eurealist.co.uk

Fixed Penalty challenge

From Neil Herron
Can’t pay, won’t pay
The Independent, 29 March 2005
Robert Verkaik reports on a novel challenge to the whole system of fixed penalties

There has been much principled discussion recently about the threat to civil liberties from anti-terror legislation. Now Britain’s motorists believe they have identified an even more insidious attack on our unwritten constitution - one allowed to go unchecked for more than 14 years.

Since the fixed-penalty notices system was “decriminalised” in 1991, the partly privatised fines-enforcement industry has grown into a multi-million-pound revenue-gathering business. Now motorists are set to challenge the premise on which this industry is built.

Neil Herron, 42, a former fishmonger and market trader, plans to contest the right of a local authority to impose fines against an unlawfully parked motorist without first giving him a fair hearing.

Mr Herron has collected a number of parking tickets in his home city of Sunderland which he is refusing to pay. He argues that the system for fine collection in this country is in breach of the 1689 Bill of Rights, which protects citizens from “fine or forfeiture before conviction”.

Dozens of other motorists have joined his campaign for a right to a fair trial. One is Robin de Crittenden, a pensioner from Sandwell, Birmingham. He too is refusing to pay a parking tickets. Both men have tried to provoke their local councils into taking them to court but they have not taken the bait.

These cases have far-reaching implications for collection of fines. The legal authority on which councils rely when imposing fixed penalties is the Road Traffic Act 1991. This legislation meant that parking in a restricted place was no longer a criminal offence. It enabled a revolution in revenue collection, sparing councils the burden of prosecuting defaulters.

But Herron and de Crittenden believe the legislation breached the British constitution. And only now, they argue, has anyone been prepared to go to prison to challenge the law. If this hard-line campaigning has a familiar ring, this is because it is born out of the same kind of martyrdom that characterised the legal challenge to the abolition of metric weights and measures in the UK.

Herron is a founder-member of the metric martyrs and intends to use the same judgment that defeated this cause to support his present campaign. The men have already anticipated what they believe will be the councils’ defence: that the parking appeal tribunal provides an opportunity to fairly contest the imposition of a parking ticket.

“These tribunals are not independent; they are funded by the local authority collecting the fine,” argues Herron.

In the metric martyrs case Lord Justice Laws relied on the doctrine of constitutional hierarchy, which gives legal documents such as the Bill of Rights primacy over subsequent legislation, unless there is an expressed intention to overrule the established law.

In the 2002 judgment he said: “We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were “ordinary” statutes and “constitutional” statutes. 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.” This was an argument that helped to defeat the metric martyrs’ challenge.

Says Herron: “If the Divisional Court’s ruling is true, every local authority, government agency and police force that fines people through the post, or on the spot, is now acting unlawfully, since the Bill of Rights Act 1689 was specifically classified as a constitutional Act. The Road Traffic Act 1991 and others like it are, by contrast, “ordinary” Acts.”

And From

The Anglo Saxon Chronicle

Message for ‘people’ in the EU

If you receive a fixed penalty notice for alleged illegal parking in England or Wales, in theory, under COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties. Which entered into force on March 22nd, 2005. You can be pursued for that penalty, when you return to your home State.

I would like to inform you, that under English Law you are not obliged to pay a fixed penalty, unless you have been convicted by a court of law. This fundamental freedom is established in the Bill of Rights 1689, where it states: That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction, are illegal and void.

Under section 11 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998, 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;

Although, Article 1 (iii) of 2005/214/JHA states: an authority of the issuing State other than a court in respect of acts which are punishable under the national law of the issuing State by virtue of being infringements of the rules of law, provided that the person concerned has had an opportunity to have the case tried by a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters;

I would like to inform you, that 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

The Court of Justice has recently confirmed its previous caselaw according to which an arbitration panel is not a national court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC. Consequently, the ECJ has no jurisdiction to answer a question referred to it by such a panel.

Gravy Train Passengers write to the Times en-masse

Regional responsibilities in the UK — and in the EU

From the Chief Executive of the South East England Regional Assembly

Sir, Regional assemblies in England are voluntary partnerships between local authorities and stakeholders representing constituencies of interest, such as business and the environment.

