Dear BWMA,

You assert on your web site that fining people for traffic offenses, either on the spot or through the post, is in conflict with the Bill of Rights, which entitles the alleged offender to a court hearing.

You claim this to be a precedent for statutary law repealing constitutional law which contradicts the basis on which the metric martyrs were convicted.

However you appear to overlook the fact that imposing those penalties for traffic offenses are subject to the consent of the alleged offender who can still insist on taking it to court. Hence their rights under said bill are still protected.

re (Legal Eagle): "However, you appear to overlook the fact that imposing those penalties for traffic offences is subject to the consent of the alleged offender, who can still insist on taking it to court. Hence his/her rights under said Bill are still protected"

[Note: message corrected for American spelling and grammar]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPLY: What if you're wheel-clamped?

The Bill of Rights Act states that "all" grants and promises of fines "before conviction" are illegal and void.

If it is true that immediate payment of an assessed fine is contingent on the consent of the alleged offender, the assessing officer ought to have a duty to inform the alleged offender of their right to a hearing.

To let someone believe that they must instantly pay a fine, where there is no such requirement, is dishonest and unprofessional. If a lawyer in the United States did something similar, they could be disbarred for violating the rules of professional conduct.

The purpose of the Bill of Rignts was to curb the powers of the reigning Monarh, at the time James II. It asserted the authority of Parliament to make law which could not be overridden by the head of state.

It was never designed to protect people from speeding fines, parking fines or wheel clamping.

No statutary law which falls outside the context of a constitutional act, especially one which is three centuries old, can be connected with it or be said to be repealing it.

re (Stan): "No statutory law which falls outside the context of a constitutional act, especially one which is three centuries old, can be connected with it or be said to be repealing it". [spelling of 'statutory' corrected]

REPLY: But wasn't it the infamous Lord Justice Laws who, in the Steve Thoburn appeal case, got round the clear legal rule - namely, that a later Act impliedly repeals any earlier one to the contrary - by inventing the entirely novel doctrine - unknown to British law - of a 'hierarchy of statutes', with Constitutional Acts or Treaties at the 'top' of the hierarchy?

Next time I get a parking or a speeding fine, I'll rush to quote LJ Laws and say - 'Hey, the Bill of Rights 1689 is a Constitutional Statute and means no-one can impose a fine or financial penalty on me until I've had my day in Court'

Stan
>>>"It was never designed to protect people from speeding fines, parking fines or wheel clamping."

You are absolutely right. The purpose of it was to regulate the means by which those fines were imposed i.e. people can be fined, but only after the legal process has been satisfied.

I also agree with you that an Act in 1689 cannot repeal an Act in 1991. Similarly, an Act in 1972 cannot repeal an Act in 1985. Do you now accept that pounds and ounces are legal. If not, why not?

I didn't say that an act in 1689 repeals an act in 1991.

I was trying to point out that the modern expedient of offering an out-of court settlement to someone caught speeding or obviously violating parking regulations doesn't necessarily conflict with a three century old act of parliament designed for a different purpose and in an entirely different context.

Obviously I don't accept that pounds and ounces are legal. They were outlawed in 1994 on packaged goods and subsequently on loose goods in 2000.

If BWMA are so convinced that the High Court ruling is invalid on the grounds you are now suggesting then why didn't you raise this at the time of the appeal to the House of Lords?

Tony said

"Next time I get a parking or a speeding fine, I'll rush to quote LJ Laws and say 'Hey, the Bill of Rights 1689 is a Constitutional Statute and means no-one can impose a fine or financial penalty on me until I've had my day in Court'"

In real life, I'll take the £60 fine & 3 points rather than risking coming up against a sheriff (magistrate) in a bad mood.... Unfortunately, this will be coming true in the near future :-( :-(

On a legal point, how do BWMA see a 1689 act of the English Parliament applying in Scotland or N. Ireland?

re (Beranger): "How does the Bill of Rights apply to Scotland?"

