The Common Law Repealed

"However in my view the Act (Bill of Rights 1689) cannot be read literally because to do so would ignore the obvious changes between the legal system in 1689 and the present day"

"The intention of the Act was to provide the citizen with certain rights and to prevent the imposition of any financial penalty without there being a right of challenge, which certainly in areas of criminal law is one purpose of the more modern European Convention on Human Rights".

These are the words of Stephen J. Knap Parking Adjudicator

Visit Neil Herron's blog for the full story.

Well Mr Knap, "Non in legendo sed in intelligendo leges consistunt".
The laws consist not in being read, but in being understood

Section 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998 A person's reliance on a Convention right does not restrict-

(a) any other right or freedom conferred on him by or under any law having effect in any part of the United Kingdom;

The Bill of Rights still has effect, it has not been repealed. The National Parking Adjudication Service is not a court of law. By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without consent of parliament is also illegal under the Bill of Rights. One only has to apply the principle of Pepper v Heart [1993] 1 All ER 42

Using the principle of Pepper v. Hart, which allows us to refer to what was said in Parliament to determine what the intention of Parliament was, we can determine what the original contract between crown and people is;

"The Rights of the people had been confirmed by early Kings both before and after the Norman line began. Accordingly, the people have always had the same title to their liberties and properties that England's Kings have unto their Crowns. The several Charters of the people's rights, most particularly Magna Carta, were not grants from the King, but recognition's by the King of rights that have been reserved or that appertained unto us by common law and immemorial custom."

(Sir Robert Howard, a member of the Committee's which drafted the Bill of Rights).

Confirmatio cartarum [25 Edw. I]
[29] No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. Note: in the 1354 version, "by the law of the land" was changed to "by due process of law." We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

The National Parking Adjudication Service in the UK is not a court of Law within the meaning of Article 234 EC, therefore its decision will be in contravention of Article 6 of The European Convention on Human Rights.

It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

The Claim of Rights 1628 amplified and confirmed by the Declaration and Bill of Rights of 1688/9 ensures that no law may be suspended or dispensed with unless with consent of Parliament. (given in judgement by Lord Bingham, House of Lords: Diane Pretty, Motor Neurone disease case, Nov. 2001) Which in turn means that suspension or dispensing of law can only be made by the express agreement of Parliament. In other words by Statute, ensuring ‘The Rule Of Law’ as the only Constitutional means of governance.

(Hansard, 21 July 1993 column 352), the Speaker of the House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts: '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.'

.