Barrack Room Lawyers Arise!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by error_unknown, Nov 3, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. For those of you unfortunate to have been pinged by the revenue collection devices known as speed cameras, here is some useful info.
    I think we should have a thread that deals with other offences such as Sppeding, AWOL, Murder etc that we are always being charged with!

    The Bill of Rights 1688/9.

    The Bill of Rights 1688/9 is a Constitutional Statute, which means that it is not an ordinary law. In order to change or repeal a Constitutional Statute you must actually put before Parliament an Act specifically with the intention of changing the Statute.

    The Bill of Rights has not been repealed nor significantly changed over the years, although it has been amended, but not to the extent that those amendments have disturbed the basic rights enshrined within the Bill.

    The first amendment was the Act of Settlement 1701, which concerned legislation governing the succession to the English Crown. It was passed in 1701 as an amendment to the English Bill of Rights and changed nothing within the Bill other than the line of succession of the Monarchy.

    It was later amended to include the Act of Union 1707 between England and Scotland, which amongst other provisions included a restatement of the Act of Settlement 1701.

    In 1913 it was ruled that the Bill of Rights still stood, and that the Crown could not justify any infringement of its provisions – a very important point that was, in fact, reaffirmed on 21 July 1993. Then the Speaker of The House of Commons, Betty Boothroyd, issued a reminder to the courts. Boothroyd said, “There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights..…the house is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.”

    Indeed the authority of the Bill of Rights was again reaffirmed in a House of Lords judgement as recently as November 2001.

    The point about the Bill of Rights 1688/9 is that, like Magna Carta, it is classed as a “peace or settlement treaty” and cannot be repealed by an Act of Parliament. Building on the Declaration of Rights in 1688, it clarified that Parliament should effectively provide for "the laws and liberties of this kingdom" so that they should never in future be in danger of being subverted. Indeed, the Bill’s last line fully upholds the provisions of Magna Carta.

    The Bill of Rights therefore not only remains fully in force today, but is one of the very cornerstones upon which British law rests! It really is that important and fundamental to our justice system.

    The Bill of Rights and the levying of fines and forfeitures.

    All very interesting, but so what, you ask?

    Well the answer to that question has implications for every one of us as we go about our daily business. For the Bill contains an important provision, which states: “all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void.”

    In other words the Bill makes it ILLEGAL to impose fines or forfeitures on anyone, for any reason, without that person first having been convicted of an offence in a court of law!

    This is turn means that Government and local authority stealth taxes, levied in the form of parking and speeding fines, or as fixed penalties of any sort, cannot be imposed until such time as the accused has been convicted in court! It is as simply as that!

    In support of this argument, and as has previously been explained, the Bill of Rights cannot be repealed or circumvented by any Acts passed by Parliament. In other words the Bill of Rights is, for all intents and purposes inviolate, and its provisions take precedence over any legislation passed by Parliament, including the various Traffic Acts.

    Any body or organisation, such as the police or a local authority, that seeks to impose a fine or forfeiture without first securing a conviction in the courts is acting in direct contravention of the Bill and therefore acting illegally.

    Further, it follows that any inducement to pay a fine “up-front” to avoid going before a court and possibly paying a larger fine upon conviction, is by its very nature an incitement to break the law which is, of course, illegal.

    Finally it also follows that any fines or forfeitures paid under such circumstances, as previously described, are void and such collection illegal, necessitating a refund of said monies and, possibly, incurring damages.
  2. So how does old Plod get away with imposing said fines on us, poor old speedsters etc?? :?
  3. Because most people pay their fines up front!
  4. But all it means is that instead of accepting you were speeding and paying the fine upfront you'll go to court, possibly get a larger fine and perhaps court costs too.

    I love seeing folk trying to squirm their way out of paying a speeding fine. Yes we all do it and if you get caught tough shit. Speeding limits are there for a reason (although I agree motorway limits are too low), if you want to rag your car do a track day.
  5. Sweet fancy Moses! What are you trying to do, get us all nicked? If the government knew about this loop-hole they'd charge you the speeding fine after putting you in prison for six months. It's a conspiracy I tells ya, and the longer it stays under raps the better!
  6. Oh go on, someone must wanna be a military martyr!
  7. If only a certain Army Captain (pictured in mess dress) knew of such a loophole!