BWMA - campaigning for inch-pound industries and consumer interests


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

NPAS Parking Fine appeal hearing of Robin de Crittenden - Worcester, 18 November 2005

Issue Summary
Robin de Crittenden's Hearing - 18 November 2005
Links of interest

Update 21 Nov 2005: read the hearing outcome here


In February 2002, Lord Justice Laws ruled that there exists a Hierarchy of Acts consisting of "constitutional" and "ordinary" Acts. On this basis, Steve Thoburn was convicted of a criminal offence for using pounds and ounces since, although British measurements are legal under the "ordinary" Weights and Measures Act 1985, they are made illegal by the earlier - but "constitutional" - European Communities Act 1972. Laws ruled that ordinary Acts cannot repeal previous legislation if the previous legislation is constitutional in nature other than by way of "express repeal" (which the Weights and Measures Act 1995 did not do).

In 2004, constitutional expert Robin de Crittenden alerted BWMA and the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund to the fact that one of the Acts identified by Lord Justice Laws as constitutional is the Bill of Rights 1689. This Act protects people from fines without conviction. Its precise wording is: "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void".

Mr de Crittenden pointed out that, in 1991, Parliament sought to remove the element of conviction from car parking fines and replace it with an automatic fining system, whereby people must appeal their fines to administrative tribunals. These tribunals are the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service for London (PATAS), and the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) for outside London. The piece of legislation that Parliament used was the Road Traffic Act 1991 (RTA 1991). Mr de Crittenden explained that, under the Laws judgement, RTA 1991 is unlawful, because it does not refer to the Bill of Rights expressly.

Since the circulation of Mr de Crittenden's information, objections to parking fines have since been made in over fifty council areas on the basis of the Laws ruling and the illegality of RTA 1991. Instead of referring this matter to HM Judges, however, Councils have referred the matter to NPAS and PATAS which have dismissed the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, in August 2005, NPAS sent a circular of one such adjudication (the "Sefton decision") to all Councils as if to imply that this is case law and that the matter of the Bill of Rights is now closed.

Mr de Crittenden's own parking fine appeal hearing on 18 November raised again the Bill of Rights. He also raised the issue of the Declaration of Rights 1689 from which Bill of Rights is derived and which is the "contract" upon which Parliament came into being. The Declaration of Rights 1689 cannot be revoked, other than by Parliament dissolving. The purpose of Mr de Crittenden's appeal was to explain to the adjudicator Mr Andrew Prickett that Mr Prickett has no power in law to decide upon the impact of the Bill and Declaration of Rights, and that he must refer the matter to HM Judges. Otherwise, Mr de Crittenden will do so himself.

Mr Prickett upheld Mr de Crittenden's parking appeal on a technicality and REFUSED to refer the matter to HM Judges. Robin de Crittenden is therefore applying for judicial review himself.

IN A NUTSHELL: Either the Metric Martyrs judgement is struck down, or local government has to repay £1,000 million in parking fines.

  Robin de Crittenden being interviewed on the day of his NPAS hearing

Robin de Crittenden's Hearing - 18 November 2005


Robin de Crittenden explained to the adjudicator Mr Andrew Prickett that NPAS adjudicators have no power in law to decide upon matters relating to the Bill and Declaration of Rights. Consequently, the only acceptable outcome of the hearing is that Mr Prickett refer the matter to HM Judges.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Mr Prickett said that his decision on whether the matter should be referred to HM Judges would be deferred. A decision by Mr Prickett is expected by the end of November 2005.


No independent tape-recording was permitted by the NPAS adjudicator who conducted the hearing; consequently, this account is a combination of the notes prepared by Robin de Crittenden before the hearing and comparisons of longhand notes made during the process of the hearing.

The hearing took place in a large room at the Fownes Hotel, Worcester. Over eighty people attended to hear the proceedings, including three BWMA committee members and the Chairman of the Freedom Association, Christopher Gill. Andrea Schutz, Worchester-based Austrian restaurateur, visited to lend her support. Neil Herron was in attendance as a witness, together with his colleague Colin Moran. Representing NPAS was adjudicator Mr Andrew Prickett, and attendants Mr Bullock and Mr Craig.

Worcester City Council, which issued the parking fine and therefore the other party in the dispute, was not represented in the hearing. Although seats were set aside for them, no-one from Worcester City Council attended.

The table of the adjudicator Mr Prickett was at the end of the room facing inwards, with Mr de Crittenden's table facing him directly (i.e. with Mr de Crittenden's back to the room and to the people listening). No microphones had been provided by NPAS with the result that Mr de Crittenden was inaudible to the room as a whole. After protest from people who could not hear, the table of Mr de Crittenden was turned to face the room, at a 45 degree angle to Mr Prickett's table.


Mr Andrew Prickett: Mr de Crittenden, my name is Prickett. I am an independent adjudicator. I have no connection with this council [Worcester] or any other Council. You have a right of appeal from the decision of the Council to me. There is no right of appeal following my decision

Robin de Crittenden: May I ask you, sir, about this matter of recording?

Mr Prickett: You have some further issues?

Mr de Crittenden: I have many issues and I am intending to address you fully. This question of recording has nothing to do with my appeal; it has to do with the process of NPAS. Therefore, I have no need to make any application to you, because the NPAS Service Charter and the document sent to me by NPAS (entitled Your Right to Appeal) both state that hearings may be recorded. In the event, sir, that you decide that these hearings will not be recorded, I must ask you to enter into the record your reasons for this decision.

Mr Prickett: [inaudible]

Mr de Crittenden: The matter of whether this hearing can be recorded has been resolved by NPAS within its own publications. If I may say with respect, you are the person raising the difficulty, because NPAS does not appear to have any difficulty.

Mr Prickett: I have decided that the proceedings will not be recorded apart from the official record kept by NPAS

Mr de Crittenden: Can you give me, sir, your reasons for this decision?

Mr Prickett: I have set out my reason that the adjudicator has the power to regulate his own proceedings. I have decided that the proceedings will not be recorded.

Mr de Crittenden: What are your reasons for making that decision, sir?

Mr Prickett: My reason is that there is an official full recording [gestures to tape machine] here.

Mr de Crittenden: I understand your point sir. Would you be interested to know that I have already been advised that there are complaints about interference with NPAS transcripts? That is my reason for wishing to see this hearing independently recorded.

Mr Prickett: You're calling evidence on that, are you?

Mr de Crittenden: No, I am not intending to introduce such evidence at this time, because I had hoped that such actions of embarrassment could be avoided in favour of the main issues. I am asking you to accept that evidence of NPAS mischief will be called into the Courts if necessary. My request is very simple; I would like to record these proceedings in accordance with NPAS publications.

Mr Prickett: My reasons, as set out before, are that: the proceedings are officially recorded; I have the power to regulate my own proceedings; I have chosen not to allow recording.

Mr de Crittenden: And not to give reasons at all?

Mr Prickett: I gave given them Mr Crittenden

Mr de Crittenden: Well, I haven't heard any reasons, sir. That's what I'm asking for, because the NPAS publications say that these hearings may be recorded. Would you like to see the publications?