Dr Matthew Portal (letter, March 22) has become alive to their role precisely because, with new responsibilities for advising ministers on regional planning, they are reaching out to engage the public. Our leaflet on the South East Plan has been sent to over three million households in the region.
Far from being a bureaucratic imposition, the eight English assemblies are small, light-touch bodies bringing bottom-up accountability to regional governance. In the South East every county and district council has an assembly member speaking for its community.
Regional planning, although vitally important, has been going on since the Sixties pretty much out of the public eye. Dr Portal should be welcoming the chance to shape the future of the South East, not buying the myth that a body that his elected councillors voluntarily created for that purpose is the product of an EU conspiracy.
Yours faithfully,
PAUL BEVAN,
Chief Executive,
South East England Regional Assembly,
Berkeley House,
Cross Lanes, Guildford GU1 1UN.
March 23.
From Mr Peter O. Miles
Sir, The English regions (letters, March 15 and 22) were established in 1965 not by Brussels, but to co-ordinate the administration of UK government policies and funds for regional regeneration, industrial and employment development, and inward-investment programmes.
The following 30 years saw a steady proliferation of government regional development agencies, quangos and public-private sector partnerships, much of which was apparently uncoordinated and certainly confusing to business and politicians, let alone the electorate.
Acting on recommendations in 1995 of the House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee, the Government in 1997 attempted to bring order and accountability to the regions through the establishment of the regional development agencies, and the assemblies, so far unselected, except through the appointment of local councillors on to the assemblies. More rationalisation is planned through the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act of 2004.
The direct election of the regional assemblies would be a further welcome step forward.
Yours faithfully,
PETER O. MILES,
(Editorial director, Regional Development International magazine, 1980-89),

27 Roman Way, Lechlade,
Gloucestershire GL7 3BS.
March 22.
From Mr Dennis Abbott
Sir, Critics of the EU constitutional treaty frequently fail to acknowledge the checks and balances incorporated into the text which will prevent Brussels ever becoming the superstate of Eurosceptic imagination.
For instance, the constitution will give national parliaments, as well as local and regional government, a much bigger role in EU decisions as guardians of subsidiarity, which recognises that law-making should be the prerogative of member states unless the EU can demonstrate real added value.
Rights will be given to local and regional politicians to challenge at the European Court of Justice laws that have been made in breach of subsidiarity. The EU Committee of the Regions, whose membership consists of 317 city mayors and councillors, including 24 representatives from the UK, will be empowered under the constitution to launch annulment proceedings at the ECJ to enforce this principle.
The committee believes that voters should be able to make an informed choice in the coming referendums. Its members, including those from Britain, are overwhelmingly in favour of a “yes”.
Yours faithfully,
DENNIS ABBOTT,
(Administrator),
Committee of the Regions,
Rue Belliard 101, B-1040 Brussels.

March 28.

Looks like the passengers on the gravy train are trying to convince us taxpayers that theirs is the right to inhabit the station they have chosen, and we are the foolish ones for demanding a democratic choice in the matter.

As they are only talking to the great unwashed, there is obviously no need to offer truthfulness any old canard will do.

“Regional assemblies in England are voluntary partnerships between local authorities and stakeholders representing constituencies of interest, such as business and the environment”

But the people of the North East have comprehensively rejected an elected assembly so where is the democracy? And who are these people who volunteer us to pay for their partnership.

“Far from being a bureaucratic imposition, the eight English assemblies are small, light-touch bodies bringing bottom-up accountability to regional governance”

No they are not from the “bottom up” they are “top down” bottom up requires the assent of the people, and where is the accountability to the taxpayer? And what is governance other than a new word for non democratic government?

The committee of the Regions administrator try to tell us that the constitution will prevent Brussels ever becoming a superstate, he is obviously reading a different Constitution. Dennis Abbot offers us rubbish such as
“the constitution will give national parliaments, as well as local and regional government, a much bigger role in EU decisions as guardians of subsidiarity, which recognises that law-making should be the prerogative of member states unless the EU can demonstrate real added value”.
Subsidiarity was the invention of Spinelli as a sop towards the loss of sovereignty of the states governments, instead of being able to block any rule, subsidiarity places the final decision in the hands of the Commission. The constitution actually make the situation worse because it places a limit on subsidiarity in that two thirds of the governments must object before the commission is even required to look at the recommendation even then they can simply choose to ignore it.
PETER O. MILES must think that we are all to stupid to look at history when he writes “The English regions (letters, March 15 and 22) were established in 1965 not by Brussels”
1965 was also the time when the EU issued its ‘First Commission Communication on Regional
Policy’. This was taken up by the Conservative government in 1969 when it established the Redcliffe-Maude Royal Commission which set the process in train.
The Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty) of 1992 gave authority to establish the EU’s Committee of the Regions (COR) which came into being in November 1993. Its stated purpose is ‘to ensure that the public authorities closest to the citizen are consulted on EU proposals of direct
interest to them, especially when they are responsible for implementing these policies after they are adopted.
Soon after the Labour Party took office in 1997 it started the process of devolution in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. Devolution is another term for regionalisation.
In 1998 the Labour Government launched ‘the Democratic Renewable Debate’ and in the same year enacted the Regional Development Agencies Act (1998). The Act brought about the establishment of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in each of the English Regions. The whole point is that as these Regions acquire authority, the cohesion of England as a unit of Government within the UK will be eroded. This reinforces the EU`s intention of destroying or undermining the nation states, this is demonstrated by the ability for regions to by-pass Westminster, the aim is to convince people living within a region that they believe in a regional identity and to redirect attention away from the loss of sovereignty evident at a national level, The net result will be to take government further away from the electorate and transfer even more sovereignty to Brussels.