REPLY: Bill of Rights 1689: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from English Bill of Rights)

"The Bill of Rights 1689 is an English Act of Parliament with the long title "An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown", and known colloquially in the UK as the 'Bill of Rights'.

It is one of the basic documents of English constitutional law, alongside Magna Carta, the Act of Settlement and the Parliament Acts. A separate but similar document applies in Scotland, the Claim of Right"

>>>"I was trying to point out that the modern expedient of offering an out-of court settlement to someone caught speeding or obviously violating parking regulations doesn't necessarily conflict with a three century old act of parliament designed for a different purpose and in an entirely different context".<<<

Stan,
I agree that the 1689 Act clause does not refer to car parking - but neither does it refer to stabling horses or parking carriages. The process by which fines are imposed is an issue that is as relevant now as hundreds of years ago.

Having said that, as you correctly point out, circumstances can change. Hence the rule of implied repeal: an Act in 1991 overrides an Act of 1689 to the extent of the difference.

The point we are making is that Lord Justice Laws rejects this commonsense. He has arbitrarily declared the 1689 Act a constitutional act that can and must repeal ordinary acts (unless they refer to the 1689 Act). The 1991 Act is ordinary.

I am not saying BWMA agree with Laws: it doesn't. However, we are pointing out the inconsistency in that local authorities are not adhering to his judgment in relation to collecting fines.

Thank you BWMA for your considerate response.

I conceed that you may have (as far as I can tell) a valid legal point.

If you manage to test this in court then I'll await the outcome with interest.

BTW has the cause of defending motorists become another arm to your campaign?

Tony Bennett: "It is one of the basic documents of English constitutional law, alongside Magna Carta, the Act of Settlement and the Parliament Acts. A separate but similar document applies in Scotland, the Claim of Right"

So why should present day England, Scotland, Wales and NI accept dual measures for trade? Magna Carta proclaims a single system.

Of course, Stan, BWMA will lose regardless, or even get laughed out of court.. you see, it tends to not be a winning formula to go into court and say a) the courts have acted illegally or b) (even worse) Parliament has acted illegally.

....unless your names happens to be "The EU"

>>> "BTW has the cause of defending motorists become another arm to your campaign?"

No! We just think the example of parking tickets is one that will strike a chord with a lot of people.

Tony said (re the English Bill of Rights)

"It is one of the basic documents of English constitutional law, alongside Magna Carta, the Act of Settlement and the Parliament Acts. A separate but similar document applies in Scotland, the Claim of Right"

I'm quite aware regarding what the English Bill of Rights is. I asked why BWMA thought it applied in Scotland?

I am also aware of the Claim of Right. To save BWMA looking it up, I'll even paste the relevant part

"That the Imposeing of extraordinary fynes The exacting of exorbitant Baile and the disposeing of fynes and forefaultors befor sentence are Contrary to law"

I would respectfully suggest that BWMA either state that their guidance applies to England only, or make reference to the other legal systems in the UK.

Tony also said

"REPLY: What if you're wheel-clamped?"

Report it to the police, who will make a report to the Procurator Fiscal alleging extortion by the clamper.

Stan said

"So why should present day England, Scotland, Wales and NI accept dual measures for trade? Magna Carta proclaims a single system."

Again, what is the applicability of the Magna Carta to Scotland....

Beranger: "Again, what is the applicability of the Magna Carta to Scotland...."

Well OK strike Scotland from the list of countries I mentioned in respect of Magna Carta.

However I'm willing to bet that there will be something in Scottish historical law that proclaims a single system of measurement for trade.

Stan wrote

<<
However I'm willing to bet that there will be something in Scottish historical law that proclaims a single system of measurement for trade.
>>

Yes there is - the Magna Carta. The Act of Union in 1707 said that English units of measure were to be used in Scotland and thus, implicitly, that clause in the Magna Carta became binding on Scotland.

Martin

Agree in part, but at the time of the Act of Union (Act was passed in 1706 to my recollection), the English statutes in force were passed by Henry VII and Elizabeth - a wee bit after the Magna Carta!

I'll research further....