Mr Prickett: No, what NPAS is saying is that NPAS may record the proceedings.

Mr de Crittenden: No, sir, that is not what these documents are saying. This is the problem that I have, and I had intended to avoid this issue this morning, as it detracts from the main issue.

Mr Prickett: Are these proceedings being recorded at the moment?

Mr de Crittenden: Not to my knowledge.

Mr Prickett: What is that (gestures towards a tape machine)?

Member of public: That belongs to me.

Mr Prickett: Would you turn it off, please?

Mr Prickett

BWMA Note: The NPAS document, "Your Right to Appeal against the Council's Decision" states: "The hearing will be fairly informal and may be tape-recorded".
The "The NPAS Service Charter" states: 'In common with most legal proceedings, members of the public are entitled to witness parking appeal hearings. Hearings may also be recorded".

[The proceedings continue shortly after this point]

Mr Prickett: Mr Crittenden, your appeal centres on a parking ticket?

Mr de Crittenden: No, my appeal to this tribunal is based entirely upon the provisions of the Constitution - I had hoped NPAS would have realised that by now. The ticket is not contested or disputed. It is irrelevant.

Mr Prickett: Would you expect that if I agree with your constitutional points, the appeal would be found for you; if I disagree with your constitutional points, I decide against you.

Mr de Crittenden: The parking fine is irrelevant. I am currently acting on the assumption that the constitutional issues will be resolved by HM Judges, who will become involved one way or another.

Mr Prickett: Please speak slowly, I am taking notes.

Mr de Crittenden: For all purposes of the legal activity that I expect to become necessary when this tribunal has finished with its work, I think it entirely proper for me to establish your own credentials and interest within these present proceedings. For the record, can you please tell me who it is that you represent in the performance of your present duties as Adjudicator?

Mr Prickett: What do you mean? I hold this office to make adjudications.

Mr de Crittenden: Can you please tell me who it is that has appointed you to act as the adjudicator in these present proceedings?

Mr Prickett: I am appointed to be an adjudicator by the Lord Chancellor.

Mr de Crittenden: Can you please tell me whether or not Miss Caroline Sheppard, the Chief Adjudicator for NPAS in England & Wales, has played any part at all in your appointment as adjudicator in these present proceedings? And can you please tell me whether or not Mr Andrew Barfoot, the Tribunal Manager for NPAS has played any part at all in your appointment as adjudicator in these present proceedings?

Mr Prickett: This case has been allocated to me by the staff at NPAS - Yes.

Mr de Crittenden: Can you please tell me why it is that correspondence between yourself and the officers of NPAS - correspondence that is relevant to the conduct of this hearing - has not been copied to me?

Mr Prickett: I do not know the answer to that question.

Mr de Crittenden: Can you please tell me whether or not you have sworn an Oath of Allegiance to HM Queen Elizabeth II as any part of the process by which you have been appointed to be an NPAS adjudicator - or at any other time and for any other reason?

Mr Prickett: No, I have not sworn an Oath of allegiance to the Queen - although I believe that I may have signed the Official Secrets Act at some time in the past.

Mr de Crittenden: Can you please tell me whether or not you have sworn any form of Judicial Oath that relates in any way to your function as an NPAS Adjudicator?

Mr Prickett: No, I have not sworn a judicial oath.

Mr de Crittenden: Can you please tell me who is paying the fee that you receive for your services as the Adjudicator appointed to this present hearing?

Mr Prickett: My fee is paid by NPAS acting via the Manchester Council, which is the 'core' Council for the work of NPAS

Mr de Crittenden: Can you please tell me why it is that you have found it necessary to pass an official comment on the fact that I am not being represented by a solicitor at this hearing?

Mr Prickett: Worcester was being represented by a solicitor; I was wondering whether you were.

Mr de Crittenden: You have found it necessary to issue a Special Direction relating to the hearing of this appeal and requiring the City of Worcester to provide this tribunal with a copy of the Traffic Regulation Order relating to the claim that is being offered against me. Have you received a copy of this Traffic Regulation Order?

Mr Prickett: No.

Mr de Crittenden: I have not received a copy of this Traffic Regulation Order, either. Can you please tell me if it is usual for the relevant Traffic Regulation Order to be introduced into evidence in every case of appeal?

Mr Prickett: It varies from authority to authority; some councils require that the whole Traffic Regulation Order be available, some do not. I thought it would be useful to have a copy on this occasion.

[Note: at this point, a TV camera crew positioned itself outside the window behind the adjudicator to whom the audience was facing. The TV crew later went round to the window at the far end of the room and again filmed. The NPAS attendant went out and told them to move away].

Mr de Crittenden: Can you please tell me whether or not you have asked to see the relevant Traffic Regulation Order in all cases of appeal in Worcester?

Mr Prickett: I have not heard all of the appeal cases in Worcester.

Mr de Crittenden: Can you tell me if you have asked to see the relevant Road Traffic Order in all of those cases that you have heard in Worcester?

Mr Prickett: No, I have not inspected the Road Traffic Order in all of those cases.

Mr de Crittenden: Thank you, Sir.


Mr de Crittenden: It is my position that the Constitution which provides for the Lawful Government of this country provides in particular that the City of Worcester may not pursue its claim against me in a manner that is illegal and by a process that is void. On 13th September 2004, the City of Worcester acknowledged correspondence from me which stated these grounds for appeal and on 16th September 2005, the City of Worcester issued a letter to me which stated the intention to contest my appeal.

I will introduce the evidence that serves to substantiate my own legal argument, during the course of these proceedings and whilst I accept that any legal argument presented by the City of Worcester will be regulated for relevance by the adjudicator, I think it reasonable for me to require that the City of Worcester address itself only to the substance of my appeal. I can see that the City of Worcester is not represented, in spite of previous undertakings given to me - and I have to assume that the City of Worcester has elected to run away from the issues that they known I am raising today!

I have advised NPAS that its tribunals are without the legal authority that is necessary for these tribunals to make binding pronouncements on the provisions of the Constitution - and I have advised NPAS that its tribunals are without legal authority to impose upon me, or upon any other person, any decision at all that relates to the Constitutional Argument and relies only on the personal opinions of NPAS adjudicators. Stated briefly, it is for this tribunal hearing to produce the full evidence of law, if this tribunal is to make any attempt at all to reach any decision at all on the merits of my case.

During the opening stages of my appeal against the attempt at illegal process by the City of Worcester, I considered it reasonable to believe that the NPAS organization would wish to stand aside from all direct involvement with the very important issues that now lie between the City of Worcester and myself - and I held this belief because NPAS has a clear duty to maintain and preserve its own independent status in all matters of dispute between DPE Councils & members of the general public.

Mr Prickett: What does DPE mean?

Mr de Crittenden: It means Decriminalised Parking Enforcement.

The independence of NPAS and its tribunal service is required under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1991 and, if further proof of this required independence is needed, it is necessary only to inspect the claims of NPAS itself, as provided on its website, in all of its publications, and in all statements made to those members of the public who have cause to deal with NPAS.

