Robin DeCrittenden's Application for the High Court

Home to Logoclaw

Tue, 4 Jul 2006 20:21:00

The submission. Tony Winter assisted to ensure the logical constructions of the arguments, met formal requirements, and were cogent beyond average refutation.

The theoretical basis is drawn from the GRADED power arguments here.

Regrettably none of these arguments were used, they remain untested and uncontested.

Robin's own text below was not read verbatim, and his oral submission bore little resemblance to the text below.

As at Sun, 2 Jul 2006 13:28:14 +0100

This will have been amended by late Tuesday 4th

My Lords/

In view of the very short period of time that has been allowed for this hearing –

I have taken the trouble to provide the Court with submissions in writing.


I shall be glad to know that you have been provided with sufficient time to consider these written submissions in their entirety –

because the time now available to me is only just sufficient for me to offer what amounts to a closing submission – ?????


My Lords/

Before saying anything else –

I think it important to emphasise with you that the procedures adopted by NPAS during the conduct of my appeal from the original decisions of the City of Worcester  -

have resulted in prejudicial conclusions –

and these procedures and conclusions should not be seen to receive any form of blessing from your lordships.

I am seeking your permission to proceed to the full Court, in order to present a full challenge to the prejudicial conduct and conclusions that have been imposed on me by NPAS –

and I am approaching this matter in the full knowledge that similar procedures and and similarly prejudiced conclusions have been imposed on hundreds of thousands of other people by NPAS.


My Lords/

I think it entirely reasonable to say that any refusal of permission by your lordships will be seen by the public as a blessing on the Nation-wide failures of NPAS –

Failures – my lords - that have resulted in a now-escalating challenge to the cattle-market approach of the County Court at Northampton – which is providing the legal authority for Local Authorities to send in their bailiffs –

and Failures – my lords - that have now been entered into the wider Public Arena by the very recent Report of the House of Commons Committee on Transport.


My Lords/

You are HM Judges – and the people of this country must look to you for their defence against the rampant bad faith of both Government & Local Government that is now being represented to the public on a daily basis –

as something that is both normal and to be accepted!


The first formal advice to the County Court at Northampton is displayed at Pages 143 – 147 of the bundle –

and I am now able to provide you with a Full Copy of the Transport Committee Report, which is dated 22nd June, 2006


My Lords/

The Press Release issued by the Committee on Transport when the Report was released contained some very telling words - 

and I quote -


Chairman of the Committee, Mrs Gwynneth Dunwoody MP said ‘Our present parking system is, quite frankly, a mess!’


My Lords/

On reading the Report, you will find that in spite of the admitted ‘mess’ - it appears that the overall recommendation of the Transport Committee is to spread this mess across the entire country – thereby moving to extinguish the last remaining areas of common-sense -


and to complete the picture of the ‘mess’ that is now causing an ever-growing scene of public outrage - 

it is recorded within the Chief Adjudicator’s foreword to the Joint Annual Report of the Parking Adjudicators to the Association of London Government Transport and Environment Committee –

that in November, 2004, the Lord Chancellor gave a keynote address to the Annual Conference of the Council on Tribunals.

Once again I must quote –

He (the Lord Chancellor) said that the creation of the New Tribunals Service will remove the present accountability of tribunals to the decision-making bodies whose cases they decide and so provide clear independence for tribunals’.


My Lords/

I must suggest to you that by this speech, the Lord Chancellor himself has recognized that the present tribunals are NOT independent of the decision-making bodies to which they are accountable –

because no change to the present system would be regarded as necessary, if all was well!


My Lords/

I must suggest to you that there is now a recognition at the highest possible level of Government that the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights at Article 6 is NOT being observed by the provisions of the RTA 1991 –

quite apart from the fact that the RTA 1991 has been given effect in absolute defiance of our native laws & customs – which stand guaranteed by the Crown -

and which require that all issues of dispute be tried in HM Courts of Law –

before there can be any question of an individual subject being punished or pursued by the law!


