Bill of Rights Circular sent to all Local Authorities
Bill of Rights Circular sent to all Local Authorities
We have just been forwarded a circular sent (August 05) by NPAS (National Parking Adjudication Service) to all participating Local Authorities. It refers to the case of Higgins v Sefton Borough Council (case no. SF 272)
NPAS CIRCULAR 05/05
ISSUED AUGUST 2005
Higgins v Sefton Borough Council (Case NO SF 272)
This circular informs you about a recent decision on an issue which has already attracted press coverage in the national press and is potentially relevant to all DPE councils.
In this case the main ground of appeal relied upon by Mr Higgins was that the PCN issued by Sefton Borough Council and the whole of the decriminalised parking enforcement scheme brought in by the Road Traffic Act 1991 is illegal because it is in breach of the Bill of Rights Act 1689. Mr Higgins argued that the Bill of Rights Act 1689 is still in force and makes it illegal for a Penalty Charge to be imposed before the recipient has been convicted in a court of law. The particular provision relied on is that “all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.” The argument was made against a PCN issued by Sefton Borough Council, but could be raised by any appellant against any DPE council in any case as it concerns the underlying legality of decriminalised parking enforcement and PCNs.
The Adjudicator rejected this argument and dismissed the appeal. His decision is attached in full. However, we have summarised the key points made by the Adjudicator in arriving at this decision.
The Adjudicator is not a high court judge and has no power to overturn the rulings of the high court
• The 1689 Act is relevant, but there is no conflict between it and the decriminalised parking scheme brought in by the Road Traffic Act 1991.
If the act is relevant then there obviously is a conflict the Bill of Rights says “all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.” The Road Traffic act 1991 allows for such fines before conviction.
• The intention of the 1689 Act was to ensure a person has a right of challenge to any financial penalty imposed on him or her.
This is plainly wrong “all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.” This states that a conviction is necessary before a fine or forfeit can be imposed. It says nothing about a later challenge after a fine has been imposed, or a dispute about a fine.
• When a PCN is issued the Road Traffic Act 1991 imposes a statutory duty on DPE councils to consider and respond to representations against the issue of a Notice to Owner which must be issued before a Penalty Charge can be enforced, and a right of appeal to an independent tribunal against the issue of the PCN if the council rejects those representations.
Again this is arguing the we have a right of appeal against such fines, but why have we be fined before conviction, this is attempting to move the burden of proof onto the defendant and to move the process forward to an appeal level before we have been proved guilty of a crime in the first place. Unless we have been found guilty then we have nothing to appeal we are in fact innocent as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned.
• The Road Traffic Act 1991 does, therefore, provide a right of challenge to the imposition of a Penalty Charge and is consistent with the 1689 Act.
It may well do but it does not answer the question as to why we have been fined before conviction. It is therefore not consistent with the 1689 Act which is clear that we must be convicted before being fined.
• The High Court has considered the Road Traffic Act 1991, and the powers of Parking Adjudicators and did not raise any issue in relation to the 1689 Act.
The High Court has not considered the Road Traffic Act in the light of Lord Justices Laws decision that the 1689 Bill of Rights is a constitutional act and cannot therefore be repealed by implication.
We anticipate that, in light of the national press coverage about this issue being raised by other individuals in relation to other DPE councils, we will see further cases where this argument is pursued. If you are in any doubt as to how this issue may affect your council you should consult your legal department. In any event you may want to provide a copy of this circular and the Higgins decision to your legal department.
Andrew Barfoot
Tribunal Manager
The National Parking Adjudication Service is NOT a Court of Law and Adjudicators appointed by NPAS do NOT hold the status of High Court Judges.
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.
NPAS also is in receipt of 60p per parking fine issued so they can in no way be considered independent.
(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.’