However, and notwithstanding the provisions of the RTA 1991, and the claims to independence that are made by NPAS itself in all cases of appeal, I have established that Senior Officers of NPAS have elected to abandon their only legitimate function as officials of an independent adjudication service and have attempted to take a full and direct part for themselves in the argument that relates to the Constitution - and that relates directly to the substance of my own appeal.

I have established that officials of NPAS have attempted to prejudice my appeal and the work of this present tribunal by unwarranted and intrusive conduct: I must challenge this conduct and confirm the independence of this tribunal during the process of this hearing. Evidence and witness evidence relating to the offending conduct of NPAS officials will be introduced to this tribunal, and applications will be made to this tribunal, before I address the substance of my appeal against the claim that is now being pursued by the City of Worcester.


Mr de Crittenden: I ask the tribunal to accept into evidence a copy of a letter that I sent to NPAS on 28th September, 2005, with a copy of the response letter sent to me by NPAS dated 13th October, 2005. For all purposes of inspection, I now produce the original of this letter, with all of the original material that was sent to me with this letter.

[Mr Prickett asked Mr de Crittenden to pause while he looked at the material].

The tribunal will see that on 28th September, 2005, I asked NPAS to provide me with copies of all circulars issued by NPAS to DPE Councils - and the tribunal will see that on 13th October, 2005, NPAS provided me with the material that I had requested. The tribunal will see that the material provided by NPAS included a document shown as an NPAS Circular and attached to the decision of an NPAS adjudicator in Case Number SF 272.

Mr Prickett: You will appreciate that this adjudicator's decision is not binding in this case.

Mr de Crittenden: The significance of this evidence is that this decision is the only Adjudication Decision to be circulated by NPAS throughout England & Wales. I ask the tribunal to take full note of the fact that the material provided to me by NPAS on 13th October 2005 did not include Adjudication Decisions of any kind at all, other than the decision handed down in Case Number SF 272. I will refer to Case Number SF 272 as 'The Sefton Decision', for all ongoing purposes and I ask the tribunal to accept into evidence The Sefton Decision.

[Explanatory note: the Sefton Decision declared the Bill of Rights defence invalid on the grounds that the High Court had not considered any of the questions raised by the appellant at Sefton. The Adjudicator at Sefton was a barrister, and would have known full well that it is not the function of the High Court to raise questions outside of the context of specific cases that are before the Court - and the Adjudicator would have also known that there have been no cases referred to the High Court in the matter of the Bill of Rights Defence].

Mr de Crittenden: The Sefton Decision was circulated by NPAS to all DPE Councils, with the result that these Councils then proceeded to discourage motorists from all reliance on the Bill of Rights defence.

Mr Prickett: Is it necessary for me to consider the Sefton Decision if it does not bind me?

Mr de Crittenden: The Sefton Decision is relevant to this case because the mass-distribution of this Decision by NPAS serves to illustrate the mischief of NPAS in relation to my own case and in relation to the claimed independence of this tribunal. I now draw the attention of the tribunal to the content of the Sefton Decision, beginning at para 2 on the 2nd page and continuing through to the end of the document on the 4th page. In particular, I refer the tribunal to the final paragraph on Page 3 of the Sefton Decision, where it is said:

'Indeed the Act, and in particular the powers of or analogous to those of the parking adjudicator have been considered by the High Court which did not raise any of the issues now advanced by Mr Higgins'.

It is very necessary for me to suggest to this present tribunal that these words are nothing less than an attempt to mislead the appellant in the Sefton Case to the prejudice of that appellant and to the general prejudice of the public interest, including myself. On the admission of NPAS itself, the Sefton Decision has been sent to all DPE Councils, including the City of Worcester.

Mr Prickett: But of course London is separate.

Mr de Crittenden: But PATAS was also sent a copy.

Mr Prickett: PATAS? I don't understand these initials.

Mr de Crittenden: The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service now operating in London.

The Sefton Decision has been entered into the consciousness and records of all DPE Councils and adjudicators throughout England & Wales - as a result of decisions made by Senior Officials at NPAS - who have made no such decision in respect of decisions handed down at any other time and by any other tribunal. It is necessary for this tribunal to consider why it was that the Sefton Decision was given such nationwide attention by NPAS.

I ask the tribunal to accept into evidence the adjudication decision handed down by the Parking and Traffic Adjudication Service PATAS, in Case Number 2050330626, where it can be seen that as the result of NPAS conduct, another adjudicator has taken it upon himself to provide an opinion of what was or was not intended by the text given in the Bill of Rights.

Mr Prickett: You are saying it has had wide distribution.

Mr de Crittenden: Unduly wide distribution. In response to the evidenced and primitive attempts at lawmaking by NPAS adjudicators, I must place on the record of this present tribunal that if the High Court had ever been given cause to consider the legality of the RTA 1991 - when measured against the requirements of the Bill of Rights - then the adjudicator at Sefton would have found no difficulty at all in providing the Sefton Appellant with full details of the precise Case-Law that would now serve to provide proof that the Sefton Adjudicator was acting in good faith towards the Sefton Appellant.

When I was first made aware of the fact that the Sefton Decision had been distributed by NPAS to all DPE Councils, including the City of Worcester, I fully understood that the Sefton Decision had been employed by NPAS in a mischievous; prejudicial and unprecedented way. The decision of NPAS to distribute this suspect material - forgive me - reeks!

Mr Prickett: Reeks?

Mr de Crittenden: Smells to High Heaven - Stinks! [laughter from the members of the public in attendance]. It seemed to me then, and it seems to me now, that NPAS has deliberately encouraged the creation of prejudice to my own appeal, by an action that was intended to indoctrinate other people into the belief that opinions held by officials of NPAS had been confirmed by impartial processes of arbitration and by HM Judges in the High Court. In other words, NPAS has attempted to use the name of 'the Lords' in vain.

In consequence of my own belief that mischief was being perpetrated by the officials of NPAS, I asked NPAS to explain this conduct to me and to provide me with the Case Law that would serve to give practical substance to the opinions of the Sefton Adjudicator. This tribunal will not be at all surprised to learn that NPAS has proven to be most unwilling to provide the required information and has used the excuse of 'due process' to hide the inability of NPAS to produce the information that has now been given an unusual prominence by the special and unusual publicity issued by NPAS .

I ask the tribunal to accept into evidence a copy of a letter that I addressed to NPAS on 16th September, 2005 and to take particular note of the content of this letter, as given at the 2nd page (continuation sheet/1), and at the last paragraph. In addition, I ask the tribunal to accept into evidence a letter that was addressed to me by NPAS and dated 20th September, 2005.

Mr Prickett: This is from Mr Barfoot?

Mr de Crittenden: Yes - The man who isn't here [to give evidence of his own misconduct]! The very evasive response to my request for the information that would serve to give substance to the opinions of the Sefton Adjudicator will be seen at the final paragraph of this letter, on the 3rd page.

Mr Prickett: But this is not binding on me.

Mr de Crittenden: Your own appointment to this tribunal results from the involvement of persons at NPAS whose behaviour is suspect.

