning metric road signs, after the company had flouted the law in this respect for the past 4 1/2 years. And he was dead right. They erected signs in legal yards within days of the removal of the metric signs.

In his judgment, Judge Kelly said: "I beleive he lied to me then he said he thought he has a right in law to appropriate the signs".

ARM believes the Judge was in error on two counts.

First, in order to convict Tony, he had to be *sure beyound reasonable doubt* that Tony was lying in this respect, not just 'believe'.

Second, Tony and members of the Council of ARM *still* honestly believe that Section 131(2) entitles us, or indeed anyone else, to "pull down" or "obliterate" any unlawful traffic sign.

It is courteous, of course, to warn the authority in question that this may happen if they fail to obey the law.

WORK WILL CONTINUE

Until such time as Section 131(2) of the Highways Act 1980 is repealed, or until such time as there is clear legal authority for the proposition that Section 131(2) does not authorise the removal or amendment of illegal signs, ARM will continue its work on behalf of the vast majority of the people of Britain (86% in the latest survey) who do not want metric signs on our roads. In this respect we uphold the authority of Parliament, which bans local authorities and transport companies from erecting illegal metric signs.

"NOT AUTHORISED", OR "ILLEGAL"?

Judge Kelly in his judgment said that: "Metric signs are not approved by the Secretary of State for Transport". He avoided conceding that the signs were "illegal" or "unlawful". He could have said they were "forbidden" or "prohibited". The fact remains that Parliamen never authorised Transco, nor any other authority, to erect a metric distance sign. Judge Kelly went on to say that illegal metric signs were "a matter for the Police or the proper authorities". What he failed to say was what remedy the citizen has when the "proper authorities" (in this case the Department of Transport) does nothing about an illegality and actively turns a blind eye to it.


Polly Peck
For the Council of Active Resistance to Metrication, 25 May 2002

The full verdict should be on this internet site in the next couple of days, complete with analysis. We have identified a significant number of flaws.

Please note, ARM is welcome to use this forum to report direct actions carried out, but not use to it for planning future actions. Note that this is a discussion forum.
Thank you.