Fixed penalties, bill of rights 1689

[Loosehead]

I read this article in Compass magazine this month, so do we all get our money back then?

Excerpt:

The Bill of Rights of 1689 is the Law of the Land to this day. Clause 12 reads: "...that all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void..." In other words, all fixed penalties imposed by local government and their agencies are illegal - and always have been - ANYONE BEING THREATENED WITH A FIXED PENALTY MUST BE CONVICTED OF AN OFFENCE IN A COURT OF LAW FIRST. (Compass magazine Feb. 2006)

[gammaray]

I don't see any contradiction with current practice! With any fixed penalty you always have the right to go to court and defend yourself. Most people choose not to because not doing so allows the "defendant" to get a lower fine. A council for example can still slap a ticket on your car for parking illegally. If you are bang to rights, you pay the fine because going to court means you'll be found guilty anyway (unless you have a good defence) and have to pay alot more. The bill of rights doesn't say that the council can't apply parking regulations and the like. If you take the bill at face value evryone would have to appear in court.

[JudgeJ]

Quite right, gammray. Many people seem to think that they are being punished without due recourse to the law when they have fixed penalties imposed upon them. This is not so. A fixed penalty notice is an invitation to accept responsibility for the misdemeanour and pay an agreed penalty, thus avoiding the need to trouble the courts. Any person not willing to accept such a penalty is always free to go to court and plead their case.

Also, remember this. A conviction results from either being found guilty by a court (following a trial held as a result of a not guilty plea) or by pleading guilty at the outset. In pleading guilty (to any offence, up to and including murder) no trial is held and no evidence is produced. There is, however, still a conviction marked against the defendant. I see no incompatibility with the Bill of Rights.

[Loosehead]

Thanks guys, you've cleared that one up!

[Toureman]

The two answers above are correct but as Loosehead says in his question......

"Anyone been threatened with a fixed penalty"

This is what is wrong with the fixed penalty system!

Speed scameras have been proved to be unreliable but to go to court would cost at least �1500 in fees not to mention loss of earnings. Most people will prefer to pay the fixed penalty as the less costly option. the speed camera partnerships know this that is why they have such huge cash profits!

[gammaray]

Toureman has an interesting point about the speed camera partnership. They are very reluctant to share information with the general public. For example it is extrememly difficult to get information such as camera calibration records, methods of calibration and camera positionong policy.

A few years ago I was snapped by a camera doing 88 in a 60. It was at about 4 in the morning on the A303 and the road opens out into a dual carrige way. It was a fair cop (I thought I'd been doing over a 100) but I asked the SCP to explain, if policy dictates that a camera is only placed in an accident black spot why, when there had been no accidents and certainly no deaths on that stretch of road, did they have a camera positioned there. They never bothered to reply, but a few months later, travelling the same stretch of road (under the speed limit this time) I noticed the camera had been removed. It's all the proof I needed to convince me that cameras are NOT there to improve road safety, but to generate revenue for the exchequer.

[erimus1]

Come on, you've found one conflict in the legal system. The whole legal system is a complete conflict. Has the Bill of Rights not be superseded by newer Acts of Parliament??

Oh, and the bit that you state about "ANYONE BEING THREATENED WITH A FIXED PENALTY MUST BE CONVICTED OF AN OFFENCE IN A COURT OF LAW FIRST" - If you look to more recent times, I think that your argument is found to be clearer in the Declaration of Human Rights, and ofcourse The Human Rights Act 1998.

For your information, I would highlight the fact that any Acts of Parliament subsequent to The Human Rights Act 1998 must comply with the conditions within the Act. This is ofcourse all useless, as the 1998 Act also allows for the right of 'derogation' from any of the rights.

One last thing - I site these from memory, and as such apologise for insufficient referencing. Although I would arhue that my own mind is a better reference than some unheard of magazine that thinks it has found the long lost Holy Grail for the poor lowly motorist!

[Loosehead]

I was quoting from an article erimus1, it's not my own "argument" as you put it. In your hurry to attempt ridicule you failed to digest the original question.

[erimus1]

Loosehead - No attempt to ridicule, and apologies if you thought that.

I thought that I had addressed the question in introducing teh Human Riaghst Act 1998 into the answer.

In addition, perhaps you would benefit from reading one of the 'Statutes in Action' books or the like, which goes into detail about which legislation is still in force. Some bylaws have never been repealed, and therefore, some would argue, could still be applied today - not the case in truth.

I'm afraid that when I aswer some questions, I faild to be concise enought to explain the point or points in question. In respect of the Bill of Rights, what I was trying to say was that for Every bit of law that says one thing, there will be another that says the exact opposite. Courts make use of something called 'statutory interpretation' as a tool to adjust codified law in the courtroom - this way, they are able to tweek it as they see fit - this is some times called 'judge made law'

As far as getting our money back - I challenge you to find anything in present day law that I or any other legal bod would not be able to rebut in some way by making use of some old and outdated bylaw.

The question that you brought up relating to The Bill of Rights 1689 has been brought up constantly in the Human Rights Act 1998 - some of the rights are - The right to a free and fair trial (where's the trial in a fixed penalty?)
- The right not to incriminate ourselves (Road traffic act requires that we disclose the name of the driver - this went ECJ on point of law)
Hope this clarifies some issues.
Regards,
Steve

[JudgeJ]

Just to reiterate the point I made earlier, erimus1. A fixed penalty notice invites (but does not compel) the alleged miscreant to settle out of court. It does not remove the right to trial for those defendants who wish to put the matter before a court.

[erimus1]

JudgeJ. The point you make, is a fairly valid one, although I would state that a 'misdemeanour' is an Americanised phrase that is not incorporated into the British legal system. You state quite charismatically that a fixed penalty notice "...invites.." the "...alleged..." offender to make an out of court settlement.
You may or not be aware that along with the notice of intended prosecution, the registered keeper of a vehicle is required by law under s.172 of The Road Traffic Act 1988 to provide details of the driver at the time of the incident - This is what is thought to be incompatible with The Human Rights Act 1998 - Article 6(1) - privilage agaainst self-incrimination, and Article 6(2) - the presumption of innocence.

We are not "...invited..." to make an out of court settlement - it is a 'strict liability' offence, which in itself goes against the general presumption of innocence. Any contesting in court is, in fact an 'appeal' against something to which they have already been found guilty.
Regards,
Steve