I asked NPAS for the identity of the High Court references mentioned in the Sefton Decision and was told by NPAS that I must go to a solicitor {for advice}. NPAS did not make clear how any solicitor could obtain the training in mind-reading that would be necessary to establish the information that was in the head of the Sefton Adjudicator when he gave effect to the Sefton Decision. In pursuit of this same matter, I telephoned Mr Andrew Barfoot, the tribunal manager of NPAS, and he advised me that he was not holding and had not seen any material that would serve to confirm the claims to High Court Authority made by the Sefton Adjudicator. Mr Barfoot admitted to me that he had checked on nothing at all to do with the Sefton Decision before he instructed that this doubtful material be distributed on a national basis.

At that same time, I advised Mr Barfoot that I must require him to confirm to this present tribunal that the Sefton Decision had been distributed on a national basis and in an unchecked condition - and of course Mr Barfoot decided that he would not provide such evidence to this tribunal, irrespective of the fact that prejudice has been created to my own appeal. I asked the adjudicator appointed to this tribunal [Mr Prickett himself] to issue a Witness Order requiring Mr Barfoot to provide evidence to this tribunal - and I proposed that the matter of the required Witness Order be resolved at a pre-tribunal directions hearing.

To my astonishment, I found myself faced with a direction that the matter of the evidence available from Mr Barfoot could be considered at today's hearing in Worcester - when it could be anticipated that Mr Barfoot himself would be at his own office in Manchester! I submit to this tribunal that this was not at all an intelligent response to the problems caused by the mass-distribution of the Sefton Decision, bearing in mind that this Decision is clearly relevant to the substance of my appeal. I asked for a formal review of the direction that a witness order for Mr Barfoot be considered only at the hearing today, only to find that there was a continuing attempt to delay matters until today - when Mr Barfoot would still be in Manchester!

Will you now make a Witness Order requiring the attendance of Andrew Barfoot to provide evidence in person?

Mr Prickett: [pause] No, I make no order. Sefton is not binding.

Mr de Crittenden: Mr Barfoot is perfectly capable of providing evidence to explain himself in response to the evidence of malice aforethought and of an attempt to influence this present tribunal.

Mr Prickett: I make no order, but I will reconsider later. I cannot be responsible for the actions of all the staff in NPAS.

Mr de Crittenden: Can you guarantee the security of your tape-recording and that I will receive a full transcript of the tape recording?

Mr Prickett: As far as I am able. I accept that you should have a transcript of these proceedings.

Mr de Crittenden: A complete transcript of everything that is on your tape?

Mr Prickett: Yes

[At this point, a member of the public, who had just entered the room and was unaware of the prohibition on recording, produced a camcorder. An NPAS employee told him to leave the room and escorted the member of the public outside.

Christopher Gill, chairman of the Freedom Association, stood up and said to Mr Prickett, "I cannot see what your objection is to an independent recording. Your behaviour is that of a tin pot apparatchnik of the USSR. You are forcing Mr de Crittenden to rely for the recording on the very people against whom he is fighting". There was a round of applause from the attendance.]

Mr de Crittenden: I introduce a document dated 3rd November, 2005 and issued by Caroline Sheppard to confirm that the Sefton Decision is not binding on other tribunals, including this present tribunal. Are you now prepared to declare the Sefton Decision unsafe?

Mr Prickett: No, I am not a court.

Mr de Crittenden: I must advise this tribunal that the comments and conduct of Mr Barfoot, a Senior NPAS official, did not serve to encourage me in the belief that NPAS is capable of offering an independent service to the public when its own interests are involved - and being thus alerted, I made further investigation into the NPAS Organization.

I found evidence of further problems within NPAS, and I now move to enter this evidence into the record of this tribunal, because there is clear relevance to any claim that this present tribunal is independent of the parties to this appeal. NPAS is dependent upon funding that is provided by the DPE Councils who are themselves the respondents to all of the appeals that are entered by members of the public. This funding is being provided at the rate of 60 pence per parking ticket issued by DPE Councils and the amounts of money now being paid to NPAS by these respondent Councils must be very substantial indeed.

I ask the tribunal to accept into evidence a letter issued to me by NPAS and dated 30th August, 2005. I ask the tribunal to accept into evidence a letter issued to me by Worcester City Council and dated 2nd September, 2005; this letter serving to confirm that the City of Worcester alone has paid more than £20,000 to NPAS, thus far. It is not rational to believe that NPAS or any other organization can provide a service that is entirely independent of the funding-sources that are needed for the survival of the organization itself.

[At this point, Mr Neil Herron was called as a witness].

Mr de Crittenden: Do you have a copy of the Lord Justice Laws ruling?

Mr Neil Herron: Yes

Mr de Crittenden: Please keep it by you, for the moment.

Mr Prickett: Lord Justice Oldes? Please can you speak more slowly?

Mr de Crittenden: I presume you are not able to rely on the official tape, either? [laughter from the audience] Lord Justice Laws.

Mr Prickett: I'm writing it down.

Mr de Crittenden: [to Mr Herron] What is your opinion about the Laws Judgment?

Mr Prickett: That is not for Mr Herron to say.

Mr de Crittenden: I will rephrase the question. What does the Judgment of Lord Justice Laws say?

Mr Herron: [reading from the Laws Judgement] "We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament; as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional" statutes … Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the Reform Acts the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the European Communities Act 1972".

Mr Prickett: I want to see the paragraph.

[whisper from someone in the audience: "I am amazed a person appointed to this hearing does not know of the Lord Justice Laws decision"].

Mr de Crittenden: This copy of the Laws Judgment will be entered into the evidence that is now being received by this tribunal.

Mr de Crittenden [To Mr Herron]: I have here a full copy of the Bill of Rights, taken from a very old reference book, and I would like you to identify the text that is most relevant to this present tribunal, please. Have you found the text that is needed? [Mr Herron indicates that he is ready to proceed] Can you please read this text into the record of this tribunalant part.

Mr Herron: "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void".

[The copy document was handed to Mr Prickett, who could not find the relevant part - Mr de Crittenden indicated the relevant text and the document was then photocopied as evidence for Mr Prickett to retain].

Mr de Crittenden: The Laws Judgment had relevance to you because the European Communities Act 1972 was given precedence over later Acts, including the Weights and Measures Act 1985. The 1985 Act was judged irrelevant, because of the European Communities Act of 1972, with the result that Steve Thoburn was found guilty of an offence. Was that the case?

Mr Herron: Yes.

Mr Prickett: Is this the case of bananas at Sunderland?

Mr de Crittenden: Yes, and that case brought Mr Herron into contact with the RTA 1991 that now attempts to say that we cannot have courts to deal with parking allegations, in spite of the unrepealed Bill of Rights.

[Mr de Crittenden's questioning of the witness then moved on into Mr Herron's personal experience of dealings with NPAS].

Mr Herron: At 5.23pm Tuesday 23rd August 2005 I received a call from Andrew Barfoot, Tribunal Manager for NPAS in response to a telephone call I had made to him on the previous day. I wanted to bring to his attention the malpractice and unlawful activity of Sunderland City Council.

Mr de Crittenden: Is it true to say you wanted to produce to NPAS some evidence of misconduct that you had uncovered in Sunderland?