My Lords/

There is a practical limit to what I can say in the time that is available to me – and for this reason I must speak plainly –

On 28th January, 2005, and in the Case of Jackson; Martin & Hughes against the Attorney-General –

It was the Judgment of Lord Justice Kay & Mr Justice Collins, sitting in the Administrative Court itself –

That Parliament itself can, if it wishes, put constraints on the extent of its 

own sovereignty’.

My Lords/ the Court Reference is given as CO/5791/2004 – and I must refer you to paragraph 40 of the judgment.


Sheet 4.

My Lords/

Before addressing the relevance of this Judgment –

I must record with you that I find it impossible to accept the Absolute Supremacy of Parliament – just as our ancestors found it impossible to accept the Absolute Supremacy of any king –

Might has not become Right, simply because time has passed!


I say that it is the function of parliament to speak FOR the people of the kingdom TO the Sovereign’s Government –

and I say that it is not possible to fuse the function of the Crown with the function of the legislature - whilst continuing to proclaim that the Separation of Powers is in good health!                                   

In my view, it is most certainly not the function of parliament to appoint the Ministers of the Crown from amongst its own numbers – OR to be in any way the Servant of the Prime Minister of the Day –

Because these procedures serve to deprive the People of their Inalienable Right to see that THEIR Voices are being raised & heard within the functions of the Government that is being paid for by their taxes!


All of that being said – my lords - and putting aside for the moment my own views – and allowing for the moment that Parliament IS indeed the Sovereign Power –

then it is clear that the Bill of Rights is an Act that serves to provide for Parliament’s own decree of limitation to its Sovereignty –

in those areas of jurisdiction that lie at the very heart of my application for Judicial Review.


My Lords/

It is at this point in my submissions that I must rely upon the Judgment handed-down by Lord Justice Kay and Mr Justice Collins, in January 2005.


My Lords/

The text of the enactment known as the Bill of Rights makes the position very clear –

and I must quote directly from the enactment itself, in order to make my point - 

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 the law made in due form by the 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,


My Lords/

I confess that I stand in great awe of this enactment and of the Declaration of Rights itself – from which the enactment came –


I find myself bound to repeat the words that are given with such absolute clarity of purpose  -

And all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and 

 their successors according to the same - In all time to come

My Lords/ I must tell you that these words are to be found at Page 87 of the bundle – at the 4th paragraph on that page.


My Lords/

It is the latest case for NPAS that the Bill of Rights has lawful effect, in general –

BUT that the Bill of Rights has no effect in the particular –

because the RTA 1991 is clear in its intentions – and these intentions include the clear intention to remove the right of trial and thus cause repeal to that part of the Bill of Rights which provides that fines and forfeitures may not be imposed without the involvement of HM Courts of Law.


On the other hand, my lords, the Bill of Rights itself provides that from the time of its enactment NOTHING shall be enacted or given effect to the prejudice of the rights and liberties of the people –

and it is made absolutely clear  within the text of Magna Carta that the rights and liberties of the people include the right of trial, as a property that belongs to each individual subject of the Crown and that has its root of title established by the 1225 enactment of Henry III.


My Lords/

Here lies the conundrum that must be resolved by the wisdom of the Administrative Court and by the process of Judicial Review.


My Lords/

I feel confident that my opponent will argue that there are precedents for the existence of Tribunals that are akin to NPAS –

And that such tribunals have served to remove the right to trial in other situations.

In response to such argument, I have 2 things to say –

I say that that full attention must be paid to the Judgment handed-down in the Case of Bowles –v- Bank of England (1912) – displayed in the bundle at page 91 & 92 – where it was resolved that-

No practice or custom, however prolonged or however acquiesced in on

 the part of the subject, could be relied on by the Crown as justifying an

 infringement of the provisions of the unrepealed Bill of Rights


and I say –

that the right to trial is a property that belongs to me as an individual and I have never surrendered this right at any time - or under any circumstances!

