Letter to Neil Herron
Neil, I am not a lawyer (ok, I will admit to being, the barrack room version) So I am not sure a phone call would be of any help, as my arguments are formulated from my viewing of the written word and not from my limited capacity to remember what I have read or written. (if that makes sense)
Like you, I am just an indignant citizen, fed up of being used and abused. However, I think your best action (in the first instance) would be to cite the Human Rights Act 1998, as most public authorities have been briefed on this Act (they seem to be comfortable with it, because it is "modern"). The HRA1998 has provision, under section 11 where you can cite the Bill of Rights 1689.
Also, under section 7 of the HRA "you" can force an action. 7- (1) A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) can take them to court.
read on
In the letter that you received from Elaine Waugh, City Solicitor, 13th August she says
"The clause in the Bill of Rights 1689 to which you refer protects a citizen from fines and forfeiture of his property imposed as a matter of criminal (penal) law unless these penalties have duly been imposed by a criminal court following conviction."
This of course is not correct, as the Clause states "ALL" grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void; ("all " is quite clear, explicit and unambiguous, it means ALL)
Using the principle established in Pepper v Hart [1993] HL. One only has to understand why the Bill of Rights came into force. This being adequately explained in the preamble of the Bill of Rights.
"And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before "any" conviction or "judgment" against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied; (no mention of criminal or otherwise)
"All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;"
Magna Carta states that the Crown will appoint as officers and constables, "none but sure men who know the law and mean to keep it. "Ignorance is no excuse and Halsbury's Laws of England confirms that breach of Magna Carta is an offence at common law. This provision is the reason why Crown servants take Oaths. The form of the oath is specified by the Bill of Right.
The Oath, which is required by the Bill of Rights to be taken by members of the Judiciary, includes, "I will do right to all men according to the laws and usage's of the Kingdom."
Therefore.
1. 6. - (1) Human Rights Act 1998. It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right
2. Under the Human Rights Act 1998 all courts are required to make their decisions in accordance with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the usual procedures apply for appeals to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords and ultimately to the European Court of Human Rights. Courts have to interpret legislation in a way, which makes it compatible with the European Convention, and they can invalidate secondary legislation if it is not compatible with the Convention.
3. The fines have infringed your rights under The Human Rights Act 1998 specifically but not limited to The First Protocol Article 1 Protection of Property & Article 6 right to a Fair Trial.
4. you are a natural, legal person in this matter and have not been convicted of a crime. The fine will deprive you of property (assets), which is not subject to the conditions provided for by law.
5. The National Parking Adjudication Service, is not a court of Law within the meaning of Article 234 EC)
6. The law in England, states in the Bill of Rights 1689 'That "all" grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."
7. Human Rights Act 1998. 11 Safeguard for existing human rights. A person's reliance on a Convention right does not restrict-any other right or freedom conferred on him by or under any law having effect in any part of the United Kingdom;
8. In 1913 (Bowles v Bank of England) it was ruled that:
"The Bill of Rights still remains unrepealed, and practice of custom, however prolonged or however acquiesced in on the part of the subject, cannot be relied on by the crown as justifying any infringement of its provisions."
9. (Hansard, 21 July 1993), the Speaker of the House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts: (as a consequence of Pepper v Hart) 'There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.'
10. In 2002 (Thoburn v Sunderland City Council ("Metric Martyrs") ) In the present state of its maturity the common law has come to recognise that there exist rights which should properly be classified as constitutional or fundamental.…….The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689……Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test:….
Visit Neil Herron's blogspot HERE
.
Like you, I am just an indignant citizen, fed up of being used and abused. However, I think your best action (in the first instance) would be to cite the Human Rights Act 1998, as most public authorities have been briefed on this Act (they seem to be comfortable with it, because it is "modern"). The HRA1998 has provision, under section 11 where you can cite the Bill of Rights 1689.
Also, under section 7 of the HRA "you" can force an action. 7- (1) A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) can take them to court.
read on
In the letter that you received from Elaine Waugh, City Solicitor, 13th August she says
"The clause in the Bill of Rights 1689 to which you refer protects a citizen from fines and forfeiture of his property imposed as a matter of criminal (penal) law unless these penalties have duly been imposed by a criminal court following conviction."
This of course is not correct, as the Clause states "ALL" grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void; ("all " is quite clear, explicit and unambiguous, it means ALL)
Using the principle established in Pepper v Hart [1993] HL. One only has to understand why the Bill of Rights came into force. This being adequately explained in the preamble of the Bill of Rights.
"And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before "any" conviction or "judgment" against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied; (no mention of criminal or otherwise)
"All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;"
Magna Carta states that the Crown will appoint as officers and constables, "none but sure men who know the law and mean to keep it. "Ignorance is no excuse and Halsbury's Laws of England confirms that breach of Magna Carta is an offence at common law. This provision is the reason why Crown servants take Oaths. The form of the oath is specified by the Bill of Right.
The Oath, which is required by the Bill of Rights to be taken by members of the Judiciary, includes, "I will do right to all men according to the laws and usage's of the Kingdom."
Therefore.
1. 6. - (1) Human Rights Act 1998. It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right
2. Under the Human Rights Act 1998 all courts are required to make their decisions in accordance with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the usual procedures apply for appeals to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords and ultimately to the European Court of Human Rights. Courts have to interpret legislation in a way, which makes it compatible with the European Convention, and they can invalidate secondary legislation if it is not compatible with the Convention.
3. The fines have infringed your rights under The Human Rights Act 1998 specifically but not limited to The First Protocol Article 1 Protection of Property & Article 6 right to a Fair Trial.
4. you are a natural, legal person in this matter and have not been convicted of a crime. The fine will deprive you of property (assets), which is not subject to the conditions provided for by law.
5. The National Parking Adjudication Service, is not a court of Law within the meaning of Article 234 EC)
6. The law in England, states in the Bill of Rights 1689 'That "all" grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."
7. Human Rights Act 1998. 11 Safeguard for existing human rights. A person's reliance on a Convention right does not restrict-any other right or freedom conferred on him by or under any law having effect in any part of the United Kingdom;
8. In 1913 (Bowles v Bank of England) it was ruled that:
"The Bill of Rights still remains unrepealed, and practice of custom, however prolonged or however acquiesced in on the part of the subject, cannot be relied on by the crown as justifying any infringement of its provisions."
9. (Hansard, 21 July 1993), the Speaker of the House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts: (as a consequence of Pepper v Hart) 'There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.'
10. In 2002 (Thoburn v Sunderland City Council ("Metric Martyrs") ) In the present state of its maturity the common law has come to recognise that there exist rights which should properly be classified as constitutional or fundamental.…….The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689……Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test:….
Visit Neil Herron's blogspot HERE
.
posted by Anoneumouse at 12:58 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home