Mr Herron: Yes

Mr de Crittenden: Was Mr Barfoot interested in receiving this evidence from you?

Mr Herron: No. He said that he could only take evidence regarding individual cases, not evidence about the general conduct of local authorities. This conversation ended and I picked up my telephone to make another call. However, my telephone was still connected to Mr Barfoot, because he had forgotten to disconnect his own telephone. As a result of this failure to disconnect I heard a conversation between Mr Barfoot and an unidentified female, who was later identified as Caroline Sheppard, the NPAS Chief Adjudicator for England & Wales.

Mr Prickett: How was she identified?

Mr Herron: I asked Mr Barfoot who he had been speaking to. I made notes on what I had overheard. Mr Barfoot's opening line to her was, "He is mad. He's mad. He is determined to prove that we are unconstitutional … (silence) … Who is this Neil Herron? He is determined to prove we are unconstitutional….the Bill of Rights … (laughter) … I was minded not to help him"…and then, "He's got twenty-seven tickets." Female voice, "Can we help Sunderland?" Barfoot: "He is going to appeal and we are going to ignore his arguments…but we are going to get twenty-seven appeals." This conversation lasted for about five minutes and also included mention of, "Calls to Sunderland," and "the Lancashire case".

Mr Prickett: You overheard a call to Sunderland?

Mr Herron: No, I overheard the words "call to Sunderland".

Mr Prickett: Can you produce a copy of the notes you made?

Mr Herron: Yes. When my own telephone was released from the link to Mr Barfoot's telephone, I dialled Mr Barfoot immediately and read out my notes of what I had overheard. Mr Barfoot confirmed his location as being not in the office but in the lift with a colleague, who then came onto the telephone. Caroline Sheppard confirmed her name and gave her position as the Service Director at NPAS. She gave reassurances that my cases would be dealt with fairly and that I could appeal following the necessary due process. She informed me that my cases would be dealt with by an independent solicitor.

I informed Miss Sheppard that I had heard all of the conversation between herself and Andrew Barfoot because he had left his mobile telephone on: I told her that I had a full record of everything that had been said. At this point she offered her own most sincere apologies and gave a solemn undertaking that what had been said would not be prejudicial to any appeal that I brought before NPAS. Miss Sheppard said that since this was a professional matter they would undertake the necessary retraining. At this point I interjected to tell Miss Sheppard that I required a full written apology.

Mr de Crittenden [to Mr Prickett]: It is clear that the evidence provided by Mr Herron, regarding the conduct of Miss Sheppard & Mr Barfoot, shows a clear lack of impartiality & relevance to the substance of my own appeal, which is based upon the very issues on which Mr Herron has been declared to be 'mad'; 'mad'; & 'mad'.

I now ask this tribunal to accept into evidence the letters of apology that were issued to Mr Herron by Andrew Barfoot & Caroline Sheppard of NPAS. I must now make an application for a formal report of the conduct demonstrated by these two NPAS officials to be made to the Lord Chancellor, with a tribunal recommendation that Mr Barfoot and Miss Sheppard be suspended from their duties, pending a full investigation into their conduct and their notable failures to maintain the impartiality and independence that is required by the RTA 1991.

Mr Prickett: Have you [done this]?

Mr de Crittenden: No, I thought that was the job of this independent tribunal. Do you wish to decide now or come back to it?

Mr Prickett: I'll think about it. At this time, I have not heard any version of events from the two officials themselves.

Mr de Crittenden: I would like a copy of your formal report for all purposes of any ongoing referral of this appeal to HM Judges.

Mr Prickett: I have not yet confirmed that I will make the recommendation

Mr de Crittenden [to Mr Prickett]: It will be clear to you, sir, that I cannot ask NPAS to investigate itself because they would undoubtedly find themselves innocent and probably give themselves medals in the process.

[To Mr Herron]: Please provide your evidence that major flaws in the systems of de-criminalised parking and NPAS are now confirmed and admitted by the Sunderland Council.

Mr Prickett: I do not know anything about Sunderland.

Mr de Crittenden: Mr Herron will tell you all about it.

Mr Herron: I had a case of my own, and found that the DPE regulations are not valid in Sunderland, at all.

Mr Prickett: Was this point raised with the adjudicator?

Mr Herron: Not at the time. In this specific case (SX23) heard on 13/10/03 by adjudicator Mark Hinchcliffe, the appeal was not allowed and NPAS found in favour of Sunderland Council - in spite of the fact that the Traffic Regulation Order supplied and relied on by Sunderland was pre-DPE and contained no DPE powers.

Mr de Crittenden: The general overview and evidence of the Sunderland DPE regime and the unlawful practices of the Sunderland Council were offered to Andrew Barfoot at NPAS, weren't they?

Mr Herron: Yes, on Monday 22nd August 2005.

Mr de Crittenden: And was that when Mr Barfoot of NPAS didn't want to know?

Mr Herron: Yes.

Mr de Crittenden: What is the situation now, in the Sunderland area?

Mr Herron: An internal and external investigation is being conducted by the Sunderland Council because of substantive evidence of malpractice regarding Traffic Orders and signs in Sunderland.

Mr Prickett: This investigation is still going on?

Mr de Crittenden: Yes. More than £3 million has been taken from the public and bailiffs sent into a lot of homes, as the result of the unlawful conduct now exposed. [To Mr Herron] Please tell this tribunal about the situation in Rochdale.

Mr Herron: There is a major flaw in the position of the Rochdale Council, and this evidence was not picked up by NPAS adjudicators. In the case of Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council this local authority began Decriminalised Parking Enforcement on 4th July 2004. Between this date and 1st August 2005 this Council issued 28,260 Penalty Charge Notices. All of the Parking Claim Notices issued during that period contravened the legislative requirements contained in Section 66(3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act. The PCN's were addressed to 'the Driver" and not to 'the Owner" or "To the Registered Keeper". As required by the RTA 1991. The Rochdale Council changed the wording on its PCNs on 2nd August 2005.

Mr de Crittenden: So there was a basic flaw in the legal process?

Mr Herron: Yes, the legal requirement says that that all Notices must be addressed "to the owners"of all vehicles.

Mr de Crittenden: Were these flaws uncovered by NPAS?

Mr Herron: NPAS pointed out the problem to Rochdale in July 2005, by which time 28,000 tickets had been issued to the public in a void and unenforceable condition..

Mr Prickett: 28,000 tickets or appeals?

Mr Herron: Tickets.

Mr de Crittenden [to Mr Prickett]: NPAS says that they are unable to provide the total number of appeals, only the percentage of appeals that have been successful throughout the country. It is odd that NPAS cannot provide the total number of appeals which must be used to provide the data-base from which their own percentages are derived. I count it a great pity the staff at NPAS are unable to understand basic questions given in basic English!

(To Mr Herron) Is the Rochdale Council now intending to refund money to the people of Rochdale?

Mr Herron: The flaws were pointed out to Rochdale who then said it was only a couple of words wrong and that there were no proposals for refund.

Mr Prickett: Only a couple of words wrong and it had no proposals to refund?

