A member of the public who
received a parking fine through the post appears to have brought the
collection of the fine to a halt 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".
This means that no fine 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course, under constitutional law, the Bill of Rights Act 1689 is repealed by
the Road Traffic Act 1991. This is because the Road Traffic Act provides for
fining outside of a court and, under British law, it is always the later Act
that takes precedence.
However, Lord Justice Laws said
in the 'Metric Martyrs' judgment (sections 62 and 63):
"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, The Act of Union � Ordinary statutes may be
impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not�"
Thus, he ruled, the European
Communities Act 1972, requiring metric, could and must repeal the Weights and
Measures Act 1985 (allowing lb/oz), because the former was "constitutional"
and the latter "ordinary". This point led to Steven Thoburn's conviction.
Herein lies the conflict. If the
Lord Justice Laws judgment is true, every Local Authority, Government agency
and police force that fines people through the post, or on the spot, is now
acting illegally, since the Bill of Rights Act 1689 was specifically named by
Laws as a "constitutional Act". The Road Traffic Act 1991, by contrast, is an
"ordinary" Act. Unless the Road Traffic Act expressly refers to the Bill of
Rights Act in its text (which it does not), it must fall by the wayside, since
the Bill of Rights Act cannot be impliedly repealed.
So, if the Laws judgement is
sound, why are public authorities still collecting revenue from the public in
this apparently illegal fashion? Obviously, because the Bill of Rights Act was
repealed in 1991, in so far as it applies to matters covered by the 1991 Act.
But, if this is so, what is the legal basis for prosecuting traders using
pounds and ounces?
Got a parking ticket? Fined for not
paying the London Congestion Charge? Take action!
If you never hear from your
authority again, it means that it does not consider the cost of arranging a
court hearing to collect your fine as viable in which case you may never pay
the fine. Please note, there is nothing unlawful in this, since the proforma
letter makes it quite clear you are prepared to pay the fine if the correct
procedure is followed.
However, more importantly, if the
authority dismisses the points in your letter, and demands the fine, it means
it does not accept the legal grounds on which the metric regulations are
based. It is crucial that you notify BWMA and provide all correspondence
(email and PO Box details here).