What may or may not have been done in the cases of other people  - and what may or may not have been accepted by other people - can have no lawful relevance to me or to my property

because I have never acquiesced in any infringement of my absolute right to trial in HM Courts of Justice!


My Lords/

Returning to the narrow confines of my own case –


It is my position that NPAS has engineered the Adjudicator’s Decision  that is before you –

in order to provide itself with the means to evade the ONLY grounds for appeal that were entered into the process of appeal –

and I say that this process of engineering has been undertaken for the sole purpose of evading the challenge that the Constitution offers to the conduct of suspect Government -

and  - in consequence – to the lawful existence of NPAS itself!


My Lords/

I say – that in its haste to be rid of me –

and to be rid of the problem caused by an appeal based entirely upon an insistence that the provisions of the Declaration of Rights be upheld –

NPAS devised its own – and I say questionable – methods for dealing with me!


I say –

that as a direct result of its own lack in honesty of purpose –

NPAS failed to address the substance of my appeal in a judicial manner –

and has – in consequence – provided an effective denial of my right of appeal! 


My Lords/

I say –

that the Constitutional Issues that were entered as the ONLY grounds for my appeal to NPAS –

are far too important to be left unresolved - 

and I say -

that in these days of distinctly shabby Government – these Issues are important enough to require the attention and wisdom of the Full Court in Judicial Review!


My Lords/

the transcript of proceedings at the Appeal Hearing –

shows that NPAS has been given every opportunity to deal with the issues of the Constitution - in a straightforward & legitimate manner – by the process of referring  these issues to HM Courts & Judges –

and I say –

that NPPAS has failed this relatively simple test of its own integrity!


My Lords/

In the wider field of NPAS conduct – the Several Opinions of NPAS on the intentions of the Bill of Rights demonstrate attempts to write the legislation that NPAS thinks is reasonable –

In the light of its own total -  but narrow - commitment to the RTA 1991!


In response to the Several Opinions of NPAS - I must refer you to the Judgment of the Court of Appeal on 4th February, 1998 –

in the case of Regina –v- Deegan – Case No 97/2635/X4 – and at the penultimate paragraph on the 6th Page of the Judgment -

wherein it is clearly stated that HM Courts themselves may not write the legislation that they think to be reasonable!


My Lords/

it is my position – that NPAS has chosen to indulge itself in highly-questionable activities - in all of its dealings with me –

in place of the honesty that is demanded by the public interest!


It is my belief  –

that the general conduct of NPAS towards me has raised Serious Issues of Fair Treatment - that bring the Independence & Impartiality of NPAS into serious question and it is my intention to bring all such matters  to the attention of the Full Court – in due time  -


but at this particular time – and for all purposes of this present hearing -I wish to concentrate only on the principal issues.


My Lords/

I say that there are 4 principal issues that require the attention of the Full Court –

1. It is beyond doubt

    that the City of Worcester attempted to impose on me a fine or forfeiture

    before obtaining the authority of HM Courts of Law -

    and claimed the authority of the Crown In Parliament for this activity -


    I say that this activity contravened the provisions of the Declaration &

    and Bill of Rights!


2. It is beyond doubt

    that the City of Worcester instructed their bailiffs to pursue me for the

    fine or forfeiture that was attempted –

    and relied upon the authority of the County Court at Northampton

    for this undertaking –

    having previously provided the Court at Northampton with a falsified

    statement or statements - whether or not by intent –

    contrary to the provisions of law, and in demonstration of a systemic

    malfeasance -

    that both NPAS and the Court at Northampton have themselves failed

    to identify  - and failed to correct.


3. It is beyond doubt

    that the City of Worcester prevented me from defending myself in HM

    Courts of Law –

    and claimed the authority of the Crown In Parliament for this denial of


Sheet 12.

    I say that this denial of process contravenes the provisions of the

    Declaration & Bill of Rights!