Mr Herron: Yes.

Mr de Crittenden: Mr Herron, can you please tell this tribunal how much money is involved in the matter of Rochdale?

Mr Herron: My own estimate of the income received by Rochdale is £660,052, and I know that bailiffs were sent in to 409 homes before 2 August, 2005, when the council changed the wording on their documentation.

Mr de Crittenden: Mr Herron, can you please tell this tribunal what was done by NPAS in terms of correcting the flaws that you uncovered in Rochdale.

Mr Herron: The competence of NPAS must be called into question because they had adjudicated on appeal cases which involved the incorrect wording on the PCNs. Information supplied to me by Kevin Mayor, Head of Parking Services, at Rochdale confirmed that flawed PCNs had been supplied within evidence bundles supplied to NPAS tribunals - and yet these same tribuuals had found in favour of the council in no less than 18 cases. At the time of case no RE 58 something prompted NPAS to inform Rochdale of the flaw, and this caused Rochdale to change their wording mmediately. It has to be said that all previous cases had been missed completely by the NPAS adjudicators involved.

Mr de Crittenden: So these flaws were not exposed by the NPAS Organization, during any appeals conducted by am NPAS adjudicator, previous to July of 2005 - Is that correct?

Mr Herron: Yes.

Mr de Crittenden {to Mr Prickett} The evidence thus far indicates that people within the NPAS Organization are inefficient and subversive. How can you hear this present appeal, given that you are appointed to this present tribunal by these same subversive factions who are failing to uphold even the provisions of the RTA 1991?

Mr Prickett: [regarding Neil Herron's evidence] Is that all?

Mr Herron: No. In a telephone call that I made to NPAS their operative Paul Griffiths advised me that "they were a Court of Law" and that NPAS adjudicators had "the status of High Court judges" [Neil Herron turned to Mr Prickett and added, "Your Honour" which caused laughter from the audience].

Mr Prickett: I must say that I do not have the status of a High Court judge!

Mr Herron: In response to my enquiries, I received a letter from Andrew Barfoot at NPAS, which stated

"The National Parking Adjudication Service is specified as a tribunal in Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, and so is under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals. As with all the tribunals specified in Schedule 1 to that Act … it exists outside the hierarchy of the ordinary courts of law. Nevertheless, all such tribunals are under the same duty to act judicially as ordinary courts of law. Indeed, the natural and ordinary meanings of the words "tribunal" and "court" are the same. In a general sense any type of court can be called a tribunal and vice versa".

Mr de Crittenden: I ask the tribunal to accept this letter into evidence.

Mr Prickett [to Mr de Crittenden]: Mr Herron is your witness, does he have anything else to say?

Mr de Crittenden: Unlike your own relationship with NPAS, Neil Herron is completely independent of me and I do not know the full extent of his own knowledge of NPAS mischief. I have asked Mr Herron to provide this tribunal with the entirety of the evidence that he considers relevant to show this tribunal that NPAS is guilty of wilful mischief and gross inadequacy - and I consider the evidence of Mr Herron to be relevant to the conduct and claimed independence of this present hearing. Mr Herron, can you please continue with your evidence, bearing in mind that we are currently dealing with the mischief and inadequacies of NPAS.

Mr Herron: The NPAS website contains a flash video clip by Sian Cole which states that "this is a court of law".

Mr Prickett: What is a flash? I do not understand this technology.

Mr Herron: I'm just as bad. It is a video clip.

Mr Prickett: This is a legal tribunal and not a court of law.

Mr Herron: I asked NPAS to remove this clip from their web-site.

Mr Prickett: By email?

Mr Herron: By registered post. I had a reply from a Mr Bob Tinsley. I established that the website has been accessed 327,000 times.

Mr Prickett: The website has a hit counter?

Mr Herron: Yes, and there were 2224 'hits' in the Welsh language (laughter).

Mr Herron: I also introduce a letter from Chorley Council which refers to parking "fines". And also a House of Commons publication that refers to "fines" on three occasions.

Mr Prickett: What is the relevance?

Mr de Crittenden: There are proven acknowledgments that NPAS tribunals are dealing with fines.

[At this point, the Adjudicator stated that he had no questions of his own to put to Mr Herron, and Mr Herron stood down - The Adjudicator indicated his wish to call an adjournment for lunch - and Mr de Crittenden then invited Mr Prickett to consider his own position during the lunch break].

Mr de Crittenden: Sir, Your own position is made entirely suspect by the conduct of NPAS because your appointment as Adjudicator to this present appeal tribunal has resulted from the activity and involvement of Caroline Sheppard, Chief NPAS Adjudicator for England & Wales and the involvement of Andrew Barfoot, Tribunal Manager for NPAS. I must ask you to consider whether or not you should continue to hear this matter, bearing in mind that any decision reached by you must be considered suspect.

Mr Prickett: Under your argument, if I am tainted, then all adjudicators are tainted.

Mr de Crittenden: Suspect people at NPAS have appointed you and it must be considered possible that these same people have been telling you what to decide. I think that you must look to your own position.

Mr Prickett: I can assure you that I have not been pressured in any way; Such conduct would not be correct. My relationship with NPAS is not one of employee and manager. They cannot tell me what to do. I spoke to a meeting about two years ago about the role of NPAS. I said if anyone told me what to do, I would call for that person to be judicially reviewed. I would like this tribunal to reconvene at 2.30 pm.

Mr de Crittenden: I will put my question to you again, after lunch, when you have had time to consider your decision. In the meantime, I am not eating myself because I shall be far too busy worrying about the conduct of NPAS.


Mr de Crittenden: Sir, I invite you to reconsider the issue of recording, and I give you my personal assurance that nothing will be published without your express permission.

Mr Prickett: No. I will not reconsider my decision on the recording of these proceedings.

Mr de Crittenden: Do you wish to respond to my suggestion that you should stand down from this hearing. I raise this point again, in view of your refusal to allow independent recording, and your failure to call for evidence from Mr Barfoot.

Mr Prickett: I will continue with this hearing.


Mr de Crittenden: I ask the tribunal to accept into evidence the Declaration of Rights that was given effect on 12th February, 1689 by William & Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, the Parties of the first part, and A Convention Of The English People, the Party of the second part.

It is necessary for this tribunal to note that at the time that the Declaration of Rights was presented, William was the Prince of Orange - and that at a later time on the same day, he was King of England. It is clear that the Crown was given and received because William of Orange had accepted the provisions of the Declaration of Rights - and it is clear that at this time, there was no lawful Parliament. Once recognized as King, William was able to call a Parliament into being and in December of 1689 the Bill of Rights was enacted.

The Powers of the Crown and the Powers of Parliament are both regulated by the Contractual Provisions of the Constitutional Agree-ment known as the Declaration of Rights, and the Bill of Rights, enacted in December of 1689, is nothing more and nothing less than evidence of the contract that had been made and given a full effect in February of 1689. The Declaration of Rights was not entered into by any Parliament and is not a Creature of Any Parliament - Unlike the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Rights is not subject to repeal; amendment or any form of regulation or repudiation by any Parliament.

