The Cigarette Police

[fairclaire]

Probably not posting this in the correct palce...Don't quite know where it fits.

 

My sister has telephoned me earlier tonight. She lives in Scotland and was visiting Edinburgh to go to the sales. She was caught stubbing a cigarette out on the street and has been given a fine for £50.

 

She thinks because I work in courts I know all about the law...which I don't at all! just the tiny part of it I deal with.

 

Does anyone know how enforceable these fines are. She is supposed to be scanning the actual fine notice for me and emailing it so I can look at it, but is having probs with her scanner.

 

All the info I got from her is that two uniformed guys walked up to her and asked if she knew that it was an offence to put a cigarette out on the street in Edinburgh and that she would recieve a £50 fine for littering. They took her details but didn't ask for proof of these (silly mare could've given them any name/ address etc) they informed her that if it wasn't paid within 14 days it would be referred to the court. They gave her a copy of the fine.

 

I know nothing about these sorts of fines but am hoping one of you knowledgable people out there do.

[stan5131]

I remember the exact same thing being featured on Look North. Some guy in a town got a fine for exactly the same thing. Some towns will fine for littering, not just ciggarette ends but bits of paper etc. Crazy, I know but apparently he had to pay this fine.

[cheddar]

It might seem crazy but what if everyone did this and there were ciggy butts everywhere? Or even some people not putting them out properly for a child to try and pick up and burn their fingers?

 

It was enforced by the local authority in our town some time ago but only when there were sufficient provisions (ie bins with metal grills/trays at the top) where you could safely put out a ciggie and dispose of it.

[fairclaire]

i'm not saying it's wrong in any way at all.

 

Don't smoke so it doesn't affect me. And I bet my sis spent way more than £ 50 in th sales! lol

 

Was just trying to find out where she stands on this.

[breadline]

Has the ingredients of a good way to find a local empty house to burgle:rolleyes:

I would be asking for Proof of their ID and a number to ring before they get any of my info;)

[cheddar]

Same here BL and Claire i was replying to stansfields comment not yours hun.

[TideTurner]

This will be known as a penalty. The Local Authorities were given the right to impose these fines / penalties recently. However, just as with a parking ticket, the Bill of Rights Act 1689 provides that it is unlawful for a penalty to be applied prior to a conviction by a Court.

 

There is a provision in the Bill of Rights Act 1689 which states:

 

• "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void."

This states that a conviction is necessary before a fine or forfeit can be imposed. As you will be aware, the Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statute" and may not be repealed impliedly. This was stated in the case Thoburn v City of Sunderland, the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment. This was handed down in the Divisional Court (18 February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a copy of the judgment's relevant sections 62 and 63).

 

62. "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 . . . Bill of Rights 1689 . . ."

 

63. "Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not . . ."

 

This was upheld by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in an appeal which went to the House of Lords on Monday 15 July 2002.

 

Any Body / Comittee implementing such laws should consider the implications of any attempt to override the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the constitutional considerations of doing so. It will then be necessary to understand the constitutional considerations of ignoring the Declaration of Rights.

 

This could be applied to other penalties, and is considered a 'Constitutional Statute' which cannot be superceded by any new legislation.

 

Does anybody know what legislation has been relied upon with this?

 

Cheers

 

Tide

[Guest Ruthie P]

I wish I had known all this a couple of years ago!! I got a £50 fine for throwing an end out of my car window. It was a council worker that clocked me, I tried to challenge it, saying he had no proof it was me, i was actually quite shocked he could get my name and address from the DVLA without my knowledge just by giving them my car reg. Anyway the upshot was that I was informed all the proof they needed was the council workers word (apparently they are given the same benefits(for want of a better word)as a police officer) and that if I did not pay the £50 fine I would be taken to court for TIPPING!!!! not wanting this on my record, I stumped up... all this happened to the girl who got accused of shoplifting, only for the shopkeeper to discover that all I had rammed in my pockets was empty wrappers as I do not throw rubbish in the streets!....

