Court ruling: The Bill of Rights 1689 still stands

[Alison Banville]

http://www.bwmaonline.com/Legal%20-%20New%20doubts%20-%20Thoburn%20conviction.htm
 
I was watching a programme the other night about parking and one guy, in his appeals hearing, quoted the Bill of Rights 1689:
 
 "That all grants and promises of  fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and  void". 
 
The appeal adjudicator dismissed this saying that a court case had cleared that up and so the Bil of Rights no longer applied. The article below, however, highlights a court ruling which declares said Bill still stands. Now we all know the elites will not allow the project of collecting revenue from the population to be derailed by anything as inconvenient as the truth (in the same way as the US and its allies ignore international law in order to invade sovereign countries for hegenomic purposes) but does that mean we should stay quiet about these things? 
A significant inconsistency has appeared in the 
February 2002 ruling that convicted Steven Thoburn of a crime for selling 
bananas by the pound. 
A member of the public who received 
a parking fine through the post refused to pay the fine by quoting the Bill of 
Rights Act 1689:  
>"That all grants and promises of 
fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and 
void".  
>"Before conviction" means that no 
fine or forfeit can be imposed until and unless the individual is convicted in a 
court of law.  
>Of course, under constitutional 
law, the Bill of Rights Act 1689 gives way to the Road Traffic Acts of 1991 and 
1994. This is because Road Traffic Acts provide for penalties outside of 
a court and, under British law, it is the later Act that takes 
precedence. Thus, the Road Traffic Acts of 1991 and 1994 repeal the Bill of 
Rights Act to the extent that they differ. 
>However, the Divisional Court 
ruling in the case of the "Metric Martyrs" (sections 62 and 63) 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, Bill of Rights 
1689 … Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may 
not…"  
>Thus, the Divisional Court ruled, 
the European Communities Act 1972, requiring metric, could and must repeal the 
Weights and Measures Act 1985 (allowing pounds and ounces), because the former 
was a "constitutional act" and the latter "ordinary". This is the point on which 
Sunderland greengrocer Steven Thoburn and his co-defendants were convicted as 
criminals for selling in pounds and ounces.  
>Herein lies the conflict. During 
the 1990s, the majority of local councils in England and Wales "decriminalised" 
the levying of parking fines. This means that, instead of referring disputes 
over penalties to legal bodies such as magistates courts, now, disputes are 
heard by administrative bodies: 
>	* For London, the Parking 
and Traffic Appeals Service 
>	* For England and Wales, outside 
London, the National Parking Adjudication Service  
>But if the Divisional Court's 
ruling is true, Local Authorities covered by the above two schemes, are now 
acting unlawfully, since the Bill of Rights Act 1689 was specifically classified 
as a "constitutional Act". The Road Traffic Acts 1991 and 1994 others like it 
are, by contrast, "ordinary" Acts. Unless the road traffic acts expressly refer 
to the fundamental rights laid down by the Bill of Rights Act (which they do 
not), they must fall by the wayside since, according to the Divisional Court, 
the Bill of Rights Act cannot be impliedly repealed. It is a constitutional Act 
that protects our "constitutional rights".  
>So, if constitutional Acts like the 
Bill of Rights and the European Communities Act cannot be impliedly repealed, 
why are local authorities still collecting penalties from the public without 
conviction? Presumably, local authorities do so because they do not agree with 
the Divisional Court; they believe that the Bill of Rights Act was repealed 
impliedly by the Road Traffic Act. But, if this is so, what is the legal 
basis for prosecuting traders using pounds and ounces? 
>Please note, BWMA is 
unable to give advice or support regarding parking ticket disputes. Please 
instead visit: http://www.parkingappeals.co.uk
For further information:
>
>  
>The Bill of Rights Act 1689 - background and text in 
full  
>The Claim of Right Act 1689 (applying to Scotland) - in 
full  
>An 
article: "A Silver Lining from the Case of the Metric 
Martyrs"  
>Another article: "Is Divorce a 
conviction?"   
>Read Christopher Booker's Notebook  
>Why BWMA says pounds and ounces are still 
lawful  
>Article: "Whose Law is it anyway?"  
>Opinion: "The Metric Martyrs and the 
Constitution"  
>The 18 
February 2002 Divisional Court ruling in full  
>The Freedom of Information Act 
2000  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20140511/46a9e2dd/attachment.html>