In confirmation of the terms acknowledged by the Declaration of Rights, and evidenced by the Bill of Rights, the Sovereign gives a Coronation Oath. The lawful exercise of the authority claimed by any Sovereign &/or by any Parliament was made dependent upon a full and absolute obedience to the provisions made by the Declaration of Rights - and if there should be failure on the part of any Sovereign to uphold the provisions of the Declaration of Rights, then the inheritance of the Crown itself becomes forfeit - with all rights to the Crown reverting to the line of the former and now-deposed Stuart Dynasty (if the rules of primogeniture and logic are properly applied) Our Present & Most Gracious Queen Elizabeth, Whom God Preserve, has no right to the Crown at all, unless it be the right that was conferred on her predecessors; their heirs and successors by the Declaration of Rights.

Should the Queen forfeit her lawful right to the Crown, as a consequence of failure to maintain the terms of the agreement made on 12th February 1689, then Parliament itself can have no lawful existence, because all Parliaments have their lawful existence only by virtue of the Sovereign's own Right to Govern this Country and to call such parliaments into lawful assembly.

Mr Prickett: The supreme body is the Queen in Parliament.

Mr de Crittenden: That is a present-day interpretation. The Declaration of Rights recognizes only that the Supreme Body is the Queen herself! Evidence of this is everywhere: for example, all Acts of Parliament are enacted in the name of the Queen and all Parliaments are required to maintain the Supremacy and Security of the Crown - as evidenced by the Oaths of Allegiance that must be sworn by all Members of Parliament - before any of these persons are permitted to take any lawful part in the proceedings of any Parliament - And this rule applies whatever may be the results of any election and whatever may be the majority achieved at any election by any candidate for Parliament.

The Crown and all parliaments that are called into being by the Crown are required to keep to the basic rules that are attached to their lawful authority, as evidenced by the Oath given to the People by the Sovereign at the time/s of Coronation and as evidenced by the oaths of allegiance that all MPs must swear to the Sovereign. And these basic rules strictly prohibit all and any attempts to reduce or remove the Liberties of the English People, as determined by the text of the Declaration of Rights.

In the years that have elapsed since 1689, it has become the 'fashion' for members of parliaments to claim that Parliament itself is Sovereign - but this false claim is denied by the Declaration of Rights, which clearly states that ALL of the Regal Authority is vested in the person of the Sovereign. In the years that have elapsed since 1689, it has become the 'fashion' for increasingly-disreputable Members of Parliament to 'forget' their oaths of allegiance to their Sovereign, whenever it suits them, and to forget their commitments to represent only the people of their constituencies who have elected them to parliament.

Mr Prickett: You will appreciate that I understand the position.

Mr de Crittenden: The functions of representing the people to the government of their Sovereign have been lost to the interests of over-ambitious liars and cheats who choose to forget that it is their only legitimate function to represent the interests of the People during all of the proceedings that take place within the Speaking Place of the People.

But the Declaration of Rights does not permit Members of Parliament to usurp the Royal Authority and/or to forget the true functions of parliament which are: to meet regularly 'for the purpose of redressing all grievances and for the further purpose of strengthening and preserving the laws'. The Declaration of Rights provides that I have an inalienable right to require that all and any legal actions undertaken against me, whether Civil or Criminal, be heard and resolved by a Court of Law that operates in the name and for the purposes of the Queen - and that is why the Royal Coat of Arms is displayed in every Courtroom. There is no Coat of Arms on display in this tribunal.

Parliament may not use its authority from the Queen to undermine the Declaration of Rights, and this Declaration provides that I may not be subjected to fine or forfeiture at the hands of anyone at all unless the authority of a conviction has been obtained: "All grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void". In a word, the Declaration of Rights provides that the City of Worcester must pursue any claim against me in HM Courts of Law where the issues must be resolved in a lawful manner. And the Declaration of Rights provides that this present tribunal is deprived of all and any lawful ability to resolve anything at all in this present case.

Mr Prickett: Can I ask a question on this? If this tribunal is illegal - outside of the law - is there any point in you making representation to this tribunal?

Mr de Crittenden: My own recommendation is that you refer this issue to HM Courts, because all that you have at your elbow is the Road Traffic Act 1991 which does not make provision for the absolute terms of the Declaration of Rights.

Mr Prickett: If I am a "nullity", how can I continue to hear this case?

Mr de Crittenden: You must recognize the fact that the RTA 1991 can be no law and is nothing more than a failed attempt at the enactment of law, without lawful authority of any kind: You must send this point to HM Judges for resolution, because the RTA 1991 fails to provide for the lawful resolution of the issues that now lie between the City of Worcester and myself. This case must be resolved by HM Courts of Law.

Mr Prickett: What is the position of the Queen? She gave her assent.

Mr de Crittenden: The politicians gave their assent.

Mr Prickett: She signed it.

Mr de Crittenden: We cannot know that.

Mr Prickett: Then the Queen is removed.

Mr de Crittenden: That would be the effect (if she failed to uphold the Declaration of Rights) but I am not pointing any finger at the Queen. This is a matter for HM judges, because Her Majesty's Ministers may not lawfully guide her into any breach of the Declaration of Rights or the Oath that she gave at her Coronation.

Mr Prickett: I would be loath to declare that the Queen is not the true monarch.

Mr de Crittenden: She must be restored to her authority by the Judges.

Mr Prickett: I am trying to confine you. If I find that RTA 1991 is illegal, the Queen is removed.

Mr de Crittenden: The Queen is being required to act on the advice of her ministers. These Ministers may not require the Queen to breach her Coronation Oath. Queen Elizabeth herself is nothing more than a prisoner in her own palace, I'm sorry to say.

Mr Prickett: If your argument is correct, the Queen is not the Queen.

Mr de Crittenden: Ministers are responsible for this situation, not the Queen. Her Majesty is being prevented from using her own free will. For purposes of the record, I must now ask this tribunal to formally declare itself without competence to resolve the issues relating to this present case of appeal and to formally direct that this appeal be referred to the courts of HM The Queen - for the purpose of resolving this full legal challenge to the constitutional position of the Road Traffic Act 1991.

I am tempted to call a halt to these proceedings at this point, but there is an unfortunate argument flying around the country that a parking penalty is not a fine or a forfeiture - and therefore not covered by the provisions of the Declaration of Rights.

I now call on Mr Wayne Pendle to provide evidence to this tribunal.

[Mr Pendle takes the stand]

Mr Pendle, you have some valuable expertise in IT and you have taken it upon yourself to investigate the content of the web-sites that are being maintained by NPAS and by DPE Councils. Is that correct?

Mr Pendle: Yes.

Mr de Crittenden: And you have brought to this tribunal the results of your investigations. Is that correct?

Mr Pendle: Yes.

Mr de Crittenden: Can we look first at your file of documentation that relates to the website of NPAS itself. Do the words 'fine' or 'fines' appear on the NPAS website?

Mr Pendle: No. It looks as though these words appeared at some time in the past, although, to be fair, this cannot be 100% guaranteed. However it is probable. The website can be changed but the search engine "seeds" are still there. These words appear on the technical structuring of the web-site, although not now on the website itself.