[hagenuk]

This will be known as a penalty. The Local Authorities were given the right to impose these fines / penalties recently. However, just as with a parking ticket, the Bill of Rights Act 1689 provides that it is unlawful for a penalty to be applied prior to a conviction by a Court.

 

There is a provision in the Bill of Rights Act 1689 which states:

• "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void."

This states that a conviction is necessary before a fine or forfeit can be imposed. As you will be aware, the Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statute" and may not be repealed impliedly. This was stated in the case Thoburn v City of Sunderland, the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment. This was handed down in the Divisional Court (18 February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a copy of the judgment's relevant sections 62 and 63).

 

62. "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 . . . Bill of Rights 1689 . . ."

 

63. "Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not . . ."

 

This was upheld by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in an appeal which went to the House of Lords on Monday 15 July 2002.

 

Any Body / Comittee implementing such laws should consider the implications of any attempt to override the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the constitutional considerations of doing so. It will then be necessary to understand the constitutional considerations of ignoring the Declaration of Rights.

 

This could be applied to other penalties, and is considered a 'Constitutional Statute' which cannot be superceded by any new legislation.

 

Does anybody know what legislation has been relied upon with this?

 

Cheers

 

Tide

 

Not anymore Tide. The following case was heard in early July 2006.

 

1689 BILL WON'T SAVE ILLEGAL 'PARKERS', JUDGE RULES

 

A senior High Court judge today demolished the belief that the 1689 Bill of Rights outlaws parking charges because they have not been imposed by a court of law.

 

In a ruling which will dismay a lot of motorists and bring relief to local authorities, Mr Justice Collins said the belief was "baseless" and "a nonsense".

 

The judge said: "The only surprise I have is that this argument has been produced on a number of occasions and seems to have worried local authorities and possibly even parking adjudicators.

 

"All I can say is that they should cease to worry. It is, as I say, a completely baseless argument."

 

The judge was refusing an application by retired business consultant Robin de Crittenden, of Willenhall, near Wolverhampton, for permission to seek a judicial review based on the Bill of Rights argument.

 

Many supporters were hoping his legal challenge would lead to every parking fine in the country being declared invalid or "unsafe".

 

Mr de Crittenden was issued with a £60 penalty charge by Worcester City Council in June 2003 for allegedly exceeding his permitted time in a parking bay.

 

He described the system for parking regulation as a "vast money-making machine that is a disgrace to local authorities".

 

He took his case to the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) and won his appeal last November because there were flaws in the documentation provided by the local council. (actually because they failed to attend the hearing)

 

Not content with winning his case on a legal technicality, Mr de Crittenden decided to come to the High Court in a bid to KO the whole current parking regulatory system.

 

This judgment will create a constitutional crisis ... The Bill of Rights no longer applies.

 

Furthermore, this judgment will now open the door for local authorities and Government abuse at every level ... Fines for littering (as above) fines for not putting your bin far enough out into the street, fines for wearing a loud shirt in a public place, fines for failure to recycle... all on the say so of a badge wielding Government appointed jobsworth, without there ever being recourse of reference to a Court of Law...except for the registration of a civil debt. The general public are now living in the real "big brother house".

[Guest The Terminator]

Bill of Rights Act(1689)

 

An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown

Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following,

viz.:

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

• By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;
  By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;
  By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;
  By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;
  By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;
  By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;
  By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament; By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;

And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders;

And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;

And excessive fines have been imposed;

And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;

And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;

All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;

And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six hundred eighty and eight [old style date], in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having been accordingly made;

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein. Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange.

And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.

And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.

I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.

I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.

Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons did agree, and proceed to act accordingly. Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all time to come. And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvellous providence and merciful goodness to this nation to provide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think, and do hereby recognize, acknowledge and declare, that King James the Second having abdicated the government, and their Majesties having accepted the crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this realm our sovereign liege lord and lady, king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state, crown and dignity of the said realms with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully, rightfully and entirely invested and incorporated, united and annexed. And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm by reason of any pretended titles to the crown, and for preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon which the unity, peace, tranquility and safety of this nation doth under God wholly consist and depend, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do beseech their Majesties that it may be enacted, established and declared, that the crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their said Majesties and the survivor of them during their lives and the life of the survivor of them, and that the entire, perfect and full exercise of the regal power and government be only in and executed by his Majesty in the names of both their Majesties during their joint lives; and after their deceases the said crown and premises shall be and remain to the heirs of the body of her Majesty, and for default of such issue to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of the body of his said Majesty; and thereunto the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do in the name of all the people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities for ever, and do faithfully promise that they will stand to, maintain and defend their said Majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the crown herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary. And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance; and the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead; and that every king and queen of this realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Charles the Second entitled, An Act for the more effectual preserving the king's person and government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament But if it shall happen that such king or queen upon his or her succession to the crown of this realm shall be under the age of twelve years, then every such king or queen shall make, subscribe and audibly repeat the same declaration at his or her coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such king or queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted and established by authority of this present Parliament, and shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted and established accordingly.

II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation by _non obstante_ of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.

III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made. IX That the freedome of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.

 

Thats the full act I would tend to disagree with the Law Lords on the point that this act has never been repealed as far as I'm aware and all the time it is on the stature book then it is law.

[stan5131]

Same here BL and Claire i was replying to stansfields comment not yours hun.

 

Cheddar, I was merely using the word "crazy" in relation to the penalty charge imposed which is even higher than a parking fine. I have seen a case where this fine was imposed for someone putting household rubbish in a public bin ie someone had not had time open his post in the morning so he took it on the train with him to open and read. On leaving the train, he put a letter (junk mail)( into a "BIN" yes a "BIN" in the city centre. Someone fished it out and he was sent a £50 fine for putting his personal/home refuse in a public bin!!! I was in no way suggesting that it is ok to throw cig ends into the street but merely commenting on the way councils have a licence to print money. They will be fining us for breathing next! I take offence to your comment "i was replying to stansfields comment not yours HUN"! When after all it is the original poster looking for a way to get out of paying the fine and looking for justification not to pay it. No offence to OP intended but dont see why I should be painted black!

[elliesnan]

this happened to me put uot a ciggie in my local high street 2 jobsworths appeared tried to issue me a penalty notice apparantly £75 quid ! told them if they could find out who l was and where l lived they could bill me!! and walked off!

[Rooster-UK]

Hi Terminator.

 

That is one hell of a document. Thanks for sharing it.

 

Regards, Rooster.

[TideTurner]

Terminator, any more Aces up your sleeve?

 

This is a Constitutional Statute which has not been repealed by any of the Road Traffic Acts or any other Act.

 

"The Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statute" and may not be repealed impliedly. This was stated in the case Thoburn v City of Sunderland, the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment. This was handed down in the Divisional Court (18 February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane.

 

It forms part of our being and should be referred to as to its affect on all Statutes made since, particularly by Local Authorities when applying such laws.

 

The fact is, they didn't do their homework.

 

Does your penalty notice provide details of the legislation they are relying on to enforce the penalty?

[Smoothy]

Just my 2 penneth..!!!

My sister has telephoned me earlier tonight. She lives in Scotland and was visiting Edinburgh to go to the sales. She was caught stubbing a cigarette out on the street and has been given a fine for £50.

 

Did she leave the cigarette in the street or was caught in the act of putting it out? Surely if she was just putting it out, she could argue that she was going to put it in her pocket for disposal when she got home!!!

 

Smoothy

[fairclaire]

Ok I've got a scan of the ticket she was given. The only legislation referred to on it

 

(1) Environmental protection Act 1990 Section S87(1)

 

Incidentally she has told me that a friend of a friend was also fined for the same thing in Edinburgh. That person chose not to pay the fine, he ignored it. He was subsequently sent a letter from The Procurator fiscal in Edinburgh offering to reduce the fine to a Fixed Penalty of £25!! Failure to accept this offer would result in prosecution.

 

Very interesting

 

I have told my sis that if this sort of thing is the norm then maybe she should wait. Why pay £50 if they're going to settle for half of that?

 

I wonder how many people just stump up the £50 no questions asked

[TideTurner]

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section S87(1).

