eurealist.co.uk

So the Bill of Rights is an ancient act that has no relevance? As it is still statue law, it can still be used to question the policies of government in our courts. Knowing this, when faced with the threat of this 1688/9 act government and local authorities tend to quietly back off, they do not want people to be generally aware that they still have basic rights that government cannot ignore.

The simple fact that the Bill of Rights says that no one may be punished unless they have been found guilty in a court means that all automatic fines are in fact in contravention of our rights. Just for a moment imagine the chaos that would follow if a large proportion of parking fines were not paid because people demanded their day in court, there is no argument that local authorities can make it illegal to park in an area, but what they cannot do is to demand that you pay a fine without being convicted of the offence of illegal parking. Nor can the Inland Revenue demand that you automatically pay a fine for late delivery of your tax return.

If on the other hand government were to argue, relying on the concept that one parliament may not bind a future parliament, (which concept itself is subject to question, because it was introduced as an understanding by parliament after the Bill of Rights) that in fact their later laws did repeal the Bill of Rights this goes against the judgement in the metric martyrs case;

Lord Justice Laws (Supreme Court of Judicature February 18th 2002) stated:
“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“Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed.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.”

So unless these later acts specifically say they are repealing the Bill of Rights they can not be accepted as doing so, if the government wish to argue the opposite then the metric martyrs simply could not be guilty, because the concept of a hierarch of acts as explained by Justice Laws was used as the justification for finding the metric martyrs guilty, they were relying on a later British weights and measures act which said that lbs and ounces were legal but were found guilty under an older act.

This is the mess we find ourselves in when government ignore the British constitution and pretend that the documents that go towards forming that constitution are no longer relevant, it only takes one judge to throw a very large spanner into their works.

Neil Herron:

“Leaked Information from the Inland Revenue

Two individuals appear to have already used the Bill of Rights Defence in relation to late payment ‘fines’ by the Inland Revenue…and their lawyers in London are in disarray.
In a leak from an insider, Sunderland based Inland Revenue tax inspector, Phil Craig has been told by Head Office to find out ‘Who this Metric Martyr is and get some ‘background.”
The information disclosed anonymously is that the lawyers have been forwarded two separate instances from individuals using the ‘Bill of Rights Defence’ against Inland Revenue automatic late payment penalties.
As we know, the Bill of Rights 1689 states:
‘That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;’

and Lord Justice Laws in the Metric Martyrs Case (Supreme Court of Judicature February 18th 2002) stated:
‘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.’

It appears therefore, that the Inland Revenue has no lawful authority to impose a ‘fine’ or a ‘charge’ without referring the matter to the courts. No wonder their lawyers are in disarray. They have commented that this could see them in the courts for years.
I will await contact from Mr. Craig, who can then explain exactly why the Inland Revenue are looking for me and exactly what information they are after.”