This country is supposedly governed by the rule of law. So why is it that the British government can decide to obstruct the lawful challenge of an unlawful conviction because they believe the conviction was morally right?
ContraTory carries an article about the unlawful convictions of motorists on illegal level crossings. It appears that several hundred level crossings have been illegally installed by a government agency that did not have the legal right to install them. Convictions obtained in relation to these illegal level crossings are invalid and as such, a legal challenge should see a judge quashing the conviction, any paid fines refunded and penlty points removed from licences.
However, the British government has said that they will do everything possible and make it as expensive as possible to prevent people from contesting their unlawful convictions because they believe the conviction is morally right as the drivers were putting lives at risk. Yes, the drivers put lives at risk and yes, the conviction is probably morally right but the conviction is unlawful.
The fact that it is merely a technicality which makes the conviction unlawful is neither here nor there. They are not escaping justice or getting away with breaking the law because the law says that they did not commit a crime. The law is essential a set of codified morals – thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc. What the British government believe to be morally right does not supercede the law of the land. The law applies to us all equally … or so the theory goes.