Mr Prickett: Please don't assume any technical know-how on my part.

Mr Pendle: I'm not [laughter].

Mr Pendle: When I searched "NPAS" and "fine", the results incorporated the word fine.

Mr de Crittenden: From your position as something of an expert in IT technology, is it your opinion that the words 'fine' or 'fines' did appear on the website at some time, but were removed from the website at some later time? In other words, were the words 'fine' or 'fines' being openly displayed to the public at some time in the past?

Mr Pendle: I am not able to confirm this point absolutely - I can say only that there is a high probability that these words were displayed on the web-site at some past time.

Mr de Crittenden: It is clear that we would need to interview the original builder of the website, if we are to resolve this particular issue - and therefore I propose to move on. Your second file shows the print-outs that you have taken from the websites of DPE Councils and London Councils during the past few days, is that correct?

Mr Pendle: Yes.

Mr de Crittenden: And if I take just the first one of these documents, I see that this particular London Website mentions 'fine' or 'fines' on no fewer than 25 occasions. Is that correct?

Mr Pendle: Yes.

Mr de Crittenden [to Mr Prickett]: I produce a file of documents showing DPE Councils that are using the word ' fine' or 'fines' at this present time - for example the Havant Council.

Mr Prickett: Have you done a search on Worcester?

Mr de Crittenden: Yes, on 16 November, 2005. I introduce the complete files of Mr Pendle into the evidence that is now before this tribunal. In addition, I now introduce into evidence a print-out taken from the web-site of the Worcester City Council just 48 hours ago - I invite the tribunal to note that the word 'fines' is prominent and now marked on the print-out from the website of the City of Worcester.

Mr Prickett: Are they (Worcester) not just using the word "fine" for alphabetical purposes?

Mr Pendle: [producing a thesaurus] The word fine is given as "chastisement, fine, forfeiture, punishment, retribution".

Mr Prickett: Is "penalty charge" there?

Mr Pendle: No, that is two words. Penalty and charge are separate.

Mr de Crittenden: Fines are financial penalties, as recognized by the English language - and it is clear that NPAS and the DPE Councils are now attempting to run away from the Bill of Rights. [To Mr Prickett] Would you like a copy of the thesaurus?

Mr Prickett: No, thank you.

Mr de Crittenden: That concludes the evidence of my witnesses and the submission of my appeal - I am now ready to make my closing statement to this tribunal.

[Mr Prickett calls a five minute break]


Mr de Crittenden: In response to challenge under the provisions of the Bill of Rights, it has become the habit of DPE Councils to defend the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1991 by various means and for all purposes of preserving the vast income to which they feel an entitlement, however unlawful their conduct may be.

I have seen & recorded statements made on radio and television by a Senior Council Member of the Sandwell District Council who has stated that the 'Bill of Rights Procedure' has application only to matters which are Criminal. I have seen and collected assertions offered to the public by DPE Councils which state that parking penalties claimed by these Councils are nothing more than excess charges that are being claimed under the provisions of 'civil contracts' that motorists have entered into by the simple act of parking their cars.

I have seen and collected assertions offered to the public by DPE Councils which state that fines are not fines at all - irrespective of the fact that the word 'fines' is being used in the literature of DPE Councils and irrespective of the fact the word 'fines' was being by the Transport Committee of the House of Commons itself - until someone spotted the inconvenient 'error' that is now being alleged - and changed the word to 'penalties' - without changing the date of the original material. NPAS; DPE Councils and other agencies have used and are using every trick in the book to avoid mention of the words 'fine' and 'fines', but unfortunately for NPAS and these Councils and Agencies, their own websites and literature now give them the lie.

I have every anticipation that Someone working for a Government-Agency Somewhere is now working very hard on the job of re-defining the word 'fines', in order to prove that fines cannot be called fines, unless pigs are flying around the Houses of Parliament - but it is now far too late for this kind of trickery. It is my intention to produce all of this evidence to the Law Courts of HM the Queen, as necessary.

In the meantime, and for the purposes of this tribunal, I refer the tribunal to the evidence relating to the word 'fines' that has been introduced by Mr Herron & by Mr Pendle: In addition, I have asked the tribunal to accept into evidence a print taken from the Web-Site of the Worcester City Council, where the word 'fines' is still on full display. In view of the potential confusion, I must ask the tribunal to understand that Mr Herron's evidence and the evidence of Mr Pendle have relevance only to the present definition of the word 'fines' - and to further understand that my witnesses cannot be held responsible for any redefinition of the word 'fines' that may now be in process by the mysterious people who are attached to the dark purposes of politicians generally, and to the particularly dark purposes of Mr Blair and his cabinet in particular.

This country is drifting ever-closer to the Police State that Mr Blair has now confirmed by his denial, and this country now needs the active help of everyone who cares about the future to assist in throwing off the attempts at tyranny now being made by politicians who are out of control.

It is a matter of fact that NPAS receives all of its funding from those local authorities which are now issuing the tickets that are being appealed to the NPAS Service and in consequence of this very shady arrangement there can be no meaningful claim by NPAS to any independence from the interests of DPE Councils, including the Council for the City of Worcester. It is a matter of fact that the general public is now being called upon to deal with nothing less than a vast money-making 'machine' that is a disgrace to each of the local authorities now taking part. It is a matter of fact that the ordinary people of this country are slow to anger, but that their anger is terrible. It is a matter of fact that any Abuse of the British People is practiced only at the peril of the Abuser.

I have placed on the record of this tribunal the very strong recommendation that this tribunal now refer the Constitutional issues to Her Majesty's Judges because any ill-considered dismissal of my appeal by this tribunal will serve only to open the doorway to HM Judges. The public protest that is now beginning with the motorist will ultimately sweep away the incessant lies and corruption of our present politicians and I fully anticipate that the RTA 1991 will follow the Poll Tax into the dustbin of history, taking the corrupt NPAS tribunal service into the same dustbin.

I ask this tribunal, all DPE Councils and the fraudulent NPAS organization to accept fair warning of the Storm That Is To Come. [To Mr Prickett] Thank you, Sir.

Mr Prickett: Mr de Crittenden I am aware of your criticism of my decision on recording; do you have any other complaints about the conduct of this tribunal?

Mr de Crittenden: I am not happy with the lack of a Witness Order. Mr Barfoot should have been called to give evidence of his mischief. In the matter of tape-recording, I must now require you to maintain the security of the tape-recording, because of the value of what is on that tape. Finally, I must ask you again to accept that you are not competent to rule on the constitutional argument that relates to this case. Two other adjudicators have attempted to define the Constitution and have made a pig's ear out of it. My feeling towards you is a warm feeling and I urge you not to involve yourself in the type of nonsense offered by these other adjudicators.

Mr Prickett: I will reserve my decision in this appeal.

Mr de Crittenden: I must ask you again to take particular care of the tape recording.


For Mr Prickett's decision, click here

Links of interest:

The Great Parking Ticket campaign

The House of Commons Filenote disowning the "Metric Martyrs" judgement.

Neil Herron's Blogspot describing daily correspondence with NPAS and similar bodies

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.