www.bwmaOnline.com

  Contact
Search
Links
Survey
BWMA - campaigning for inch-pound industries and consumer interests

Home

News in brief

Consumer Affairs

Business Issues

The Political Front

The Legal Campaign

Metric Transport and Signs

International Trade

Join the Action

Metric Culprits

Discussion Forums

BWMA Analysis of Local Authority responses to "Metric Martyrs" ruling, as applied to parking enforcement

Click on image to download copy of BWMA Analysis in Word
Introduction

The above paper highlights new doubts expressed by Local Authorities regarding the February 2002 ruling of Lord Justice Laws which convicted Steven Thoburn for using pounds and ounces. The conviction was based on the creation of a "hierarchy of Acts" whereby the "constitutional" European Communities Act 1972 (requiring the use of metric units) took precedence over the later but "ordinary" Weights and Measures Act 1985 that allows pounds and ounces. This is in conflict with British constitutional law which regards all Acts as equal and resolves conflict by applying the later Act.

Doubt as to whether a "hierarchy of Acts" can exist under British law has already been acknowledged by the House of Commons Parliament & Constitution Centre which described Lord Justice Laws' ruling as "opinion" that is "…not universally accepted amongst judges or legislators".

The BWMA Analysis shows that Local Authorities also have doubts over Lord Justice Laws' ruling. Research shows that all councils surveyed - 48 out of 48 - say that they will not apply a constitutional Act in the face of a later but ordinary Act. All councils questioned rejected the hierarchy of Acts. BWMA believes that this makes the position of trading standards authorities untenable, since how can trading standards officers apply metric regulations that are dependent on a ruling that council legal departments dismiss?

What are the key points in BWMA's Analysis of Local Authority responses to "Metric Martyrs" ruling?

Motorists have asked their local authorities to act in accordance with the ruling of Lord Justice Laws and refer parking fines to court, as required by the constitutional Bill of Rights 1689. The Analysis draws four conclusions:
1: Local Authorities do not deny that the Road Traffic Act 1991 fails to meet Lord Justice Laws' test for "abrogating" (removing or amending) the Bill of Rights 1689.
2: None of the 48 councils questioned was willing to implement the Hierarchy of Acts in relation to parking enforcement. All indicated that they would apply the later RTA 1991. Councils are therefore acting inconsistently; they apply the constitutional Act in regards to metric conversion, but the later Act in relation to parking fines.
3: Councils say that the Bill of Rights refers to conviction; yet, NPAS says it does not. Councils that have adopted the NPAS standpoint are concealing a realisation that RTA 1991 and the metric provisions of ECA 1972 cannot be lawful simultaneously.
4: Since February 2002, there has been confusion as to which laws apply in Britain: Acts that are more recent, or Acts that are considered more important? The government cannot claim a special constitutional rule whereby ECA 1972 can override W&M 1985 when local government is denying the same constitutional rule by applying automatic financial penalties. As long as the government says that RTA 1991 is lawful, then so too must be the Weights and Measures Act 1985, meaning lb/oz are lawful.

Download a copy of the BWMA Analysis in the form of a Word document by clicking the above image or by clicking here.

Back to Home

Material Copyright © 2001 BWMA. Visitors are free to reproduce information in part or in full on the condition that www.bwmaOnline.com is acknowledged.