 

Whatever will they think of next?

 

When you have employees standing idle waiting for a particular act to happen, they will witness other acts. Why not impose penalties for them.

 

While you're there, do them for spitting, and chewing gum, and dog ship, and parking, and drinking beer in a public place, and dropping litter, and acting suspiciously, and being anti social, and...

 

...while you're busy doing all this guys, don't forget about the dealers, the robberies, assaults and rapes which, although may not provide you with an additional income, should be placed high on your list of priorities for a happy society.

 

If you want something to investigate, look under the yellow pages under BANKS.

 

I'm a tax payer, and would prefer my money is spent protecting the public from these institutions by investigating them thoroughly - then return any money obtained unlawfully to those it was taken from and bang those responsible in nick.

 

When finished, chase the cigarette butt criminals.

[niterider]

Excellent Post, Tide! Could'nt agree more! It has to come from the top, ie. The Government, and this Government needs to get its priorities right!

 

nite:)

[Guest The Terminator]

Terminator, any more Aces up your sleeve?

 

This is a Constitutional Statute which has not been repealed by any of the Road Traffic Acts or any other Act.

 

"The Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statute" and may not be repealed impliedly. This was stated in the case Thoburn v City of Sunderland, the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment. This was handed down in the Divisional Court (18 February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane.

 

It forms part of our being and should be referred to as to its affect on all Statutes made since, particularly by Local Authorities when applying such laws.

 

The fact is, they didn't do their homework.

 

Does your penalty notice provide details of the legislation they are relying on to enforce the penalty?

 

Thanks Tide: I've got plenty of aces up my sleeve.This is one part of the law that nobody can get out of.Until that act is repealed it's still on the stature book so it is still law.Until such time until it is replealed there is nothing to stop us from putting it in a defence.You may well find that many of the judges are using the HRA instead of this.

 

Happy new year to all

 

From The Terminator

[cheddar]

I take offence to your comment "i was replying to stansfields comment not yours HUN"! When after all it is the original poster looking for a way to get out of paying the fine and looking for justification not to pay it. No offence to OP intended but dont see why I should be painted black!

 

I cannot see for the life of me why you took offence to me using the word hun, this is something i do in everyday life and is part of my personality, if you don't like that then thats your beef not mine. I think I misunderstood you comment of 'crazy' I agree that £50 is too much but have also see children get burnt from fag ends being dropped on the floor and see it as a problem.

 

I think the guy you mention using the bin was let off in the end, can't remember. I haven't taken any offence to you as I misunderstood what you said and can't see what i have done wrong, I haven't painted you black! Goodness me!

[Bailiffchaser]

personally if i were in this position i would ask for a breakdown of the charges and then take it from there.

[nevos]

One of the problems for smokers which I am one is: During the IRA bombings and now terrorist threast most of the bins have been removed.

[cheddar]

Yes this happened in towns near me too but most seem to have replaced them and those towns/cities that haven't shoudl still have facilities to stub out ciggies (boxes with grills 1cm wide will suffice) or provide people with stub it out pockets that you can use and take home and empty.

 

Btw I am a smoker but don't smoke in town centres and that anyway cos I don't want it blowing in some kiddies face...now the pub thats a differnet matter

[TheAnalyst]

Ok I've got a scan of the ticket she was given. The only legislation referred to on it

 

(1) Environmental protection Act 1990 Section S87(1)

 

Incidentally she has told me that a friend of a friend was also fined for the same thing in Edinburgh. That person chose not to pay the fine, he ignored it. He was subsequently sent a letter from The Procurator fiscal in Edinburgh offering to reduce the fine to a Fixed Penalty of £25!! Failure to accept this offer would result in prosecution.

 

Very interesting

 

I have told my sis that if this sort of thing is the norm then maybe she should wait. Why pay £50 if they're going to settle for half of that?

 

I wonder how many people just stump up the £50 no questions asked

 

 

 

Fair Claire

 

I have just been hit for exactly the same thing, have not paid it yet....

 

What was the outcome???

 

Thanks!