Illegal fines to be increased

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

Telford & Wrekin Council has announced that it is going to increase the unconstitutional and illegal on-the-spot fines that it issues for dropping litter in the borough.

The Bill of Rights says:

any promise of fine or forfeiture before conviction is illegal and void

Magna Carta says:

No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land.

Both these laws still stand today and form the core of the English constitution and English common law.  The laws that say someone can be fined without first being convicted have not repealed any part of the Bill of Rights or Magna Carta and so, in accordance with the judgement in the “Metric Martyrs” case, take precedence over these newer, non-constitutional laws.

I will be writing to the lawyers at Telford & Wrekin Council giving them notice that I believe the council is acting unlawfully and if they don’t stop issuing illegal fines I’ll report the cabinet to the Standards Board for England for bringing the council into disrepute.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , , , ,


  1. John Franklyn (59 comments) says:

    Couldn’t the same be said about driving a car with an expired mot, which might have been a genuine oversight, especially if the driver is taxed and insured.

    Could they argue then, that its an offence, therefore a fine applies but gives you the option of going to court. They could argue its a way of freeing up the courts on small offences, but you have the option of a hearing and probably cop for alot of expenses as well.

  2. axel (1214 comments) says:

    is it not a case of ‘Pay a cheap fine now or have a chance of a big one if you go to court?’

    Surely, it would just take a few sturdy volunteers to demand a court trial and clog up the judicial system?

    I’m sure if you are right, the judges will be on your side aqnd laugh the charges out of court

  3. Andi (82 comments) says:

    “They could argue its a way of freeing up the courts on small offences, but you have the option of a hearing and probably cop for alot of expenses as well.”

    There is that side to it, which is probably why the legislation was introduced in the first place. However, neither a police officer nor a Councillor can decide that you are guilty of an offence, no matter what that offence might be.

    If you are arrested for a crime by a police officer, it is up to the courts to decide if you are guilty or not, based on evidence provided by prosecuting bodies and defence witnesses. Should a guilty verdict be returned, it is then up to the court to decide on punishment, subject to powers granted in relevant legislation.

    Any other process is a breach of your constitutional rights.

  4. axel (1214 comments) says:

    no, they think you are guilty and you have to agree with them, to pay the fine, if you disagree, you can go to court and let the beak decide.

    do you get in trouble if you disagree and go to court?

  5. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    You get penalised for exercising your constitutional right to stand in front of a judge and that’s not right and it’s not constitutional.

    Summary justice appears, on the face of it, to be an efficient way of dealing with people caught bang to rights but it’s a lazy way of enforcing the law, it’s unconstitutional, it’s illegal and it effectively deprives the accused the right to defend themselves or plead their case by promising punitive charges if they don’t admit their guilt whether they believe themselves to be innocent or not. It also assumes their guilt – you are given the ticket and told you have committed a crime before without being convicted. That goes against the most fundamental concept of English law but, co-incidently, fits in nicely with the continental Napoleonic code used by the EU where the punishment starts from when you’re accused and stops when you’ve proven yourself innocent.

  6. axel (1214 comments) says:

    is it the same fine and points if you go to court or more?

    are both sets of punishments not ‘within the legal limits’?

    It is ‘lazy’ but is the judicial system not seriously over loaded and i think there is some kind of weird problem in making it work better, that is, you just cannot make more judges and bulid more courts for them to sit in because of asomething really odd likethe house of lords cvan only hold so many lawyers and it is full, it is something that is as stupid as that

    Would the problem not be solved by more courts and more Judges, so your case could get seen more quickly?

    are parking tickets the same?

  7. John Franklyn (59 comments) says:

    Or is this kind of fine some kind of money spinner.

    T&W fined 100 people, then raise the fine level from £50 to £75. When you’re talking such low numbers, wouldn’t it be better to concentrate efforts on something more worth while, maybe like real crime?

  8. Ken Adams (4 comments) says:

    Factually Wonkstone is correct none of these instant fines are really legal under the English Common Law Constitution.

    I think it is also illegal to offer favours ie. reduced fines for not contesting a fine.

    Interestingly the Metric Martyrs ruling itself has not be challenged although there have been several legal attempts to challenge parking fines for instance, under the Metric Martyrs ruling, they ended in failure when it was ruled by I think Justice Collins, that they are not fines but are a civil duty, thus neatly side stepping the legal point about the English Common Law constitution.

    The problem is those we elect have simply ignored Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights, believing that Parliament has the power to change any law it wishes. But this means we now have a situation where we do not live in a democracy at all but in an elected dictatorship.

    When Churchill said we would always be able to turn to Magna Charta for protection against an over powering state, I do not thinks he could have envisioned such a parliament of…… well traitors to the nation state is the only way to describe them, because they choose to ignore our constitution when it suits them in making laws for us, and taking powers for the state, but I notice they are very quick to hide behind the Bill of Rights when it is in their interests to do so.

  9. axel (1214 comments) says:

    so, if you pay the postal fine T & W get the money, if it goes to court, the money goes to the crown?

    Surely it is treason to steal the queens money?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.