March 02, 2005
How naming things differently nullifies the Bill of Rights
Neil Herron, as readers will probably know by now, is refusing to pay a traffic penalty charge imposed upon him by Sunderland Council. He quotes the following paragraph from the Bill of Rights 1689 as the reason why the charge is not legal:
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and voidHe’s also using case law to show that the section in the Bill of Rights has not been repealed (which is the real driving force behind this story).
Well, back in August he received a letter from a solicitor for the Council who argued that the quoted section in the Bill of Rights is not applicable. The ticket is not a criminal fine but a civil charge instead.
I’m sure that if we had a time machine we could go back to when the document was drafted and signed and indeed confirm that the solicitor is completely correct and that the creators of the document were not at all interested in preventing government levying punishment charges on people in matters of civil law.
“Well that’s it”, said the scribe. “If you would like to sign here, here, once more here and put the date here we’ll have that crown on your head in no time at all.”
“Great. And so simple. Pass me the quill. No, hang on a minute, there are a few things I’m a little concerned about.”
“Oh. What?”
“Well, the title of the document seems a bit, you know, long. I mean just look at it.”
“Yes, I do understand where your coming from on this one but we worked on it for a number of days and An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown was the best we could come up with. You should have seen some of the other titles.”
“Bad were they?”
“Well, there were a whole bunch of working class types, turnip pickers, mud scroungers and girth cradlers outside last week demanding that we called it The Workers and Workers Families Declaration of Practices, Workers Rights and Implied Cooperation With Working Brothers (and sisters) and Sisters in Workers Associations in this Kingdom. Baldrick wanted to name it after his mother.”
“Oh, well, thank heavens for small mercies.”
“You said there were a few things of concern?”
“Yes, two more. Where it says That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void what exactly does it mean?”
“It means that people can’t be fined unless they are convicted of an offence first. You know, you can’t just get off your horse and start charging people money for dropping cabbages or failing to clean up horse dung without finding them guilty according to proper process.”
“Yes, yes, but instead of fining them can’t I just, you know, charge them a small fee instead without having to find them guilty of anything first?”
“Oh. We hadn’t thought of that. Well, mine is not to reason why. I guess you could. Can you sign now?”
“One more thing. Where it says conviction is it referring to criminal law?”
“Yes. Yes I believe it is”
“But not civil law?”
“What’s that?”
“Well, if you don’t know what it is the document can hardly be referring to it can it?”
“No, I suppose not.”
“So it doesn’t apply to civil law?”
“No, I suppose it doesn’t.”
“Good. Right. I’ll sign it. What’s the date?”
