Covid Fines - are they lawful? |
Covid Fines - are they lawful? |
Sun, 10 Jan 2021 - 12:10
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 3 Jan 2021 Member No.: 111,123 |
Hey, just thought I'd post this here to see what the consensus is on this matter. I've read a few claims that the Coronavirus act is "ultra vires", in that they go beyond the scope of the governments powers. I do wonder if anyone stands a chance at appealing these fines, and what happens if the majority refuse to pay.
As far as I'm aware, we do have freedom of movement? While I agree with the lockdowns, I don't want to discuss that here, the lockdowns have happened and some agree with them some don't. What I am interested in is the legality of fining people for going out for a walk too far away from home, or shopping for "non essential" items. Who decides what is essential? I may find that going out to buy a video game is essential, as I am bored and my mental health is suffering. Or I may be an alcoholic, and require some alcohol to prevent me from being ill. Or I may want to go for a drive in my car as I'm feeling depressed and it helps with my suffering. There's any number of reasons to be outdoors, and everyone has different personal circumstances. So are these fines lawful? And have any of you been fined? Have you challenged it? |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 10 Jan 2021 - 12:10
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 29 Jan 2021 - 18:36
Post
#161
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
But S143 directly puts the onus on the insured to prove they were insured, so I’m not sure that is analogous. Really? Where? The fact that the burden shifts is a result of case law. Indeed, apologies I’d misread it. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Fri, 29 Jan 2021 - 19:27
Post
#162
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
If a court can find that s. 172 RTA 1988 includes the power to require a signature and that a person can be required to incriminate himself in order to avoid a statutory provision being a dead letter, it would be beyond trivial for them to find that a "reasonable excuse" is a defence to be proven on the balance of probabilities by the accused.
Contrary to the understanding of some members of this forum (and indeed some senior members of the judiciary) the primary goal when interpreting legislation is to give effect to the indicated will of Parliament in enacting that legislation. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Sat, 30 Jan 2021 - 09:37
Post
#163
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
.......... However I'm not going to give my name to any copper who asks just because he's making up some law that doesn't exist. Maybe it is just me but I don't see any issue in giving basic details to a cop who is asking a simple question, law that requires it or not. You'd be amazed at how quickly a copper will change his mind when challenged in an extremely polite and courteous way and is invited to check matters with his control room, rather more effective than "I ain't telling you I ain't done nothing wrong". To me the wording may seem to make it that the prosecution has to prove a negative but the crime is actually being outside with the reasonable excuse an acceptable defence. But not one that needs to be proven not to exist. +1, the way I read it the prosecution simply needs to prove that the accused was outside the place where he lives. If he wants to raise a reasonable excuse defence, he has to adduce evidence of that. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 4 Feb 2021 - 00:20
Post
#164
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Don't know the source (and have asked) but apparently £49,400 issued by police and council in just one day in east London.
-------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 4 Feb 2021 - 09:11
Post
#165
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Don't know the source (and have asked) but apparently £49,400 issued by police and council in just one day in east London. that's only 246 FPNs, not a lot really. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 4 Feb 2021 - 10:28
Post
#166
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 19:00 |