4. It is beyond doubt

    that the City of Worcester  has imposed upon me a Process of Appeal

    against its own decisions - 

    to a body that is - in part - funded by the City of Worcester –

    and under the control of the City of Worcester – to an extent that is

    not yet revealed –  

    and claimed the authority of the Crown In Parliament for this denial of

    legitimate process -


    I say that this denial of legitimate process contravenes the provisions of

    the Declaration & Bill of Rights!


My Lords/

It is my position -

that these 4 principal issues -

demonstrate Violation to those laws & customs of the English that stand guaranteed by Magna Carta – by the Declaration of Rights – by the Bill of Rights – and by the Coronation Oath of the Sovereign  -

and I say that such violations are being repeated across the face of England & Wales to the prejudice of the people – and in cases that now number in the hundreds of thousands!

Sheet 13.

My Lords-

I say  –

that the City of Worcester and the Organization NPAS –

have acted together – in a wilful attempt to assert an unlawful authority over me –

to the prejudice of the rights and liberties that belong to me -

and in violation of the Constitutional provisions that have been given effect for the specific purpose of safeguarding my rights and liberties!


Finally, My Lords –

I must repeat - 

that NPAS has failed to address the grounds for appeal that were submitted to NPAS -

in any adequate and judicial manner -  

and has thereby denied my right of appeal –

and maintained the unlawful existence of a known and specified prejudice to the rights and liberties that are my property!


My Lords/

within the content of the bundle I have provided you with detailed information and argument – in support of my case for Judicial Review –

and the time allowed to me for this hearing does not allow for the presentation of further argument.

Sheet 14.

If – at this present time - you are able to resolve that my application for leave to proceed to Judicial Review - should be granted –then I need say no more –

but if you are not so resolved – then I must ask you to appoint some further time for me to continue with this application –and to present the further argument that stands in support of my application!


My Lords/

I am able to tell you that at the time of any continuation  it would be my intention to address my demand for the full recognition of my rights & liberties in some detail:-

by addressing in detail - 

the Common Law Provisions of Magna Carta; the Provisions of Magna Carta as a Statute; the provisions of the Declaration of Rights; the provisions of the Bill of Rights; the Road Traffic Act of 1991 - the European Convention on Human Rights – at Articles 6.1; 6.3(d) and 13.

In addition, I would intend to address Article 7-1 (a) & (b) &Article 11 (a) of the Human Rights Act of 1998 -

and in the light of a recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights -there are submissions to be made in the matter of ‘Equality of Arms’ –

insofar as NPAS and the Court at Northampton have both demonstrated in my own case their failures to ensure that Local Authorities are themselves keeping to the rules that are imposed on them –

by the very legislation on which these Local Authorities must rely for the pursuit of their claims against members of the public.

Sheet 15.

My Lords/

In conclusion, I would like to make one brief and unhappy reference to the content of the written submissions that I sent to you as part of my preparations for this hearing –

At Section 3 of my written submissions, and on the last page but one –

I made reference to the fact that it has now become easier for the motorist to kill a traffic warden than to obtain Justice & Right in the matter of Parking Claims made against him by Local Authorities.


It is fair to say that at the time of writing this submission, I was seeking to make a valid point in general –

but I have to tell you now that my point is being confirmed in the particular!


The Times on Line Newspaper has just reported violent attacks on Traffic Wardens in Newnham, East London – where Traffic Wardens have now been given police protection –

and it is reported that stab-proof vests have now been issued to Traffic Wardens in a borough named as Havering!


My Lords/

I have to say that it is not sensible for this Court to hold itself apart from such developments as these - and to place human lives at risk by any failure to address the issues.

There is now a clear recognition in all stratas of Society that the  RTA 1991 is

When the resolution of all such problems is close at hand – and immediately available!


  There is also the question of the particular damage that results to me – and to the rights & liberties that belong to me –

as a consequence of NPAS Conduct towards me!


Thus far, I have considered that all of these further arguments are properly the business of the Full Court –

but I am fully prepared to present these arguments to your lordships – at a continuation of this hearing - if you so require.

Perhaps you will advise me of your wishes?